Antiemetic research: future directions

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

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

Outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting guideline adherence in pediatric and adult patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study describes chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control rates in pediatric and adult patients who did or did not receive guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of studies published in 2000 or later that evaluated CINV control in patients receiving guideline-consistent vs. guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis and reported at least one CINV-related patient outcome. Studies were excluded if the guideline evaluated was not publicly available or not developed by a professional organization. Over-prophylaxis was defined as antiemetic use recommended for a higher level of chemotherapy emetogenicity than a patient was receiving.

RESULTS

We identified 7060 citations and retrieved 141 publications for full-text evaluation. Of these, 21 publications (14 prospective and seven retrospective studies) evaluating guidelines developed by six organizations were included. The terms used to describe CINV endpoints and definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis varied among studies. Included studies either did not address over-prophylaxis in their definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (48%; 10/21) or defined it as guideline-inconsistent (38%; 8/21) or guideline-consistent (3/21; 14%). Eleven included studies (52%; 11/21) reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one CINV endpoint in patients receiving guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. Ten reported a statistically significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence supports the use of guideline-consistent prophylaxis to optimize CINV control. Institutions caring for patients with cancer should systematically adapt CINV CPGs for local implementation and routinely evaluate CINV outcomes.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃ ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT₃ RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK₁ RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK₁ RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT₃ RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK₁ RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK₁ ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK₁ RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK₁ RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

A review on radiation induced nausea and vomiting: "Current management strategies and prominence of radio sensitizers"

Radiations dissipated are high energy waves used mostly as treatment intervention in controlling the unwanted multiplication of cell. About 60%-65% of cancer treatment requires radiation therapy and 40%-80% of radiation therapy causes RINV which are true troublemakers. Radiation therapy (RT) is targeted therapy mostly used to treat early stages of tumour and prevent their reoccurrence. They mainly destroy the genetic material (DNA) of cancerous cells to avoid their unwanted growth and division. The RINV affects the management and quality of life of patients which further reduces the patient outcome. RINV depends on RT related factors (dose, fractionation, irradiation volume, RT techniques) and patient related factors like (gender, health conditions, age, concurrent chemotherapy, psychological state, and tumour stage). RT is an active area of research and there is only limited progress in tackling the RINV crisis. Advanced technological methods are adopted that led to better understanding of total lethal doses. Radiation therapy also affects the immunity system that leads to radiation induced immune responses and inflammation. Radio sensitizers are used to sensitize the tumour cells to radiations that further prevent the normal cell damage from radiation exposure. There is a need for future studies and researches to re-evaluate the data available from previous trials in RINV to make better effective antiemetic regimen. The article focuses on radiation therapy induced nausea and vomiting along with their mechanism of action and treatment strategies in order to have a remarkable patient care.

An overview of acute gastrointestinal side effects of systemic anti-cancer therapy and their management

Treatment-related acute gastrointestinal toxicities are a common and often debilitating hurdle encountered in the treatment of cancer patients. While the introduction of targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors has led to improvements in survival outcomes, their use has also been complicated by a high frequency of clinically important adverse effects. Gastrointestinal toxicities such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and hepatotoxicity represent potentially serious adverse events that may necessitate dose reductions, treatment interruptions and cessation of treatment. An improved knowledge of the incidence, pathophysiology, management and prophylaxis of these toxicities is crucial in order to reduce patient morbidity and mortality. In this review, we discuss the main gastrointestinal toxicities associated with chemotherapy and targeted therapies in oncology, outlining their incidence, pathophysiology and expert management guidelines.

Exploring the nausea experience among female patients with breast cancer; A pilot interview study

•

Nausea is a complicated symptom to report and measure in clinical trials.

•

Better understanding the nausea experience will improve clinical trial designs.

•

Patients have preferences for symptom definitions and nausea grading scales.

•

Patients experience different intensities of nausea.

•

Describing nausea sub-features like duration, timing and character is difficult.

Introduction

Nausea is a difficult symptom to report and measure in clinical trials. We conducted a pilot interview study to improve our understanding of the nausea experience.

Materials and methods

Female patients with breast cancer that had experienced nausea during radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy underwent semi-structured interviews that focused on patient-defined and standard definitions, preferences for nausea grading scales, and nausea sub-features: intensity, location, timing/duration, character, associated symptoms, precipitating/alleviating factors, impact on quality of life.

