The impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy--perspectives from patients, specialists and nurses

Assessing the unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer treated by biological and precision therapies: protocol for TARGET, a mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Biological and precision therapies are increasingly used in cancer treatment. Although they may improve survival, they are also associated with various-and unique-adverse effects, which can be long lasting. Little is known about the experiences of people treated with these therapies. Moreover, their supportive care needs have not been fully explored. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing instruments adequately capture the unmet needs of these patients. The TARGET study seeks to address these evidence gaps by exploring the needs of people treated with these therapies with the aim of developing an unmet needs assessment instrument for patients on biological and precision therapies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The TARGET study will adopt a multi-methods design involving four Workstreams (1) a systematic review to identify, describe and assess existing unmet needs instruments in advanced cancer; (2) qualitative interviews with patients on biological and precision therapies, and their healthcare professionals, to explore experiences and care needs; (3) development and piloting of a new (or adapted) unmet needs questionnaire (based on the findings of Workstream 1 and Workstream 2) designed to capture the supportive care needs of these patients; and finally, (4) a large-scale patient survey using the new (or modified) questionnaire to determine (a) the psychometric properties of the questionnaire, and (b) the prevalence of unmet needs in these patients. Based on the broad activity of biological and precision therapies, the following cancers will be included: breast, lung, ovarian, colorectal, renal and malignant melanoma.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by National Health Service (NHS) Heath Research Authority Northeast Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 21/NE/0028). Dissemination of the research findings will take several formats to reach different audiences, including patients, healthcare professionals and researchers.

A Smartphone-Based Decision Support Tool for Predicting Patients at Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Retrospective Study on App Development Using Decision Tree Induction

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are the two most frightful and unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy. CINV is accountable for poor treatment outcomes, treatment failure, or even death. It can affect patients' overall quality of life, leading to many social, economic, and clinical consequences.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the performances of different data mining models for predicting the risk of CINV among the patients and developed a smartphone app for clinical decision support to recommend the risk of CINV at the point of care.

METHODS

Data were collected by retrospective record review from the electronic medical records used at the University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. Patients who received chemotherapy and standard antiemetics at the oncology outpatient service from June 1, 2010, to July 31, 2012, were included in the study. There were six independent data sets of patients based on emetogenicity (low, moderate, and high) and two phases of CINV (acute and delayed). A total of 14 risk factors of CINV were chosen for data mining. For our study, we used five popular data mining algorithms: (1) naive Bayes algorithm, (2) logistic regression classifier, (3) neural network, (4) support vector machine (using sequential minimal optimization), and (5) decision tree. Performance measures, such as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity with 10-fold cross-validation, were used for model comparisons. A smartphone app called CINV Risk Prediction Application was developed using the ResearchKit in iOS utilizing the decision tree algorithm, which conforms to the criteria of explainable, usable, and actionable artificial intelligence. The app was created using both the bulk questionnaire approach and the adaptive approach.

RESULTS

The decision tree performed well in both phases of high emetogenic chemotherapies, with a significant margin compared to the other algorithms. The accuracy measure for the six patient groups ranged from 79.3% to 94.8%. The app was developed using the results from the decision tree because of its consistent performance and simple, explainable nature. The bulk questionnaire approach asks 14 questions in the smartphone app, while the adaptive approach can determine questions based on the previous questions' answers. The adaptive approach saves time and can be beneficial when used at the point of care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study solved a real clinical problem, and the solution can be used for personalized and precise evidence-based CINV management, leading to a better life quality for patients and reduced health care costs.

A dynamic prediction engine to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Cancer remains the second major cause of death in the United States over the last decade. Chemotherapy is a core component of nearly every cancer treatment plan. Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) are the two most dreadful and unpleasant side-effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Several patient-specific factors affect the risk of CINV. However, none of the guidelines consider those factors. Not all of the patients have the similar emetic risk of CINV. Despite the improvements in CINV management, as many as two-thirds of chemotherapy patients still experience some degree of CINV. As a result, physicians use their personal experiences for CINV treatment, which leads to inconsistent managements of CINV.

