2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

[Update of guidelines of the AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNCM, SFCE, GFRP for the management of radio-induced nausea and vomiting]

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting have mutiple clinical consequences: delay or refusal of irradiation (decreased antineoplastic efficacy of irradiation), altered quality of life, dehydration, malnutrition, interruption of treatment, decompensation of comorbidities and aspiration. These guidelines aim at defining good clinical practices for management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).

METHODS

AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNEP, SFCE and GFRP applied an expert consensus methodology to propose updated guidelines.

RESULTS

RINV are underdiagnosed and undertreated. Assessment of the emetogenic risk depends on two main factors: 1) the irradiated anatomical localization and 2) the associated concomitant chemotherapy. In case of exclusive radiotherapy, primary antiemetic prophylaxis depends on the emetogenic risk of irradiated anatomical localization. Primary antiemetic prophylaxis is initiated at the onset of irradiation and continues until 24h after the end of the irradiation. In the case of concomitant radiochemotherapy, the emetogenic risk is generally higher for chemotherapy and the primary antiemetic prophylaxis corresponds to that of chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. In the case of persistence of these symptoms, subject to a well-conducted treatment, a rigorous diagnostic procedure must be carried out before being attributed to radiotherapy and precise evaluation of their impact. Remedial treatments are less well codified.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to know and good management practices for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

A simple prediction model for the risk of boron neutron capture therapy-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer patients undergoing boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) often experience BNCT-induced nausea and vomiting (BINV). This study aimed to construct a BINV risk prediction model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 237 patients were randomly divided into a training and test cohort. In the training cohort, a univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with BINV. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors and calculate coefficients for the model. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess the goodness of fit, and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to evaluate the accuracy of the model. For both the training and test cohort, the predictive model was used to generate the scores and calculate the sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

The incidence of nausea and vomiting was 50% and 18%, respectively. Female sex, younger age, non-squamous cell carcinoma, no prior chemotherapy, and beam entry from the face/lateral region were associated with the occurrence of BINV. The prediction model showed a good fit (P = 0.96) and performance (area under the curve = 0.75). The sensitivity and specificity were 83% and45 % for the training cohort (n = 193) and 86% and 59% for the test cohort (n = 44), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We developed a simple model that predicts BINV. This will enable appropriate care to be implemented based on increased risk to prevent its occurrence.

Incidence of Radiation-induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Prospective Single-institution Pilot Study

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a frequent adverse event that occurs in patients undergoing radiotherapy. However, research on RINV is underrepresented. This prospective single-institution exploratory pilot study investigated the incidence of RINV according to the irradiation site and observed the efficacy of symptomatic antiemetic treatment in controlling symptoms of RINV. The primary outcomes were the proportions of emesis-free days and nausea-free days. The secondary endpoints included the time to the first episode of RINV, frequency of vomiting, and severity of nausea, including its impact on eating habits and weight loss. Fifteen patients were enrolled in each group (minimal, low, and moderate emetogenic risk). All patients received greater than 20 Gy in five fractions. Evaluation was based on weekly questionnaires completed by patients during routine clinic visits. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 11 and 0 patients, respectively. Six of 15 patients in the minimal-risk group, 1 in the low-risk group, and 4 in the moderate-risk group experienced nausea. Although all 11 symptomatic patients were offered antiemetics, only 3 used them, who reported satisfactory control of nausea. The percentage of emesis-free days for all patients was 100% and the percentage of nausea-free days for the 11 patients who developed RINV was 38%. An unexpectedly high percentage of patients in the minimal-risk group experienced nausea; all had breast cancer. Future studies should investigate factors beyond the irradiation site, including the characteristics of the patient and the treatment, to better predict an individual's risk of RINV.

The prophylactic antiemetic therapies in management of differentiated thyroid cancer patients with radioactive iodine therapy: a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial

Objective

The present study was to investigate three different single-drug regimens to show which was more effective to reduce radioactive iodine therapy (RAI) associated nausea and vomiting, and to compare the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal diseases after RAI therapy.

