Antiemesis

Saponins From Platycodon grandiflorum Reduces Cisplatin-Induced Intestinal Toxicity in Mice through Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress-Activated Apoptosis

Saponins from the roots of Platycodon grandiflorum, an edible medicinal plant, have shown a wide range of beneficial effects on various biological processes. In this study, an animal model was established by a single intraperitoneal injection of cisplatin (20[Formula: see text]mg/kg) for evaluating the protective effects of saponins from the roots of P. grandiflorum (PGS, 15[Formula: see text]mg/kg and 30[Formula: see text]mg/kg) in mice. The results indicated that PGS treatment for 10 days restored the destroyed intestinal mucosal oxidative system, and the loosened junctions of small intestinal villi was significantly improved. In addition, a significant mitigation of apoptotic effects deteriorated by cisplatin exposure in small intestinal villi was observed by immunohischemical staining. Also, western blot showed that PGS could effectively prevent endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-induced apoptosis caused by cisplatin in mice by restoring the activity of PERK (an ER kinase)-eIF2[Formula: see text]-ATF4 signal transduction pathway. Furthermore, molecular docking results of main saponins in PGS suggested a better binding ability with target proteins. In summary, the present work revealed the underlying protective mechanisms of PGS on intestinal injury induced by cisplatin in mice.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Efficacy of acupuncture in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer: a multi-center, single-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical research

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing side effect. We conducted this clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of true acupuncture vs. sham acupuncture in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

A total of 134 participants were randomly allocated into true acupuncture (TA) (n = 68) and sham acupuncture (SA) (n = 66) groups. Participants in both groups received acupuncture session twice on the first day of chemotherapy, and once consecutively on the following 4 days. The primary outcome was using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) to assess CINV. The secondary outcome measures were the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (ECOG), Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS).

Results

Compared to the SA group, the TA group didn’t show significant improvement in complete response rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (all P > 0.05). However, the TA group could modestly reduce the severity of nausea (from day-3 to day-21, P < 0.05) or vomiting (from day-4 to day-21, P < 0.05), which is notably superior to the control group. Besides, TA promoted the nutritional status of patients with a significantly higher score comparing to the SA group on day 14 (21.82 vs.20.12, P = 0.003) and day 21 (22.39 vs. 20.43, P = 0.001). No apparent differences were found in anxiety and depression assessment between these groups. Participants in both groups were well tolerant of acupuncture therapy. There was no adverse event occurs in our study.

Conclusion

Acupuncture as an adjunctive approach could alleviate the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting compared to the sham control, even though the effect of acupuncture in preventing CINV occurring is relatively modest.

Pyridoxine for prevention and treatment of PARP inhibitor induced nausea and vomiting

Poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a promising new treatment option for patients with ovarian cancer and are moderately emetogenic. Tolerance of therapy is paramount, and uncontrolled nausea and vomiting may limit use. Although most patients will experience improvement in nausea and vomiting after one to two months, approximately one in twenty patients will discontinue therapy due to unrelieved symptom burden. Three cases of olaparib-related nausea and vomiting mitigated by primary pyridoxine use are reported. Case 1 demonstrates successful use of pyridoxine in breakthrough nausea. Case 2 details the use of pyridoxine following refractory nausea and vomiting requiring hospitalization. Case 3 describes a prophylactic approach for a patient with significant anticipatory nausea. All three patients tolerated olaparib after starting and continuing pyridoxine. Vitamin B6, or pyridoxine, was successful as both a therapeutic and prophylactic option for significant treatment-related nausea and vomiting with PARPi use.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

[Curative Effect of Aprepitant Preventing CINV]

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is the most important method for cancer treatment. However, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has a profound effect on patients. In recent years, there have been new antiemetic drugs, such as aprepitant. We review the curative effect of aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy.

METHODS

Observation is divided into three stages. Whole study phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy administration), acute phases (0-24 h), and delayed phase (24 h-120 h). The primary endpoints were complete response (CR) and complete prevention (CP) during the three different study phase.

RESULTS

In the whole study phase, 86.02% of patients achieved CR; in acute phases and delayed phases were 89.25%, 87.1%, respectively. CP were 46.22%, 83.87%, 45.16%, respectively. Anti-CINV effect was significantly associated with age distribution (P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant with tropisetron and dexamethasone prevented effectively CNIV for patients receiving Cisplatin chemotherapy. This combination could improve the quality of life and the compliance of patient with chemotherapy.