Results

10 patients were interviewed. Patients defined nausea more variably than vomiting and retching/dry heaving. An ordinal grading scale with a 0–10 intensity range was preferred over visual-analogue and qualitative scales. Patients had experienced different intensities of nausea and deemed reporting their worst, average and least intensities feasible. High-intensity episodes were deemed more problematic than low-intensity episodes regardless of their duration. The duration and character of nausea were difficult to describe. A range of associated symptoms, precipitating and alleviating factors were documented. Nausea had a detrimental impact on quality of life.

Conclusions

Nausea has a range of subjective and objective features. Our pilot study provided valuable information that will inform the design of a planned larger survey study. Creating an operational clinical trial definition for nausea appears feasible.

Adherence to ASCO for Prophylaxis of Acute Chemotherapy- Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Iran

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the scariest chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. We evaluated the adherence to the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the latest guideline recommendations, for the management of acute CINV at our institute.

METHODS

During a 6-months cross-sectional study on outpatient's cancer patients, we collected data from the prescription documents during temporary hospitalization and compared the results with ASCO guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The most prescribed prophylactic regimens for the management of CINV were combination of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone and metoclopramide (51.8%). Regarding prescription compatibility in our center with ASCO guideline recommnedations, selection of different regimens for prophylaxis of acute CINV in our institute was compliant in 0 %, 22%, 4%, and 40% of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenic potential of chemotherapy regimen groupss, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although our hospital is a referral and university-affiliated center, adherence to the ASCO guideline recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV was poor.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.

RESULTS

From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11-1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported "emetic episode/event" measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., "response," "control," "success") that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.

Should clinicians always administer dexamethasone beyond 24 h after chemotherapy to control delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic regimens? Insight from the re-evaluation of two randomized studies

Purpose

Data from two noninferiority trials of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen were assessed for the impact of acute nausea and vomiting on delayed outcome in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC).

Methods

Chemo-naive patients were randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy, or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 in the MEC (n = 237) and AC (n = 380) cohorts. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not they experienced vomiting and/or moderate-to-severe nausea during the acute phase (high- and low-risk groups, respectively). Primary efficacy endpoint was the complete protection (CP) against delayed vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea. Patient’s satisfaction (0–100 mm visual analog scale) was also analyzed.

Results

Among the 209 low-risk patients undergoing MEC, delayed CP occurred in 82.9 % of those who received single-dose dexamethasone and 89.8 % of those who received 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.165). Of the 271 low-risk patients undergoing AC, CP was achieved in 71.7 % of those treated with single-dose dexamethasone and 84.2 % treated with 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.019). In spite of these observations, the patient satisfaction data was not influenced by dexamethasone regimen. In both cohorts, occurrence of acute vomiting or moderate-to-severe nausea was the key independent-predictor for delayed vomiting or nausea, respectively.

Conclusions

The dexamethasone-sparing regimen provides adequate delayed protection in patients undergoing MEC who are at low risk for delayed symptoms, and can still be discussed for low-risk AC patients as the daily difference in control is modest. Additional dexamethasone doses can be customized on the basis of occurrence or absence of acute symptoms in the first cycle of MEC and even AC.

Aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for bone metastases: a prospective pilot study

PURPOSE

We evaluated the novel combination of aprepitant and granisetron for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (rinv) among patients receiving moderately-emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases.

METHODS

In this single-centre two-arm nonrandomized prospective pilot study, patients undergoing single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) received aprepitant 125 mg and granisetron 2 mg on the day of radiotherapy and aprepitant 80 mg on each of the first 2 days after the day of radiotherapy. Patients undergoing multiple-fraction radiotherapy (20 Gy in 5 fractions) received aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 of radiotherapy, aprepitant 80 mg on days 3 and 5 of radiotherapy, and granisetron 2 mg on every day of radiotherapy. Symptoms and total medication intake were recorded daily during the acute phase (day 1 of radiotherapy until the first day after the last day of radiotherapy), and the delayed phase (days 2-10 after the last day of radiotherapy). Control of vomiting, retching, and nausea was defined as no symptoms and no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Control rates for single-fraction patients (n = 13) were 100% for acute nausea, 62% for delayed nausea, 100% for acute vomiting and retching, and 85% for delayed vomiting and retching. Control rates for multiple-fraction patients (n = 6) were 67% for acute nausea, 83% for delayed nausea, 67% for acute vomiting and retching, and 83% for delayed vomiting and retching. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities attributable to the study intervention were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of aprepitant and granisetron was safe and efficacious for the prophylaxis of rinv after both single- and multiple-fraction moderately emetogenic radiotherapy for thoracolumbar bone metastases. Our results require confirmation in a larger population.