Method

We performed a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent RAI therapy from March 2016 to July 2022. Enrolled patients were divided into four cohorts based on the date of the treatment. cohort 1, with no preventive antiemetics; cohort 2, received 20 mg of pantoprazole per day for 3 days; cohort 3, received a 10 mg metoclopramide tablet two times daily for 3 days; cohort 4, oral ondansetron, 8 mg, twice daily for 3 days. The primary endpoints were proportion of patients who experience vomiting episodes and nausea during the 7-day hospital period. Secondary end points included Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of life questionnaires and the occurrence of gastrointestinal diseases.

Results

A total of 1755 patients were analyzed, comprised of 1299 (74.0%) women and 456 (26.0%) men, with a median age of 44 years (range 18-78 years). The characteristics of patient were similar within the four groups. 465 (26.4%) patients developed RAI-associated nausea, and 186 (14.4%) patients developed RAI-associated vomiting. The rate of nausea was significantly decreased in the patients who were taking ondansetron when compared with the other cohorts (P<0.05), while the rate of vomiting (≥6 episodes) was slightly lower. As secondary endpoint, FLIE measures ondansetron scored highly compared to other cohorts, from baseline (mean score of 110.53 ± 17.54) to day 7 (mean score of 105.56 ± 12.48). In addition, 48 (2.7%) patients were found to be with gastrointestinal diseases at the end of one year follow up. Multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight revealed a significantly independent risk factors of developing gastrointestinal disorders.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that short-term ondansetron could be an effective prophylactic agent in controlling RAI-associated nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders was significantly higher for patients with multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight.

2023 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy- and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide up to date optimal antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Through a comprehensive review of the literature concerning RINV and C-RINV, this manuscript aims to update the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis and rescue therapy and provide a new edition of recommendations for the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines for RINV and C-RINV.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature including data published from May 1, 2015, to January 31, 2023, was performed. All authors assessed the literature.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 343 references; 37 met criteria for full article review, and 20 were ultimately retained. Only one randomized study in chemoradiation had the impact to provide new recommendations for the antiemetic guideline. Based on expert consensus, it was decided to change the recommendation for the "low emetic risk" category from "prophylaxis or rescue" to "rescue" only, while the drugs of choice remain unchanged.

CONCLUSION

As for the previous guideline, the serotonin receptor antagonists are still the cornerstone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The guideline update provides new recommendation for the management of C-RINV for radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. To avoid overtreatment, antiemetic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the "low emetic risk" category.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis

PURPOSE

There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC.

METHODS

Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

Fosaprepitant Weekly vs Every 3 Weeks for the Prevention of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Unlike substantial evidence in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), research in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is currently lacking.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant weekly vs every 3 weeks for the prevention of nausea and emesis caused by CCRT among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single cancer center from November 24, 2020, to July 26, 2021, among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had achieved CINV control after 2 to 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed on November 4, 2022.

Interventions

Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive fosaprepitant either weekly or every 3 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained complete response (defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy) during CCRT. Secondary end points were sustained no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, mean time to first emetic episode, quality of life, and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [10.9] years; 83 [83.0%] male) who had achieved CINV control after induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant weekly (50 patients) or every 3 weeks (50 patients). There was no significantly significant difference in cumulative risk of emesis or rescue therapy in the group that received weekly fosaprepitant compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks (subhazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.43-1.02]; P = .06). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis (38% vs 14%; P = .003) or no significant nausea (92% vs 72%; P = .002) was significantly higher in the group that received fosaprepitant weekly vs those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks. Treatments were well tolerated. Patients in the weekly group had improved scores for multiple quality-of-life measures. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between groups (91.8% vs 93.7%; P = .99). In the mean brainstem dose subgroups, a possible treatment interaction effect was observed in sustained complete response (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: hazard ratio [HR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.69]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.55-1.63]) and sustained no emesis (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.53]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.28]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this pilot randomized clinical trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the complete response primary end point, but patients receiving weekly fosaprepitant were less likely to experience emesis compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks, especially in the subgroup with a mean brainstem dose of 36 Gy or more. Weekly fosaprepitant was well tolerated and improved quality of life of patients without compromising survival.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04636632.