Top 10 Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know When Caring for Patients with Ovarian Cancer

The vast majority of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer present with advanced-stage disease with a five-year survival rate less than 50%. Studies have shown that in the past, gynecologic oncologists were not routinely collaborating with palliative care physicians resulting in goals of care planning often not occurring until the last 30 days before death. In recent years, professional societies have been increasingly more vocal about the importance of incorporating palliative care early in a patient's disease course. As these calls increase, palliative care clinicians will be likely to comanage patients with ovarian cancer and may benefit from additional targeted education on this unique population. We brought together a team of gynecologic oncology and palliative care experts to collate practical pearls for the care of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. In this article, we use a "Top 10" format to highlight issues that may help palliative care physicians understand a patient's prognosis, address common misconceptions about ovarian cancer, and improve the quality of shared decision making and goals-of-care discussions.

Dexamethasone exacerbates cytotoxic chemotherapy induced lethargy and weight loss in female tumor free mice

Cytotoxic chemotherapy can induce a systemic inflammatory response which has been proposed to be an underlying mechanism of cancer treatment related fatigue. Dexamethasone, a synthetic glucocorticoid that has potent anti-inflammatory effects, is incorporated into chemotherapy regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The purpose of this study was to determine whether by suppressing cytotoxic chemotherapy-induced inflammation, dexamethasone could ameliorate chemotherapy induced fatigue/lethargy in tumor free mice. The effect of dexamethasone (DEX) on Cytoxan-Adriamycin (CA)-induced inflammation was assessed by measuring circulating levels of IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6, GCSF, KC, and MCP-1 twenty-four-hours post CA injection. Decline in voluntary wheel running activity (VWRA) from baseline (used as a proxy for fatigue/lethargy), body weight and composition, and food intake were monitored in mice administered four cycles of CA every two weeks with or without DEX. CA increased circulating levels of IL-6, GCSF, KC, and MCP-1 and caused a rapid decline in VWRA and body weight immediately following CA-injection. Although the acute CA-induced decline in VWRA and body weight was not evident in mice administered CA + DEX, DEX alone had a suppressive effect on VWRA, and body weight continued to decline in mice administered both CA and DEX while it returned to baseline in CA-treated mice. CA or DEX alone had no long term impact on VWRA but DEX exacerbated lethargy and weight loss in CA-treated mice. Despite dampening the systemic inflammatory response to chemotherapy, dexamethasone failed to ameliorate acute or long term chemotherapy related fatigue/lethargy. Our pre-clinical findings suggest that supportive therapies like dexamethasone used to acutely control nausea and vomiting in cancer patients may actually contribute to overall symptom burden in cancer patients.

Prior Authorization for Medications in a Breast Oncology Practice: Navigation of a Complex Process

INTRODUCTION

The cost and burden associated with prior authorization (PA) for specialty medications are concerns for oncologists, but the impact of the PA process on care delivery has not been well described. We examined PA processes and approval patterns within a high-volume breast oncology clinic at a major academic cancer center.

METHODS

We met with institutional staff to create a PA workflow and process map. We then abstracted pharmacy and medical records for all patients with breast cancer (N = 279) treated at our institution who required a PA between May and November 2015 (324 prescriptions). We examined PA approval rates, time to approval, and associations of these outcomes with the type of medication being prescribed, patient demographics, and method of PA.

RESULTS

Seventeen possible process steps and 10 decision points were required for patients to obtain medications requiring a PA. Of the 324 PAs tracked, 316 (97.5%) were approved on the first PA request after an average time of 0.82 days (range, 0 to 14 days). Approximately half of PAs were for either palbociclib (26.5%) or pegfilgrastim (22.2%), and 13.6% of PAs were for generic hormonal therapy. Requirements to fax PA requests were associated with greater delay in approval time (1.31 v 0.17 days for online requests; P < .001). The use of specialty pharmacies increased staff burden and delays in medication receipt.

CONCLUSION

The PA process is complicated and labor intensive. Given the high PA approval rate, it is unlikely that PA requirements reduce medication utilization in practice, and these requirements may impose unnecessary burdens on patient care. The goals and requirements for PAs should be readdressed.

Patterns of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China

BACKGROUND

Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) Database to identify patients with cancer who were ≥18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) between 2008 and 2012. Patients' characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC (59.4% vs. 81.3%; P<0.001). The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group (P≤0.012); however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing corticosteroids (P≤0.007). Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group (both P<0.001). Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.