OBJECTIVE

The overall objective of this study is to improve the prevention of CINV using precise, personalized and evidence-based antiemetic treatment before chemotherapy. In CINV prediction, one of the interesting factors is that CINV has two distinct and complex pathophysiologic phases: acute and delayed. In addition, the risk factors and their associations are different for different emetogenic chemotherapies (e.g., low, moderate, and high). There are six contexts considering the combination of phases and emetogenicity levels. This will require the creation of six different models. Instead, our objective was to describe a single framework named "prediction engine" that can perform prediction query without losing the sensitivity to each context. The prediction engine discovers how the patient-related variables and the emetogenecity of chemotherapy are associated with the risk of CINV for each phase.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study. The data were collected by retrospective record review from the electronic medical record system used at the University of Missouri Ellis Fischel Cancer Center. An association rule-based dynamic and context-sensitive Prediction Engine has been developed. Physicians receive feedback about CINV risks of patients from the CINV decision support system based on patient-specific factors.

RESULTS

The prediction performance of the system outperformed many popular prediction methods and all the results of CINV risk prediction published in the literature. Best prediction performance was achieved using the rule-ranking approach. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87.85 %, 87.54 %, and 88.2 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The system used the patient-specific risk factors for making personalized treatment recommendations for CINV. It solved a real clinical problem that will shorten the gap between clinical practices and evidence-based guidelines for CINV management leading to the practice of personalized and precise treatment recommendation, better life quality of patient, and reduced healthcare cost. The approach presented in this article can be applied to any other clinical predictions.

Hair loss with chemotherapy: at a loss over its management?

Alopecia is a common side effect of chemotherapy treatments for cancer; for some individuals this results in complete hair loss. The extent of this depends on many factors including the type or combination of drugs administered, and their doses. Further, it can in some cases be lessened through use of scalp cooling techniques. This method of reducing hair loss has been available since the 1970s. However, previous evidence suggests that nurses are apathetic about its use, which in turn might mean that patients are not always offered this intervention. This small exploratory study investigated perceptions held by nurses administering chemotherapy towards alopecia and its management through scalp cooling. It entailed completion of a survey questionnaire by 13 nurses that regularly administered intravenous chemotherapy. These data were then augmented by those attained from follow-up, semi-structured interviews that were conducted with three of the sample. It determined that perceptions of scalp cooling were influenced by individuals' subjective notions of its efficacy constructed from their experiences of having administered scalp cooling. Furthermore, attempts to prevent hair loss were mediated by their cognitions of the experience of hair loss itself. This study determined that views held about scalp cooling varied considerably, and that it was unlikely to be offered to all suitable patients or administered in a systematic manner. Such variation in provision has implications both for patients wishing to access this treatment and for nurses wishing to audit its use and efficacy.

Midazolam for acute emesis refractory to dexamethasone and granisetron after highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a phase II study

GOALS OF THE WORK

To assess whether the addition of midazolam to dexamethasone and granisetron could ameliorate the refractory acute nausea and/or vomiting caused by a highly emetogenic platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Enrolled in the study were 30 consecutive adult patients with refractory acute emesis. Nausea and vomiting were assessed by physicians and graded according to the NCI common toxicity criteria. Nausea was further self-assessed by patients using a visual analogue scale. Statistical analysis was performed by nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

With the introduction of midazolam, 73% of patients had a reduction of at least one grade in nausea and vomiting intensity in comparison with the previous cycle of chemotherapy. From the second cycle, six patients (23%) had complete control of acute vomiting, a benefit that usually persisted in the subsequent cycles. Five more patients achieved complete control of acute vomiting during the third course; this effect persisted in the subsequent courses as well. The average relative reduction in acute nausea and vomiting grade from the first to the second course was 48% (95% CI 34-62%) and 48% (95% CI 31-65%), respectively. A significant difference in acute nausea and vomiting over all the six courses of chemotherapy administered was recorded (Friedman ANOVA, P <0.0001). Comparing each course with any subsequent course, a significant reduction in acute nausea and vomiting was observed between the first and second course, the first and third course, and the first and fourth course.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that midazolam may be a useful adjunct to standard antiemetic drugs for patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A randomized trial is warranted to confirm these results.