Assessment and management of nausea and vomiting in cancer survivors

ABSTRACT

Nausea and vomiting may occur in cancer survivors during or independent of treatment. A complete assessment is necessary to determine the etiology and to plan specific and successful interventions. NPs have a key role in managing cancer survivors' symptoms and determining the best supportive care.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

An open-label, single-arm, multi-center, phase II clinical trial of single-dose [131I]meta-iodobenzylguanidine therapy for patients with refractory pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma

OBJECTIVE

In this phase II study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of single-dose [131I]meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-mIBG) therapy in patients with refractory pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was designed as an open-label, single-arm, multi-center, phase II clinical trial. The enrolled patients were administered 7.4 GBq of 131I-mIBG. Its efficacy was evaluated 12 and 24 weeks later, and its safety was monitored continuously until the end of the study. We evaluated the biochemical response rate as the primary endpoint using the one-sided exact binomial test based on the null hypothesis (≤ 5%).

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were enrolled in this study, of which 16 were treated. The biochemical response rate (≥ 50% decrease in urinary catecholamines) was 23.5% (90% confidence interval: 8.5-46.1%, p = 0.009). The radiographic response rates, determined with CT/MRI according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 and 123I-mIBG scintigraphy were 5.9% (0.3%-25.0%) and 29.4% (12.4%-52.2%), respectively. The most frequent non-hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, appetite loss, and constipation, which were, together, observed in 15 of 16 patients. Hematologic TEAEs up to grade 3 were observed in 14 of 16 patients. No grade 4 or higher TEAEs were observed. All patients had experienced at least one TEAE, but no fatal or irreversible TEAEs were observed.

CONCLUSION

A single dose 131I-mIBG therapy was well tolerated by patients with PPGL, and statistically significantly reduced catecholamine levels compared to the threshold response rate, which may lead to an improved prognosis for these patients.

Radiation-Induced Emesis (RIE) in Extended-Field Radiotherapy for Gynecological Malignancies: Dosimetric and Non-Dosimetric Factors

Radiation-induced emesis (RIE) is usually noted during abdominal-pelvic radiotherapy. In gynecological malignancies, it is usually noted in para-aortic but not whole-pelvic irradiation. Irradiated small bowel (SB) may be associated with RIE. The significance of SB dosimetry remains unclear. Dosimetric and non-dosimetric factors were evaluated and correlated with RIE in 45 patients with gynecological malignancies undergoing extended-field radiotherapy (EFRT) (median 45 Gy) from 2006 to 2021. Early-onset RIE (within 72 h after the first fraction of EFRT) was noted in 10 of 12 RIE patients. RIE was significantly associated with the SB mean dose. The RIE rates were 58.3% and 15.2% (p = 0.007) in patients with a low (<63%) and high (≥63%) SB mean dose. Logistic regression revealed that the SB mean dose remained the independent factor of overall RIE (p = 0.049) and early-onset RIE (p = 0.014). Therefore, constraint of the SB mean dose limited to less than 63% of the prescribed dose is suggested to decrease RIE.

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: a clinical audit of prophylactic antiemetic use

Introduction:

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a common side effect of single fraction palliative radiotherapy. Patients experiencing RINV have significantly reduced quality of life and a prescription of prophylactic antiemetics, principally 5-HT3 antagonists, is recommended. There is a growing body of evidence relating to indications for this, but as yet there are no national guidelines.

Methods:

A retrospective audit aimed to determine the extent to which patients at high and moderate emetogenic risk receiving single fraction radiotherapy were prescribed prophylactic emetic medication in line with the current evidence base.