Effect of olanzapine for breast cancer patients resistant to triplet antiemetic therapy with nausea due to anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Triplet antiemetic therapy with neurokinin 1 receptor blocker, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor blocker and steroids is commonly used in patients who are highly emetic after chemotherapy. However, an alternative antiemetic therapy for patients who are resistant to triplet antiemetic therapy is not established. Olanzapine is recommended in the guidelines as an optional antiemetic drug. However, the effectiveness of adding olanzapine to triplet antiemetic therapy is unknown. In this study, the effectiveness and safety of adding olanzapine to triplet antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone as highly emetic anthracycline-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer patients were prospectively investigated.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with breast cancer who experienced >Grade 1 nausea or any vomiting after the first cycle of chemotherapy using both epirubicin and cyclophosphamide were included. Low-dose olanzapine (2.5 mg/day) was administered orally from the first day of chemotherapy for 4 days, and the number of episodes of vomiting, scale of nausea, dietary intake and somnolence were compared with the symptoms after the first cycle.

RESULTS

As the primary endpoint, the nausea grade was significantly improved by adding olanzapine (P < 0.05). As the secondary endpoints, mean nausea scale (3.2→1.9, Day 1; 3→1.3-1, Days 2-6) and dietary intake (33.6→53.8%, Day 1; 42.0→60.7-78.1%, Days 2-6) were improved by adding olanzapine. Only four patients withdrew due to somnolence and/or dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the effectiveness and tolerability of adding low-dose olanzapine for patients with insufficient nausea relief with triplet antiemetic therapy consisting of palonosetron, steroid and aprepitant.

Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines 2010 for antiemesis in oncology: executive summary

The purpose of this article is to disseminate the standard of antiemetic therapy for Japanese clinical oncologists. On the basis of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, which reflects evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, a working group of the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) reviewed clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis and performed a systematic review of evidence-based domestic practice guidelines for antiemetic therapy in Japan. In addition, because health-insurance systems in Japan are different from those in other countries, a consensus was reached regarding standard treatments for chemotherapy that induce nausea and vomiting. Current evidence was collected by use of MEDLINE, from materials from meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and from European Society of Medical Oncology/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer guidelines for antiemesis. Initially, 21 clinical questions (CQ) were selected on the basis of CQs from other guidelines. Patients treated with highly emetic agents should receive a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist. For patients with moderate emetic risk, 5HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone were recommended, whereas for those receiving chemotherapy with low emetic risk dexamethasone only is recommended. Patients receiving high-emetic-risk radiation therapy should also receive a 5HT3 receptor antagonist. In this paper the 2010 JSCO clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis are presented in English; they reveal high concordance of Japanese medical circumstances with other antiemetic guidelines that are similarly based on evidence.

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in autologous hematopoietic cell transplant patients: an exploratory analysis

PURPOSE

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a problem in patients undergoing a hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) despite progress in antiemetic prophylaxis. This study investigated the clinical course of nausea and vomiting (NV) and retching over the 5 days following an autologous HCT in a transplant setting.

METHODS

This longitudinal observational study was an exploratory analysis of data from a trial that assessed the efficacy of aroma in preventing NV related to dimethyl sulfoxide in 69 autologous HCT patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; n = 56) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC; n = 13).

RESULTS

Nausea started to increase on the second day after reinfusion, with a peak between 72 and 96 hours, and decreased on the fifth day. The pattern for vomiting was similar, while retching episodes remained unchanged after the third day following transplant. Nausea and emesis were observed in 73% (n = 41) and 64% (n = 36) of HEC patients, respectively, and in 85% (n = 11) and 62% (n = 8) of MEC patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled delayed CINV is still a challenge for autologous HCT patients. Nausea, vomiting and retching are 3 different symptoms that should be assessed and managed separately in routine clinical practice.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.

Factors associated with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicity in women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: an exploratory analysis of NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group trials 179 and 204

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe pretreatment patient characteristics and baseline quality-of-life scores as they relate to the development of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent cervical cancer.

