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

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

• Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. • The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. • The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. • Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). • All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: controlling nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential

PURPOSE

Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2016 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of low and minimal emetic potential.

METHODS

A working group performed a systematic literature review using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases between June 2015 and January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of low or minimal emetic potential. A consensus committee reviewed recommendations and required a consensus of 67% or greater and a change in outcome of at least 10%.

RESULTS

Of 293 papers identified, 15 had information about managing systemic cancer treatment regimens of low or minimal emetic potential and/or compliance with previous management recommendations. No new evidence was reported that would change the current MASCC recommendations. No antiemetic prophylaxis is recommended for minimal emetic potential therapy, and single agents recommended for low emetic potential chemotherapy for acute emesis, but no prophylaxis is recommended for delayed emesis. Commonly, rescue medication includes antiemetics prescribed for the next higher level of emesis.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient data to change the current guidelines. Future studies should seek to more accurately determine the risk of emesis with LEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy to include patient-related risk assessment.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient’s quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

Routes of administration, reasons for use, and approved indications of medical cannabis in oncology: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some patients diagnosed with cancer use medical cannabis to self-manage undesirable symptoms, including nausea and pain. To improve patient safety and oncological care quality, the routes of administration for use of medical cannabis, patients' reasons, and prescribed indications must be better understood.

METHODS

Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a scoping review was conducted to map the current evidence regarding the use of medical cannabis in oncological settings based on the experiences of patients diagnosed with cancer and their healthcare providers. A search strategy was developed with a scientific librarian which included five databases (CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO) and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest). The inclusion criteria were: 1) population: adults aged 18 and over diagnosed with cancer; 2) phenomena of interest: reasons for cannabis use and/or the prescribed indications for medical cannabis; 3) context: oncological setting. French- or English-language primary empirical studies, knowledge syntheses, and grey literature published between 2000 and 2021 were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to a thematic analysis. A narrative description approach was used to synthesize and present the findings.

RESULTS

We identified 5,283 publications, of which 163 met the eligibility criteria. Two main reasons for medical cannabis use emerged from the thematic analysis: limiting the impacts of cancer and its side effects; and staying connected to others. Our results also indicated that medical cannabis is mostly used for three approved indications: to manage refractory nausea and vomiting, to complement pain management, and to improve appetite and food intake. We highlighted 11 routes of administration for medical cannabis, with oils and oral solutions the most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should consider the multiple routes of administration for medical cannabis, such as inhalation and edibles. Our review highlights that learning opportunities would support the development of healthcare providers' knowledge and skills in assessing the needs and preferences of patients diagnosed with cancer who use medical cannabis.

One-Dilution Rapid Desensitization Protocol to Chemotherapeutic and Biological Agents: A Five-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) becomes a crucial procedure to allow treatment continuation in patients who suffer drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic (CMT) and biological agents (BA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-bag dilution protocol (1DP) with a conventional three-bag dilution protocol (3DP) for desensitization of patients with CMT or BA hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with immediate DHRs to CMT or BA who underwent at least 1 RDD procedure in our department between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Demographical data, clinical history, skin tests, tryptase levels, and risk assessment were registered. The safety, tolerability, occurrence, and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTR) with 3DP and 1DP were compared.

RESULTS

After the allergy workup, 157 patients fulfilled criteria to undergo RDD (137 females, mean age: 60.44 ± 12.6 years). A total of 639 RDDs (543 CMT and 96 BA) were performed using 3DP in 205 (48 patients) and 1DP in 434 (109 patients). Almost all procedures (636) were completed successfully. No BTR occurred in the first RDD in 52% and 51% of the 3DP and 1DP, respectively. Most BTR were mild. Moderate-severe BTR occurred in 17% with 3DP and 9% with 1DP. There were no statistical differences between protocols regarding the rate and severity of BTR.

CONCLUSIONS

RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics.

Evaluation of patient quality care in Spain in prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To characterise current management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Spain, as well as professional adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study. A multicenter has been designed including 360 patient case files from 18 hospitals. The involvement of pharmacists and nurses was studied, and also indicators of structure, process, and selected outcomes previously recruited from antiemetic guidelines.

RESULTS

We found 94.4% of hospitals used a written protocol for managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and only 44.4% had educational programs for patients regarding this. Patients were prescribed antiemetic prophylactic treatment for delayed emesis in varying degree between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (77.8% and 58.9%, respectively). Dexamethasone was the most prescribed antiemetic drug for patients receiving highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (98.3% and 90%, respectively), followed by ondansetron (68.9% and 95%, respectively). Nursing was more involved than pharmacy units in evaluating emetic risk factors in patients (64.7% vs 21.4%), and tracking symptom onset (88.2% vs 57.1%) and adherence to treatment (94.1% vs 28.6%). Pharmacy units were more involved than nursing in choosing the antiemetic treatment (78.6% vs 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although antiemetic guidelines were used by all hospitals, there were differences in management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Increased education directed towards patients and oncology professionals is needed to improve adherence.

Evaluation of candidemia in epidemiology and risk factors among cancer patients in a cancer center of China: an 8-year case-control study

BACKGROUND

Candidemia is the worldwide life-threaten disease, especially in cancer patients. This study was aimed to identify and evaluate the risk factors of candidemia in cancer patients, which will prompt the improvement on current therapeutic strategies and prognosis.

METHODS

A retrospective, case-control study was conducted from inpatients of Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, during 2006 to 2013. Analyses were performed between cancer patients with candidemia as study case, and patients with bacterial bloodstream infections as control. Each case was matched up with two controls, for gender and inpatient duration. Candida species, clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes were reviewed in details.

RESULTS

Total number of 80 cases and 160 controls were enrolled and analyzed in this study. Candida albicans was identified as the most prevalent species and account for 55.0% candidemia, followed by Candida parapsilosis complex (21.3%), Candida tropicalis (8.8%), Candida glabrata complex (7.5%), Candida lusitaniae (3.8%), and Candida famata (3.8%). The crude mortality at 30-days of candidemia was up to 30.0%, which is significantly higher than bacterial bloodstream infections (p = 0.006). Logistical analysis demonstrated that total parenteral nutrition >5 days (p = 0.036), urinary catheter >2 days (p = 0.001), distant organ metastasis of cancer (p = 0.002) and gastrointestinal cancer (p = 0.042) were the independent risk factors for candidemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Candidemia showed significant higher mortality than bacterial bloodstream infections, C. albicans was cited as the primary pathogen. Total parenteral nutrition, urinary catheter, distant organ metastasis of cancer and gastrointestinal cancer are independent predictors for candidemia, this findings provides potential therapeutic targets for improving the outcome.