Results:

A total of 60 patients were included in the audit; of these patients, 50 were consented for the risk of nausea and/or vomiting. Prophylactic antiemetics were only prescribed to 28 (46·7%) of all audited patients. Out of the 50 patients who provided informed consent, only 24 (48%) were prescribed an antiemetic prior to their treatment.

Conclusion:

Antiemetic prescribing for single fraction patients at moderate to high emetogenic risk at a large regional centre is underutilised in relation to published evidence. Amended guidance and further audits are recommended to ensure that this patient group is best supported.

Methodology Aspects of Nausea Measuring During Pelvic Radiotherapy: Daily Nausea Measuring Is Successful to Identify Patients Experiencing Nausea

BACKGROUND

Nausea seems underreported during pelvic radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to investigate if a 5-week recall measure of nausea covering the entire radiotherapy period was comparable with accumulated daily nausea measurements and to investigate if the measuring method affected potential difference in quality of life (QoL) between nauseated patients and patients free from nausea.

METHODS

This longitudinal methodology study covered 200 patients (mean age, 64 years; 84% women; 69% had gynecological cancer). The patients graded QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General). They registered nausea daily and at a 5-week recall at the end of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The nausea-intensity category scale and visual analog scale correlated well (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.622). According to the 5-week recall, 57 of 157 answering patients (36%) experienced nausea during the radiotherapy period. Using the daily nausea measurements, 94 of 157 patients (60%) experienced nausea (relative risk, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.10). Of these 94 nauseated patients, 39 (42%) did not report nausea using the 5-week recall. The nauseated patients experienced worse QoL (physical/functional subscores) than patients free from nausea whether nausea was registered daily or at the 5-week recall.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half, 42%, of the patients who experienced nausea according to daily nausea measurements did not report having had nausea according to the 5-week recall. Nauseated patients graded worse QoL than patients who were free from nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nursing professionals should measure nausea repeatedly to identify patients at risk of nausea and worsened QoL, to be able to deliver evidence-based antiemetic treatment strategies.

Bone metastases

Bone is the most frequent site for metastasis for many cancers, notably for tumours originating in the breast and the prostate. Tumour cells can escape from the primary tumour site and colonize the bone microenvironment. Within the bone, these disseminated tumour cells, as well as those arising in the context of multiple myeloma, may assume a state of dormancy, remaining quiescent for years before resuming proliferation and causing overt metastasis, which causes bone destruction via activation of osteoclast-mediated osteolysis. This structural damage can lead to considerable morbidity, including pain, fractures and impaired quality of life. Although treatment of bone metastases and myeloma bone disease is rarely curative, disease control is often possible for many years through the use of systemic anticancer treatments on a background of multidisciplinary supportive care. This care should include bone-targeted agents to inhibit tumour-associated osteolysis and prevent skeletal morbidity as well as use of appropriate local treatments such as radiation therapy, orthopaedic surgery and specialist palliative care to minimize the impact of metastatic bone disease on physical functioning. In this Primer, we provide an overview of the clinical features, the pathophysiology and the specific treatment approaches to prevent and treat bone metastases from solid tumours as well as myeloma bone disease.

Effect of an electronic quality checklist on prescription patterns of prophylactic antiemetic and pain flare medications in the context of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases

PURPOSE

International guidelines are available to guide prescription of antiemetic and pain flare medications in patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, but prescription rates are quite variable. We hypothesized that a simple electronic quality checklist could increase the evidence-based use of these medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented an electronic quality checklist item in our center for all patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for lumbar spine bone metastases. We retrospectively reviewed patients in the 6-month pre- and post-intervention. Patients were stratified according to if they were treated within a dedicated rapid palliative (RPAL) radiotherapy program or not. Chi-square tests were used to compare rates of antiemetic and pain flare medications pre- and post-intervention and RPAL vs not.