METHODS

The study sample was drawn from Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols 179 and 204. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were considered in 4 specified categories as follows: peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, hematological, and gastrointestinal (GI). The data variables explored included age, stage, pretreatment radiation, performance status (PS) at treatment initiation, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACT-Cx) score. A logistic regression model was developed with various adverse events as binary (0/1) outcomes.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy-three patient-reported questionnaires were used in the analyses. At baseline, pain was the most severe patient-reported symptom. Baseline line-item patient concerns did demonstrate specific correlations with the development of individual toxicities. In 401 patients who were enrolled on Gynecologic Oncology Group 204 (fatigue not measured on 179), a worse PS predicted the development of grade 3 or 4 fatigue (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.68). Exposure to previous radiation, treatment regimen, and a worse FACT-Cx score were associated with the reporting of both grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (P < 0.05) and anemia (P < 0.0005). Performance status and treatment regimen (P < 0.05) were associated with the development of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia. Age and treatment regimen (P < 0.05) were associated with the development of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. The FACT-Cx score (P = 0.0016) predicted grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of fatigue, hematological, and GI toxicity might be predictable based on factors other than treatment assignment such as age, PS, and patient-reported quality-of-life measurement.

Efficacy of triplet regimen antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and an efficacy comparison of single-shot palonosetron and consecutive-day granisetron for CINV in a randomized, single-blinded crossover study

The first aim of this study was to evaluate combination antiemetic therapy consisting of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs), and dexamethasone for multiple high emetogenic risk (HER) anticancer agents in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. The second aim was to compare the effectiveness of single-shot palonosetron and consecutive-day granisetron in a randomized, single-blinded crossover study. A single randomization method was used to assign eligible patients to the palonosetron or granisetron arm. Patients in the palonosetron arm received a palonosetron regimen during the first and third chemotherapy courses and a granisetron regimen during the second and fourth courses. All patients received NK-1RA and dexamethasone. Patients receiving the palonosetron regimen were administered 0.75 mg palonosetron on day 1, and patients receiving the granisetron regimen were administered 3 mg granisetron twice daily on days 1 through 5. All 24 patients in this study received at least 4 chemotherapy courses. A total of 96 courses of antiemetic therapy were evaluated. Overall, the complete response CR rate (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) was 34%, while the total control rate (a CR plus no nausea) was 7%. No significant differences were observed between single-shot palonosetron and consecutive-day granisetron. Antiemetic therapy with a 3-drug combination was not sufficient to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during chemotherapy with multiple HER agents for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. This study also demonstrated that consecutive-day granisetron was not inferior to single-shot palonosetron for treating CINV.

Managing patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine: a nursing perspective

Indolent lymphoma is one of the most frequently occurring subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Indolent NHL has a long natural history, and patients will likely receive multiple therapies during the course of their disease. Treatment options are rapidly evolving and, because oncology nurses play a major role in managing patients undergoing treatment for indolent NHL, they need to be aware of the potential adverse effects associated with new therapies that may affect patients in their care. One such agent is bendamustine, which was approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL. Oncology nurses are increasingly likely to encounter bendamustine either as monotherapy or in combination with rituximab. Bendamustine is a hybrid agent with both alkylating and purine analog properties, produces a high response rate in patients with indolent NHL, and has manageable side effects that include immunosuppression, gastrointestinal toxicity, and fatigue. Oncology nurses should be familiar with the common side effects so as to provide enhanced care for the patient receiving this agent. This article reviews the safety profile of bendamustine and discusses the implications from a nursing perspective.

Aprepitant plus granisetron and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastric cancer treated with S-1 plus cisplatin

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new combination antiemetic therapy comprising aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone in gastric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with cisplatin and S-1.

METHODS

Gastric cancer patients scheduled to receive their first course of chemotherapy with cisplatin (60 mg/m(2)) and S-1 (80 mg/m(2)) were treated with a new combination antiemetic therapy aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and dexamethasone on day 4. The patients reported vomiting, nausea, use of rescue therapy, and change in the amount of diet intake, and completed the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and use of no rescue antiemetics) during the overall study phase (0-120 h after cisplatin administration). The secondary endpoints included complete protection (CP; CR plus no significant nausea); change in the amount of diet intake; and the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on daily life during the overall, acute (0-24 h), and delayed (24-120 h) phases.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included. CR was achieved in 88.7, 98.1, and 88.7% of patients in the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The corresponding rates of CP were 67.9, 96.2, and 67.9%. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of anorexia. FLIE results indicated that 79.5% of patients reported "minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life".

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy was effective in gastric cancer patients undergoing treatment with cisplatin and S-1.