Predictors of antiemetic alteration in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND

Better knowledge of patient and cancer treatment factors associated with nausea/vomiting (NV) in pediatric oncology patients could enhance prophylaxis. We aimed to describe such factors in children receiving treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

METHODS

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 1,668 hospitalized children undergoing treatment for AML from the Pediatric Health Information System database (39 hospitals, 1999-2010). Antiemetic alteration, which included switch (a change in prescribed 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists) and rescue (receipt of an adjunct antiemetic), were first validated and then used as surrogates of problematic NV. Logistic and negative binomial regression modeling were used to test whether patient characteristics were associated with problematic NV.

RESULTS

Increasing age is associated with greater odds of experiencing antiemetic switch and higher relative rate of antiemetic rescue. Within a treatment cycle, each consecutive inpatient chemotherapy day decreased the likelihood of requiring antiemetic alteration. Each consecutive inpatient-day post-chemotherapy was associated with decreased need for switch, but increased need for rescue. Subsequent cycles of AML therapy were associated with lower odds of antiemetic switch on both chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy days, a lower rate of antiemetic rescue on chemotherapy days, and an increased rate of rescue on non-chemotherapy days.

CONCLUSION

In pediatric patients with AML, increasing age is strongly associated with greater antiemetic alteration. Antiemetic alteration occurs early in treatment overall, and early within each admission. While additional cycles of therapy are associated with less alteration overall, there is persistent rescue in the days after chemotherapy, suggesting additional etiologies of NV in pediatric cancer patients.

Incidence and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer

The objective of this study was to analyze the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer and identify strategies used by them to control these signs and symptoms. Data for this cross-sectional study were collected through interviews during the last cycle of chemotherapy, between August 2011 and March 2012, in a university hospital in the State of São Paulo. The sample consisted of 22 women between the ages of 31 and 70, of whom 77.3% reported nausea and 50% vomiting during treatment. Regarding symptom management, 82% of the women reported having received some information centered on the use of prescribed medication. However, 27.3% did not know what medication they had taken. We concluded that there is a lack of systematic care and institutional protocol to guide professionals in providing standardized information to women so they can better control nausea and vomiting.

Rationale and design of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness study

BACKGROUND

Preventing and managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain important goals. The objective of the Pan Australasian chemotherapy-induced emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study was to describe the incidence of CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in current clinical practice in Australia and five Asian countries (China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan).

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective, observational study of CINV was conducted at 31 sites in these six countries from August 2011 through September 2012 and enrolled male and female adult patients (≥18 years of age) naïve to HEC and MEC who were scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day chemotherapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting or use of rescue therapy, during chemotherapy cycle 1 in the overall phase (0-120 h), acute phase (0-24 h), and delayed phase (>24-120 h). Study outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Primary outcomes, CINV incidence, and treatment patterns (chemotherapy, CINV prophylaxis, rescue medication prescription, and rescue medication use) were assessed by phase (overall, acute, delayed), by cycle (as appropriate), within and across countries, and by level of chemotherapy emetogenicity (HEC vs. MEC). The impact of CINV in cycle 1 on CINV in cycle 2 was analyzed for all patients with evaluable data for cycle 2. No site-specific analyses were performed. The remainder of this special series of papers reports on the results of this study.

Evaluation of risk factors predicting chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting: results from a European prospective observational study

CONTEXT

Demographic, personal, clinical, and behavioral factors predicting chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been assessed in the past, but inconsistencies exist in the literature, studies have methodological shortcomings, and many risk factors have been examined in cross-sectional studies and univariate analyses.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the predictive power of personal and treatment-related characteristics in the development of CINV, using a large and prospectively evaluated sample of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients receiving routine chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a multicountry, multisite prospective study over three cycles of chemotherapy. Adult patients from eight European countries about to receive highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were recruited. Clinicians completed a case report form at or before the initial chemotherapy treatment, recording patient demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. Participants completed a daily patient diary for six days per chemotherapy cycle describing their CINV experience. Baseline patient data also included a history of nausea/vomiting (yes/no), patient expectation of nausea (0-100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]), prechemotherapy anxiety (0-100 mm VAS), and prechemotherapy nausea (0-100 mm VAS) measured during the 24-hour period before chemotherapy initiation.