RESULTS

A total of 375 patients were identified with 42 (11.2%) treated in dedicated RPAL program. The proportion of patients treated with prophylactic antiemetic and pain flare medications pre-intervention (n = 226) and post-intervention (n = 149) was respectively 34.1% vs 59.1% (p < 0.001) and 26.1% vs 43.0% (p = 0.01). Observed differences for antiemetic prescription rates were greater for patients who were not treated within a dedicated palliative radiotherapy program, but this was not the case for pain flare medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows that a simple quality checklist item can have a significant effect on the evidence-based use of prophylactic antiemetic and pain flare medications in patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. We believe such strategies should be routinely included in other clinical pathways to improve the use of symptom control medications.

Acupuncture for radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Assessing the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture therapy for treating patients with radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is the main purpose of this systematic review protocol.

METHODS

The following electronic databases will be searched from inception to Sep 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database. All published randomized controlled trials in English or Chinese related to acupuncture for RINV will be included. The primary outcome is the severity and frequency of RINV during radiotherapy. The secondary outcomes is the physical condition and quality of life after radiotherapy. Two reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and assessment independently. The assessment of risk of bias and data synthesis will be conducted with Review Manager Software V.5.2.

RESULTS

The results will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence for researchers in this subject area.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of our study will provide evidence to judge whether acupuncture is an effective intervention for patients suffered from RINV.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019130952.

Cost-minimization analysis of GSTP1c.313A>G genotyping for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: A Bayesian inference approach

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are concerning adverse events resulting from cancer treatment, and current guidelines recommend the use of neurokinin-1-selective antagonists, such as fosaprepitant, in highly emetogenic schemes. However, the implementation of this strategy may be limited by the cost of treatment. GSTP1 c.313A>G genotype was recently described as a predictor of vomiting related to high-dose cisplatin. We hypothesized that the inclusion of routine GSTP1 c.313A>G screening may be promising in financial terms, in contrast to the wide-spread use of fosaprepitant.

Methods

A cost-minimization analysis was planned to compare GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping versus overall fosaprepitant implementation for patients with head and neck cancer under chemoradiation therapy with high-dose cisplatin. A decision analytic tree was designed, and conditional probabilities were calculated under Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The observed data included patients under treatment without fosaprepitant, while priors were derived from published studies.

Results

To introduce screening with real-time polymerase chain reaction, an initial investment of U$ 39,379.97 would be required, with an amortization cost of U$ 7,272.97 per year. The mean cost of standard therapy with fosaprepitant is U$ 243.24 per patient, and although the initial cost of routine genotyping is higher, there is a tendency of progressive minimization at a threshold of 155 patients (Credible interval–CI: 119 to 216), provided more than one sample is incorporated for simultaneous analysis. A resulting reduction of 35.83% (CI: 30.31 to 41.74%) in fosaprepitant expenditures is then expected with the implementation of GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping.

Conclusion

GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping may reduce the use of preventive support for chemotherapy induced nausea and lower the overall cost of treatment. Despite the results of this simulation, randomized, interventional studies are required to control for known and unknown confounders as well as unexpected expenses.

Rhabdomyosarcoma: an overview and nursing considerations

This article aims to provide nurses with a clinical overview of rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare type of soft tissue sarcoma. The causes, clinical features, pathophysiology, diagnostic process, prognosis and treatment will be explored. Some of the main nursing considerations for rhabdomyosarcoma patients will be discussed in light of current treatment recommendations.

A prospective cohort study of patient-reported vomiting, retching, nausea and antiemetic use during neoadjuvant long-course radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Antiemetic guidelines suggest daily prophylaxis with a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) as an option for patients receiving long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal cancer, despite the risks that 5-HT3RA-induced constipation may pose. We explored the incidence of patient-reported vomiting, retching, nausea and antiemetic intake among patients in this setting to determine if these risks are justified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a single-centre non-randomised prospective cohort study of adult patients receiving long-course neoadjuvant radiation therapy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma. Patients recorded symptoms and medication intake daily until 7 days following treatment completion.