Open-label, randomized comparison of the efficacy of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in the prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in the prevention of acute and delayed emesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From April 2002 through October 2002, a total of 112 patients receiving cisplatin- based combination chemotherapy were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 minutes before the initiation of chemotherapy. In the ondansetron group, two additional doses of ondansetron 8 mg were given at intervals of 2 to 4 hours. To prevent delayed emesis, dolasetron 200 mg p.o. daily or ondansetron 8 mg p.o. bid was administered from the 2(nd) days to a maximum of 5 days. The primary end point was the proportion of patients that experienced no emetic episodes and required no rescue medication (complete response, CR) during the 24 hours (acute period) and during Day 2 to Day 5+/-2 days (delayed period), after chemotherapy. The secondary end points included the incidence and severity of emesis.

RESULTS

105 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates during the acute period were 36.0% for a single dose of dolasetron 100 mg, and 43.6% for three doses of ondansetron 8 mg. CR rates during the delayed period were 8.0% and 10.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the efficacy between the two groups. Adverse effects were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg is as effective as three i.v. doses of ondansetron 8 mg in preventing acute and delayed emesis after cisplatin-based chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Acupressure for nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

Practitioners working with patients undergoing chemotherapy regularly encourage them to use acupressure in the form of Sea Bands for the relief of treatment-related nausea and vomiting. This mini-review sets out to uncover and examine the evidence base for this recommendation. A mini systematic review was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the use of acupressure plus usual care with usual care alone. The population was adult patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The outcome was nausea or vomiting duration or intensity. Searches on Medline, Embase, AMED, the Cochrane Library, Cancerlit and Cinahl identified two randomized controlled trials involving 482 patients with compared acupressure to no intervention control. The results suggest that acupressure may decrease nausea among patients undergoing chemotherapy but further work is required before conclusively advising patients on the efficacy of acupressure in preventing and treating chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Attitudes to chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Recurrent ovarian cancer (OVCA) has become the model for cancer as a chronic disease, yet little is known about what motivates patients and physicians in treatment choices.

METHODS

We investigated the attitudes of patients with epithelial OVCA and staff towards palliative chemotherapy for recurrent OVCA with a cross-sectional questionnaire study.

RESULTS

Instruments were developed and piloted in 15 patients. This exploratory study reflects substantial bias in the sample populations. One hundred twenty-two patients and 37 staff were enrolled in the US and 39 patients and 25 staff were enrolled in the UK. UK patients had a lower educational status (P = 0.001), lower stage disease (P = 0.025), and less prior lines of chemotherapy (P < 0.001). 61% of patients had recurrent OVCA and 67% of staff were physicians. Seventy-three percent of patients recalled a discussion about prognosis and 74% wanted to know details of the prognosis for a typical patient (US = UK). Most patients (48%) thought that their physician was realistic, and 57% of staff felt that they were optimistic. The vast majority of both staff and patients thought that patients positively reinterpreted what they were told. Five percent of staff thought that palliative care was "incompatible" when considering chemotherapy as an option for their second recurrence of OVCA, compared with 36% of US patients, significantly more than the 12% of UK patients (P = 0.007). Patients thought that standard chemotherapy for a second recurrence of OVCA produced remission in 50% and cure in 15% of patients. Staff reported 20% and 0%, respectively. Fifty percent of patients and 57% of staff would want chemotherapy as an asymptomatic patient with a normal CT and a rising CA-125. Patients generally appear to be very tolerant of grade II chemotherapy-induced toxicity with staff being less tolerant than patients of nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, and rash. Staff rated life prolongation by 3 months to 1 year very much less acceptable than patients (P < 0.001). Although possibly allowing comprehensive collection of sensitive data, the questionnaire was too distressing for some patients and made 11% of patients feel uncomfortably anxious.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are optimistic and in the US, may be more reluctant than staff to see the Palliative Care Team. These data challenge the assertion that the use of palliative chemotherapy is physician-driven.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the importance of acute antiemetic control