RESULTS

There were 991 evaluable patients with complete Cycle 1 data, 888 for Cycle 2 data, and 769 for Cycle 3 data. A complex picture of predictor variables was shown, with different contribution of variables to the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV. Key predictor variables included the use of antiemetics inconsistent with international guidelines, younger age, prechemotherapy nausea, and no CINV complete response in an earlier cycle (all at P < 0.05). Anxiety, history of nausea/vomiting, and expectations of nausea were important predictors for some phases and cycles but not consistently across the CINV pathway.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide clarity for the relative contribution of a set of characteristics in the development of CINV. Following evidence-based clinical antiemetic guidelines is of paramount importance, alongside treating patients with increased risk for CINV more aggressively, which both could lead to more optimal CINV management. These data can assist clinicians in making decisions about the antiemetic management of their patients.

The effectiveness of acupressure for the control and management of chemotherapy-related acute and delayed nausea: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Both positive and negative results have been reported in the literature from the use of acupressure at the P6 point, providing evidence of highly suggestive but not conclusive results.

OBJECTIVES

To clarify whether acupressure is effective in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

A randomized, three-group, sham-controlled trial was designed. Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy were randomized to receive standardized antiemetics and acupressure wristbands, sham acupressure wristbands, or antiemetics alone. Primary outcome assessment (nausea) was carried out daily for seven days per chemotherapy cycle over four cycles. Secondary outcomes included vomiting, psychological distress, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients were randomized. Primary outcome analysis (nausea in Cycle 1) revealed no statistically significant differences between the three groups, although nausea levels in the proportion of patients using wristbands (both real and sham) were somewhat lower than those in the proportion of patients using antiemetics-only group. Adjusting for gender, age, and emetic risk of chemotherapy, the odds ratio of lower nausea experience was 1.18 and 1.42 for the acupressure and sham acupressure groups, respectively. A gender interaction effect was evident (P = 0.002). No significant differences were detected in relation to vomiting, anxiety, and quality-of-life measures.

CONCLUSION

No clear recommendations can be made about the use of acupressure wristbands in the management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting as results did not reach statistical significance. However, the study provided evidence of encouraging signals in relation to improved nausea experience and warrants further consideration in both practice and further clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with the ISRCT register, number ISRCTN87604299.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: pathophysiology and therapeutic principles

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major determinant of quality of life in cancer patients. In addition, the perceptions that oncology professionals have about CINV quite often do not coincide with reality. Antineoplastic agents and their combinations can be categorised according to their emetogenic level, and this categorisation is helpful for classifying the severity of CINV and treating it. All CINV treatment guidelines emphasise the need to administer prophylaxis to patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. With the introduction of NK1 receptor antagonists, the control of acute and delayed CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy schedules has improved in the great majority of patients. NK1 receptor antagonists have been demonstrated to improve the control of CINV in all risk subgroups of patients.

Is a dexamethasone-sparing strategy capable of preventing acute and delayed emesis caused by combined doxorubicin and paclitaxel for breast cancer? Analysis of a phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of palonosetron without delayed dexamethasone dosing against emesis was investigated in patients scheduled to receive the corticosteroid-containing combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) for 3 cycles.

METHODS

Chemo-naïve women with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) were eligible. Patients received palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before chemotherapy, however, all patients also received a premedication consisting of prednisone (25 mg orally the evening before therapy) and hydrocortisone (250 mg intravenously just before paclitaxel). The primary end point was complete control (CC; no vomiting, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase (days 1-5) following cycle 1.

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients were enrolled and evaluable (median age 50 years). Fifty-six patients (74%; 95% CI 62-83%) achieved overall CC. Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) CC rates were 78 and 74%, respectively. No vomiting rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases were 85, 85 and 83%, respectively. An exploratory analysis showed only a small decrease in the probability of achieving CC between cycle 1 (74%) and cycle 3 (66%).

CONCLUSION

The dexamethasone-sparing strategy prevented emesis in more than 70% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AT chemotherapy.

Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy: meta-analysis of individual patient data examining the effect of age on outcome in two phase III trials

Purpose

Data from two randomized trials, evaluating a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone against emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were assessed for the impact of age on outcome in a pooled sample of women receiving anthracycline and/or cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy.

Methods

Chemo-naïve breast cancer patients randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy (n = 200), or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone (8 mg) on days 2 and 3 (n = 205), were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) in the 5-day study period. The effect of the 1-day regimen and age (<50 and ≥50 years) was investigated by a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Results

Younger patients comprised 43 % and 49 % of the 1-day and 3-day regimen groups, respectively; 94 % of the pooled sample received the AC combination. There were no between-treatment differences in CR rate according to age during all observation periods. In the 1-day regimen group, 55.2 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 54 % of older patients. In the 3-day regimen group, 51.5 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 58.7 % of older patients. In the adjusted analysis, younger age was not associated with overall CR to treatment (risk difference, −3.1 %; 95 % CI, −13.0 to 6.7 %; P = 0.533).