RESULTS

From 33 evaluable patients, we collected 1407 days of patient-reported data. Vomiting was reported by 7 patients (21%), retching by 5(15%) and nausea by 21(64%). No patients were administered prophylactic antiemetics. The median number of days with vomiting was 2, and the cumulative number of days for all affected patients was 22 (1.6% of 1407 evaluable days). There were no differences in PTV or small bowel loop V15Gy, V45Gy and V50Gy volumes between patients that did and did not vomit.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of days with vomiting was only 1.6%. 5-HT3RA prophylaxis during long-course neoadjuvant treatment seems unnecessary.

Complementary and alternative medicine self-care strategies for nausea in patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic irradiation for cancer: A longitudinal observational study of implementation in routine care

OBJECTIVE

To longitudinally describe practice of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) self-care strategies for nausea during radiotherapy.

METHODS

Two hundred patients daily registered nausea and practice of CAM self-care strategies, beside conventional antiemetic medications, for nausea during abdominal/pelvic irradiation (median five weeks) for gynecological (69%) colorectal (27%) or other tumors (4%).

RESULTS

During radiotherapy, 131 (66%) experienced nausea, and 50 (25%) practiced self-care for nausea at least once, for a mean (m) of 15.9days. The six of 50 patients who stayed free from nausea practiced self-care more frequent (m=25.8days) than the 44 patients experiencing nausea (m=14.5) (p=0.013). The CAM self-care strategies were: modifying eating (80% of all self-care practicing patients, 80% of the nauseous patients versus 83% of the patients free from nausea; ns) or drinking habits (38%, 41% vs 17%; ns), taking rests (18%, 20% vs 0%; ns), physical exercising (6%, 2% vs 33%; p=0.035), acupressure (4%, 5% vs 0%; ns) and self-induced vomiting (2%, 2% vs 0%; ns).

CONCLUSION

A fourth of patients undergoing emetogenic radiotherapy practiced CAM self-care for nausea, mostly by modifying eating or drinking habits. The CAM self-care practicing patients who did not become nauseous practiced self-care more frequent than the nauseous patients did. To make such self-care evidence based, we need studies evaluating its efficacy.

Reduced Need for Rescue Antiemetics and Improved Capacity to Eat in Patients Receiving Acupuncture Compared to Patients Receiving Sham Acupuncture or Standard Care during Radiotherapy

Objective. To evaluate if consumption of emesis-related care and eating capacity differed between patients receiving verum acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or standard care only during radiotherapy. Methods. Patients were randomized to verum (n = 100) or sham (n = 100) acupuncture (telescopic blunt sham needle) (median 12 sessions) and registered daily their consumption of antiemetics and eating capacity. A standard care group (n = 62) received standard care only and delivered these data once. Results. More patients in the verum (n = 73 of 89 patients still undergoing radiotherapy; 82%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.23, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.01–1.50) and the sham acupuncture group (n = 79 of 95; 83%, RR 1.24, CI 1.03–1.52) did not need any antiemetic medications, as compared to the standard care group (n = 42 out of 63; 67%) after receiving 27 Gray dose of radiotherapy. More patients in the verum (n = 50 of 89; 56%, RR 1.78, CI 1.31–2.42) and the sham acupuncture group (n = 58 of 94 answering patients; 62%, RR 1.83, CI 1.20–2.80) were capable of eating as usual, compared to the standard care group (n = 20 of 63; 39%). Conclusion. Patients receiving acupuncture had lower consumption of antiemetics and better eating capacity than patients receiving standard antiemetic care, plausible by nonspecific effects of the extra care during acupuncture.

SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2016)

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is one of the most worrisome adverse effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. It can cause severe discomfort and affect the quality of life. In recent years, the incorporation of new drugs has increased the efficacy of antiemetic treatments in the control of emesis associated with chemotherapy. This guideline, in which we give some treatment recommendations with level of evidence and grade of recommendation, provides an update of the previously published guideline of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and represents our continued commitment to improving supportive care in cancer patients.