Efficacy of aprepitant in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of aprepitant and conventional antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer who were treated with MEC regimens at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, were included and classified into the following groups: control group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone) and aprepitant group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone + aprepitant). The presence or absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0; patients with grade 1 or above were considered positive for CINV. Food intake per day, completion of planned chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) achieved by chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

The complete suppression rate of nausea in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0043). Throughout the study, the food intake in the aprepitant group was greater than that in the control group, with the rate being significantly higher, in particular, on day 5 (p = 0.003). The completion rate of planned chemotherapy was also higher in the aprepitant group (p = 0.042). PFS did not differ significantly, but tended to be improved in the aprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant group showed significantly higher complete suppression of nausea, food intake on day 5, and completion of planned chemotherapy than the control group.

What is integrative oncology and can it help my patients?

Integrative oncology lends itself to the comprehensive practice of gynecologic oncology with multiple tools and interventions that can impact on QoL and survival. However, there remains a paucity of well-designed, well-powered randomized control trials on various CAM modalities for gynecologic cancer patients. The reasons for the lack of level 1 evidence include the nascent state of integrative medicine as a science, the limitations on CAM funding, the relative lack of integration of CAM practitioners into the oncology community, and absence of strict regulation of herbs and supplements by the US FDA. The use of CAM as adjunctive therapies will likely continue given the patient-driven trends to date, and given the evidence for at least safety and potentially efficacy, our patients deserve our willingness to use all possible approaches to improving their outcomes. Continued evolution of our ability to specifically measure and describe QoL will further our ability to hone in on domains most important to patients and their survival and allow practitioners to make patient-specific recommendations. Multimodal programs that include physical activity, stress management, and diet have the potential to address demonstrated deficits in PWB and FWB in ovarian cancer patients which suggests a model of collaborative gynecologic oncology care). Integrative oncology represents a holistic approach to patient care whose goal is maximization of patient quantity and quality of life. Patients can achieve this optimal outcome through the synergy of conventional care, integrative modalities, lifestyle modifications, and supportive care. Refer to Table 4 for a listing of integrated medicine Internet resources.

A phase III open-label study to assess safety and efficacy of palonosetron for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in repeated cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is of great importance for the completion of multiple cycles of cancer chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with proven efficacy for both acute and delayed CINV. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron in repeated cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination (AC/EC).

METHODS

We gave 0.75 mg palonosetron to 538 patients 30 min prior to ≥ 50 mg/m(2) cisplatin or AC/EC on day 1. Prophylactic dexamethasone was administered on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoint was complete response rate (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) throughout the study period.

RESULTS

Treatment-related AEs were seen in 44% (237 of 538 patients). Serious AEs were seen in 4% (23 of 538 patients), all considered unrelated or unlikely to be related to palonosetron. Only one patient discontinued the study due to a treatment-related AE. No trend toward worsening of AEs was observed in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. Complete response rates were maintained throughout repeated cycles.

CONCLUSION

The extraordinary safety profile and maintenance of efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron combined with dexamethasone were demonstrated throughout repeated chemotherapy cycles.

Aprepitant use in children, adolescents, and young adults for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

BACKGROUND

One of the most common and distressing side effects for cancer patients is chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). New antiemetics, such as the NK-1 receptor inhibitor aprepitant, have been reported to improve control of this side effect in adults. However, little is known about its effect in the pediatric oncology population, with only a few reported cases in the literature.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review on the use of aprepitant in the pediatric oncology population in our institution.

RESULTS

Thirty-two charts and a total of 146 cycles of chemotherapy were reviewed. Mean age was 10 years. Highly emetogenic chemotherapy was used in 23/32 patients and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in 9/32. Antiemetic regimens consisted of aprepitant+5-HT3 RA+dexamethasone (Regimen 1, 20/32 patients) or aprepitant +5-HT3 RA (Regimen 2, in 12/32). Eight out of thirty-two patients were chemotherapy-naïve and received aprepitant on their first cycle. In 24/32 patients, aprepitant was added later in their treatment, with 12/24 reporting resolution of CINV after its addition.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant when combined with standard antiemetics, was well tolerated in the pediatric oncology population studied. However, there is still a need to conduct prospective studies to determine the optimal efficacy of aprepitant in the pediatric oncology population.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults.

METHODS

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes.

RESULTS

Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.