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most feared side effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be broadly categorized as acute (occurring within 24 hours of therapy), delayed (persisting for 6-7 days after therapy), or anticipatory (occurring prior to chemotherapy administration). Breakthrough and refractory nausea and vomiting describe the symptoms of uncontrolled emesis. Evidence suggests that good control of nausea and vomiting during the acute period correlates with the control of delayed emesis. Conversely, protection failure during the first 24 hours has a high predictive value for delayed emesis in the same cycle. The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, regarded as the 'gold standard' in antiemetic therapy, are the first-line treatment for moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in adults and children. Evidence suggests that the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists administered in combination with corticosteroids afford the best protection from symptoms of acute emesis and, by extrapolation, the most effective prevention of delayed emesis. Antiemetic therapeutic guidelines stress that the goal of therapy is to prevent cytostatic-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, the prophylactic use of the most effective antiemetic regimen-taking into consideration the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and individual patient characteristics-must be adhered to in order to prevent acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem: trends over time in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in 1413 patients treated in community clinical practices

Data from 1413 outpatients in community-based clinical practices were collected in order to characterize the use and effectiveness of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (NV). Patients were divided by treatment starting date into six cohorts for trend analysis. In addition, NV symptoms were compared in 252 patients treated prior to the commercial introduction of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetics, and an equal number of patients treated after their introduction. A comparison of cohorts revealed a significant (P = 0. 027) downward trend over time for the frequency of post-treatment vomiting episodes, but not for frequency of post-treatment nausea (P = 0.69). The average duration of nausea following treatment increased significantly over time (P = 0.003). Although the introduction of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetics has apparently led to a significant reduction in the frequency of post-treatment vomiting, there has been an accompanying increase in the duration of post-treatment nausea.

Comparative review of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Since their introduction, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have become the agents of choice in the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and are generally superior to high-dose metoclopramide regimens. The availability of four different agents (ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, and tropisetron) within this class has prompted investigations into potential differences between the drugs, which appear to be few. More importantly, the results of recently conducted randomized comparative trials in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy have demonstrated similar efficacy. Although study designs and patient populations differed, seven large comparative trials in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy reported no significant differences in complete or complete plus major response rates among the agents. Similar results were generally reported in trials evaluating patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The safety and tolerability of these agents also appear to be similar. The most common adverse events include headache, gastrointestinal effects, lightheadedness, and sedation. All agents are available in both intravenous and oral dosage forms and may be administered as a single dose.

The effect of Epoetin alfa on quality of life in anemic cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper is to review evidence on the use of Epoetin alfa in the treatment of anemia associated with cancer treatment through a discussion of clinical and quality-of-life considerations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients often experience fatigue, which leads to reduced quality of life. There are few effective treatments available to manage this potentially debilitating symptom, which can lead clinicians to become discouraged about treating fatigue. When cancer-related fatigue is due to anemia, there are viable treatment options. This paper reviews the current management of anemia in cancer patients, with an emphasis on the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (Epoetin alfa).

CONCLUSIONS

Anemia can contribute to the reduced quality of life experienced by cancer patients. Blood transfusion, the traditional method of treating anemia, is effective and relatively inexpensive, but is associated with certain risks and is subject to limitations in blood supply. Epoetin alfa therapy provides healthcare providers with an effective alternative to blood transfusion, and trial results suggest that this intervention has a positive effect on patients' quality of life. The optimal starting and stopping points for therapy have not yet been determined. In practice, many physicians begin treatment when hemoglobin levels drop below 10 g/dL and stop when they rise above 13 g/dL, with a 75% dose reduction until completion of chemotherapy if hemoglobin again drops below 12 g/dL. Nonresponse (< 1 g/dL rise in hemoglobin) is met with dose increase at 4 weeks and discontinuation after 8 weeks. Controlled studies comparing anemia management via transfusion to the use of Epoetin alfa have not been done to date. Therefore, the relative cost-effectiveness of Epoetin alfa, an effective but expensive intervention, remains unknown.

Safety, tolerability, antiemetic efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of oral dolasetron mesylate in pediatric cancer patients receiving moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The safety, antiemetic efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of single oral doses of dolasetron, a new highly selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, were evaluated in children with cancer undergoing treatment with moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 32 children, ages 3 to 18 years, were enrolled in a nonrandomized, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study. Three oral dose levels (0.6, 1.2, or 1.8 mg/kg) were studied. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed over 24 hours at each dosage level.