Conclusions

These results provide evidence that, irrespective of age, the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall anti-emetic protection in women undergoing AC-containing chemotherapy.

The impact of chemotherapy-related nausea on patients' nutritional status, psychological distress and quality of life

PURPOSE

Nausea is a troublesome and distressing symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy. While vomiting is well controlled with current antiemetics, nausea is a more difficult symptom to manage. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of nausea on nutritional status, quality of life and psychological distress.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study over two cycles of chemotherapy. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a measure of nutritional status (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at the end of each chemotherapy cycle (around day 10 post-chemotherapy).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 104 patients, primarily female, receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. While vomiting was minimal (5.2-14.6 % of the patients), high levels of nausea were observed (55.2-72.9 %), and severe nausea (>6 on a 0-10 scale) was reported by 20.5-29.2 % of the participants. Severe nausea had a borderline significant impact in relation to physical functioning (p = 0.025) and a significant impact on nutritional status (severe acute nausea, p = 0.003; severe delayed nausea, p = 0.017). Clinically meaningful changes were observed in relation to the FACT-G total score.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea does have an impact on nutritional status and physical functioning and can impair anxiety and quality of life. As a key symptom associated with other symptoms, it is imperative that greater attention is given to managing treatment-related nausea through innovative non-pharmacological and nutritional interventions.

Palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: effect of established risk factors on treatment outcome in a phase III trial

BACKGROUND

The non-inferiority of palonosetron plus 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has been previously demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this prespecified post hoc analysis were to demonstrate the non-inferiority hypothesis in an adjusted model for known risk factors (age, gender, alcohol consumption, and type of MEC [anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based versus other MEC]) for CINV and to explore the impact on antiemetic outcome of these risk factors.

METHODS

Chemonaive patients (n = 324) with solid tumors were randomized to receive palonosetron 0.25 mg IV plus dexamethasone 8 mg IV on day 1 of chemotherapy or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary end point was complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) during the 5-day study period. A modified intention-to-treat approach was used for multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of the 1-day regimen was confirmed even after adjusting for risk factors (risk difference -4.4%, 95% CI -14.1% to 5.4%; P = .381). Only age less than 50 years (P = .044) independently predicted a poor outcome of antiemetic treatment. However, most of the younger patients were women (1-day regimen 81.8%, 3-day regimen 88.4%) who underwent AC-based chemotherapy (1-day regimen 61.1%, 3-day regimen 71.0%). There were no significant between-treatment differences in the CR rate according to risk factors.

CONCLUSION

This analysis confirmed that the 1-day regimen provides a valid treatment option for prevention of CINV in delayed, non-AC-based MEC.

Behavioral patterns associated with chemotherapy-induced emesis: a potential signature for nausea in musk shrews

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with many diseases, including cancer and its treatments. Although the neurological basis of vomiting is reasonably well known, an understanding of the physiology of nausea is lacking. The primary barrier to mechanistic research on the nausea system is the lack of an animal model. Indeed investigating the effects of anti-nausea drugs in pre-clinical models is difficult because the primary readout is often emesis. It is known that animals show a behavioral profile of sickness, associated with reduced feeding and movement, and possibly these general measures are signs of nausea. Studies attempting to relate the occurrence of additional behaviors to emesis have produced mixed results. Here we applied a statistical method, temporal pattern (t-pattern) analysis, to determine patterns of behavior associated with emesis. Musk shrews were injected with the chemotherapy agent cisplatin (a gold standard in emesis research) to induce acute (<24 h) and delayed (>24 h) emesis. Emesis and other behaviors were coded and tracked from video files. T-pattern analysis revealed hundreds of non-random patterns of behavior associated with emesis, including sniffing, changes in body contraction, and locomotion. There was little evidence that locomotion was inhibited by the occurrence of emesis. Eating, drinking, and other larger body movements including rearing, grooming, and body rotation, were significantly less common in emesis-related behavioral patterns in real versus randomized data. These results lend preliminary evidence for the expression of emesis-related behavioral patterns, including reduced ingestive behavior, grooming, and exploratory behaviors. In summary, this statistical approach to behavioral analysis in a pre-clinical emesis research model could be used to assess the more global effects and limitations of drugs used to control nausea and its potential correlates, including reduced feeding and activity levels.