A phase II study of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This is a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, in combination with dexamethasone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomized 233 patients to receive palonosetron as a single i.v. bolus dose of 0.075, 0.25, or 0.75 mg before administration of HEC. Dexamethasone (12-16 mg i.v. on day 1, 8 mg i.v. on day 2, and 4-8 mg i.v. on day 3) was administered for prophylactic antiemesis. Pharmacokinetics of palonosetron was analyzed in 24 patients.

RESULTS

In this study, all patients were given > or =50 mg/m(2) cisplatin, which was considered to be HEC. No significant differences in complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) rates were found in the first 24 h between the 0.075-, 0.25-, and 0.75-mg groups (77.6%, 81.8%, and 79.5%, respectively). In the 120-h period of overall observation, CR rates increased in a dose-dependent manner. In the 0.75-mg group, we observed a significantly longer time to treatment failure than in the 0.075-mg group (median time >120 versus 82.0 h, P = 0.038). Palonosetron was tolerated well and did not show any dose-related increase in adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron at doses of 0.25 and 0.75 mg was shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with high CR rates of patients treated with HEC in Japan. All tested doses of palonosetron were tolerated well.

Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms of patients with terminal, incurable illnesses and can be distressing.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Several electronic databases were searched including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles). There were no language restrictions imposed. Database searching was performed between 2nd and 16th September 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies considered for inclusion were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. Studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Records from each of the electronic databases were imported into a bibliographic package and merged into a core database where titles, keywords and abstracts were inspected for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, the full text of the article was obtained for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between authors with regard to assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs were identified meeting the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six studies were considered but all were excluded from the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567.

FINDINGS

1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments.

FUNDING

Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan).

Effectiveness of a single-day three-drug regimen of dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes both Acute (0-24 h) and Delayed (24-120 h) components with different physiologic mechanisms. A combination of a serotonin antagonist, a corticosteroid, and an NK-1 antagonist has proven effective against this problem. However, standard antiemetic regimens require administration over 3-4 days after chemotherapy. The present study evaluated a more convenient single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors receiving cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible. Patients could not have pre-existing etiologies for vomiting. Prior to chemotherapy, patients received a single dose of aprepitant 285 mg p.o., dexamethasone 20 mg p.o., and palonosetron 0.25 mg i.v. A daily patient diary recording episodes of emesis and severity of nausea was then kept for 5 days. Any further antiemetics were considered rescue medication.

RESULTS

Forty-one eligible and evaluable patients (40 women, one man) with breast cancer were entered on study. Most were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Complete Response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was seen in 51% of patients, including 76% with Complete Response for the Acute period and 66% for the Delayed period. No emesis was reported for 100% of patients in the Acute period and 95% in the Delayed period. No Nausea was seen in 32% of patients. No untoward toxicities were seen.

CONCLUSION

A single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective for protection against both Acute and Delayed vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Formal comparison to a standard multi-day antiemetic regimen is warranted.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects many cancer patients and has a great influence on quality of life. CINV involves coordination of several organs of the gastrointestinal tract, the peripheral and central nervous systems. Many neurotransmitters are involved in this process, and the predominant receptors are serotonin, neurokinin-1 and dopamine receptors. Risk factors for CINV include patient gender and age, past history of CINV, plus the emetogenicity and administration schedule of chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with a high risk of delayed CINV include a serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant. Other moderately emetogenic chemotherapy requires a serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. Medications for breakthrough symptoms include dopamine antagonists, lorazepam, metoclopramide, haloperidol, droperidol and other agents. Options for treatment of refractory CINV include olanzapine, dronabinol, nabilone, gabapentin. New evidence from non-controlled studies supports the use of olanzapine, casopitant and gabapentin in controlling the symptoms of CINV.

Quality-of-life issues in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer

The importance of quality-of-life (QOL) measurements in cancer management is being increasingly appreciated. This is especially important in patients with advanced cancers. Over 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) will present with disease outside the ovary as there are no accurate screening tests, and symptoms usually do not develop until EOC has spread. Standard treatment includes debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy to which most women will have a complete response but only a minority of women with advanced disease will be cured. Fortunately, advances in surgical and chemotherapeutic management have improved overall survival with 45% of women of all stages living 5 years or longer. EOC may in many cases be considered a "chronic cancer," which highlights the importance of QOL in management decisions. QOL may be affected by the disease itself as well as by surgical and chemotherapeutic treatments. Future studies of the care and treatment of EOC patients should include well-designed QOL evaluations.