RESULTS

The most effective dose was 1.8 mg/kg; 60% of the patients achieved a complete or major response (< or =2 emetic episodes in 24 hours). A complete response was achieved in 3 of 9 patients (33%) who received 0.6 mg/kg, 4 of 13 (31%) patients who received 1.2 mg/kg, and 5 of 10 (50%) patients who received 1.8 mg/kg of dolasetron. Overall, dolasetron was well tolerated. Adverse events were mild and similar to those reported in adults. Peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) of dolasetron's active reduced metabolite, MDL 74,156, were dose proportional and occurred, on the average, within 1 hour of oral administration. The half-life (t1/2) in plasma was approximately 6 hours for all dose levels, and the mean clearance (CLapp) was unrelated to dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dolasetron is safe and effective in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, particularly at the 1.8-mg/kg dose level. These results support further evaluation of oral dolasetron in larger randomized clinical trials in the pediatric cancer population.

Guidelines for anti-emetic therapy: acute emesis

Anti-emetic therapy has become integral to the management of patients with cancer. Goals related to complete emesis control include providing treatment that reduces hospitalisation and time in the ambulatory setting, care that is convenient for the patient and therapy that enhances patients' quality of life. A panel of clinical, health economic and basic scientists with expertise in various oncology disciplines reviewed published literature to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Currently, serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids are the two categories of anti-emetics that are most effective, have the fewest side-effects and are convenient to use. These agents are recommended in combination for highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and as single agents or in combination for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When possible, these agents may be given orally in single doses; current evidence does not support dose escalation for either category of anti-emetics. In special situations, such as the use of high-dose chemotherapy combination regimens, the most emetogenic component of the regimen should dictate the choice of anti-emetic. Appropriate anti-emetic use described in these guidelines represents both good medical practice and a sensible economic approach to care.

Economic evaluation of gemcitabine single agent therapy compared with standard treatment in stage IIIB and IV non-small cell lung cancer

Chemotherapy treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been characterised by low cure rates, serious side effects, and expensive inpatient care. The aim of the present report was to perform an economic evaluation of gemcitabine monotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy treatment for NSCLC stages IIIB and IV. Standard chemotherapy treatment was identified as cisplatin/etoposide and ifosfamide/etoposide. Effectiveness expressed as survival and tumour response rates was assumed to be broadly equivalent for the alternatives. A cost-minimisation analysis was therefore performed. Total costs per patient per first treatment cycle of chemotherapy for the alternatives cisplatin/etoposide, ifosfamide/etoposide and gemcitabine were Skr 15,131, Skr 25,226, and Skr 13,266, respectively. The results are sensitive to whether chemotherapy could be given in inpatient or in outpatient care. Monotherapy with gemcitabine outpatient treatment in patients with stage IIIB and IV NSCLC was found to be a cost saving alternative when compared with currently used inpatient combination regimens. The treatment alternative with gemcitabine appears to be associated with higher costs for drugs and outpatient care, but lower costs for inpatient care and treatment of adverse events.

A double-blind, multicentre comparison of intravenous dolasetron mesilate and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy

The potent serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are new highly selective agents for the prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that have been shown to be comparable to or more effective than traditional metoclopramide regimens. This study was designed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of dolasetron and metoclopramide in chemotherapy-naive and non-naive cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of single i.v. doses of dolasetron mesilate salt (1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg) and metoclopramide (7 mg/kg) in 226 patients for the prevention of acute emesis and nausea associated with the administration of high-dose (> or = 80 mg/m2) cisplatin. Efficacy and safety were evaluated for 24 h. Complete responses were achieved by 57%, 48%, and 35% of patients given dolasetron mesilate 1.8 mg/kg (P = 0.0009 vs metoclopramide), dolasetron mesilate 1.2 mg/kg (P = 0.0058 vs metoclopramide), and metoclopramide, respectively. Overall, dolasetron was significantly more effective than metoclopramide for time to first emetic episode, nausea, patient satisfaction, and investigator global assessment of efficacy. Males, chemotherapy-naive patients, and alcoholics had higher response rates. Dolasetron was well tolerated, with mild-to-moderate headache most commonly reported. Twelve percent of patients receiving metoclopramide reported extrapyramidal symptoms compared with 0% of patients receiving dolasetron. In conclusion, dolasetron mesilate was effective for the prevention of CINV with high-dose cisplatin. Single i.v. doses of dolasetron mesilate were more effective than 7 mg/kg metoclopramide in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. In addition, 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron mesilate consistently produced the highest response rates and appears to be the most effective dose for further clinical development.

Patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy: the influence of 5HT3 antagonists

In 1983, Coates conducted a survey that ranked the side-effects perceived by patients receiving chemotherapy in the order of their severity. Vomiting and nausea were found to be the two most distressing side-effects. They have an impact on quality of life and compliance with treatment. The development of 5HT3 antagonists has been a major step forward in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Presently, these antiemetics are routinely used as concomitant therapy in emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of 5HT3 antagonists on patient perceptions of the side-effects of chemotherapy. Coates' survey was replicated in patients who received 5HT3 antagonists for acute nausea and vomiting resulting from emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received the survey to identify those physical and non-physical side-effects that they attributed to chemotherapy and were asked to rank the five most distressing side-effects. Of the 197 patients who consented to take part in the study, 181 were evaluable. Nausea, hair loss and vomiting were described as the three most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Eighty per cent of all the patients actually experienced nausea and 57% experienced vomiting. Hair loss appeared to be more distressing to women (P < 0.001) but, in other aspects, gender, age and marital status did not influence the ranking of the three most distressing side-effects. Constipation was ranked as 6th and was not identified as a distressing side-effect in 1983. Nausea and vomiting remain to be the first and third most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy, even though the incidence and severity of acute nausea and vomiting are now significantly reduced.

Discordance between physicians' estimations and breast cancer patients' self-assessment of side-effects of chemotherapy: an issue for quality of care

Because side-effects of chemotherapy may be more diverse and patients' reactions more individualistic than tends to be acknowledged by clinicians, a survey was carried out among 50 breast cancer outpatients to document self-reported physical symptoms experienced during NCF (mitoxantrone + cyclophosphamide + 5-fluorouracil) adjuvant chemotherapy and to compare them with the clinicians' estimation in medical records. The questionnaire evaluated the prevalence, duration/severity and distress level of 17 symptoms. Symptom prevalence, assessed in 231 cycles, was high even for symptoms that do not usually focus clinicians' attention. Of these, hot flushes, stomach pain and muscular and articular pains lasted 1 week or more for nearly half of the cycles. Hot flushes, vomiting and stomach pain were the most distressing symptoms. The mean number of symptoms per cycle is significantly correlated with the global quality-of-life score. Concordance between patients' self-assessment and clinical reports, measured in 180 cycles, is moderately correct for vomiting and sore mouth and inadequate for the remaining symptoms even for hair loss (notified in 27% of cycles by clinicians vs 80% by patients) and nausea (38% vs 73%). A better understanding by physicians of cancer patients' problems is necessary to improve quality of care.

Pharmacokinetics of single intravenous and oral doses of dolasetron mesylate in healthy elderly volunteers

Dolasetron mesylate (MDL 73,147EF, Anzemet; Hoechst Marion Roussel, Laval, Canada) is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist undergoing clinical evaluation for use as an antiemetic agent. The pharmacokinetics of dolasetron and its reduced metabolite (MDL 74,156) were studied after administration of single intravenous and oral doses of dolasetron mesylate 2.4 mg/kg in 18 healthy elderly subjects. Expressed as the dolasetron base, this dose was 1.8 mg/kg. Dolasetron was rapidly metabolized to the reduced metabolite, which appeared in plasma within 10 minutes after intravenous or oral administration. The mean half-life (t1/2) of dolasetron was 0.24 hours after intravenous administration and 0.50 hours after oral administration. The pharmacokinetic parameters of the reduced metabolite were similar after intravenous and oral administration. The apparent absolute bioavailability of the reduced metabolite was 89%, and it had an elimination t1/2 of approximately 7 hours and an apparent volume of distribution (Vd beta) of 4.69 L/kg. Dolasetron was not detected in urine. Metabolites were excreted in urine almost completely within 24 hours of administration. The primary metabolite detected in urine was the (+)-enantiomer of the reduced metabolite, which accounted for 25.35% (+/- 7.79%) and 18.88% (+/- 7.65%) of the intravenous and oral doses, respectively. Hydroxylated metabolites accounted for 5% or less of the total dose via either route. The pharmacokinetics of the reduced metabolite after single intravenous or oral doses in elderly volunteers were consistent with pharmacokinetics observed in both young healthy men and cancer patients receiving high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. Dosage adjustments of dolasetron mesylate on the basis of age do not appear to be necessary.

Therapeutic equivalence of single oral doses of dolasetron mesilate and multiple doses of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. European Dolasetron Comparative Study Group

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was designed to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of single oral doses of dolasetron mesilate with that of the approved oral, multiple-dose regimen of ondansetron in 399 cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Single oral doses of 25, 50, 100 or 200 mg of dolasetron mesilate were administered 1 h prior to the initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Multiple doses of ondansetron (8 mg x 3 or 8 mg x 4) capsules, or matching placebo for patients randomised to dolasetron, were given 1.5 h before and 6.5, 14.5 and 22.5 h after the start of chemotherapy (total dose = 32 mg). Efficacy was evaluated for 24 h after the initiation of chemotherapy. The most frequently used moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents included cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and carboplatin (28.4, 23.1 and 20.6% of patients, respectively). A statistically significant (P < 0.001) linear dose-response relationship was observed over the entire dolasetron dosage range for all efficacy parameters. Complete response rates were 45.0, 49.4, 60.5 and 76.3% for 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg dolasetron mesilate, respectively, and 72.3% of ondansetron patients. A single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to ondansetron for all efficacy parameters and patient satisfaction was high. Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between any of the dolasetron mesilate doses, or between dolasetron and ondansetron. Headache was most frequently reported (approximately 15% for each drug). No clinically important changes in vital signs or clinical laboratory parameters were observed with either drug. In conclusion, a single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to multiple-dose ondansetron in the prevention of emesis and nausea following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

On the receiving end. V: Patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993

BACKGROUND

A study conducted in 1983 to identify and rank the symptoms experienced by patients receiving cancer chemotherapy reported that vomiting and nausea were the most important symptoms experienced. With the advent of new antiemetic regimens and changes in cancer chemotherapy, it was anticipated that changes may have occurred in patient perception of symptoms. The study was therefore repeated in 1993.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty-five cancer patients receiving chemotherapy at a large urban teaching hospital participated in the study. Patients selected from cards listing symptoms all those experienced and the five most troublesome.

RESULTS

Patients reported experiencing an average of 20 symptoms (13 physical and 7 psychosocial). Nausea was reported as the most severe symptom followed by tiredness and loss of hair. Vomiting which was the most severe symptom in 1983, now ranked 5th. Differences were detected in the symptoms experienced and reported as most severe, between chemotherapy regimens, between older and younger patients and between males and females.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a reduction in the severity of some symptoms experienced while receiving chemotherapy and a shift from concerns about physical to psychosocial issues.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety evaluation of single-dose intravenous dolasetron in healthy male volunteers

The safety and tolerability of dolasetron mesylate, a potent and selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, were evaluated after single intravenous doses in healthy male volunteers. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase I study, 80 subjects received either placebo or dolasetron in escalating doses (0.6 to 5.0 mg/k). Subjects were monitored for adverse events, vital sign and laboratory alterations, and changes in electrocardiographic (ECG) intervals and electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns. Overall, the percentage of subjects reporting adverse events was similar in those receiving dolasetron (44/64; 68.8%) or placebo (10/16; 62.5%); most adverse events were mild in severity. Subjects receiving dolasetron reported a higher incidence of central nervous system (headache and dizziness/lightheadedness), gastrointestinal (increased appetite and nausea), and visual adverse events and taste alterations. No clinically significant changes in laboratory variables were observed. Transient and asymptomatic ECG changes (small mean increases in PR interval and QRS complex duration versus baseline) were noted in several subjects at 1 to 2 hours after infusion at doses > or = 3.0 mg/kg. Transient, mild blood pressure decreases were observed in five subjects, including one on placebo. Dolastron mesylate was well tolerated in single intravenous doses up to 5.0 mg/kg in healthy male volunteers. Clinical studies of the drug are ongoing for antiemetic indications.