Radiation-induced emesis: a prospective observational multicenter Italian trial. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Active Breathing Coordinator reduces radiation dose to the stomach in patients with left breast cancer

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Gastric dose parameters comparison for deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) or free breathing (FB) mode during radiotherapy (RT) for left-sided breast cancer patients (LSBCPs) has not been investigated before. This study aimed to analyze the impact of Active Breath Coordinator (ABC)-DIBH technique on the dose received by the stomach during RT for LSBCPs and to provide organ-specific dosimetric parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 73 LSBCPs. The dosimetric parameters of the stomach were compared between FB and DIBH mode. The correlation between the stomach volume and dosimetric parameters was analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared to FB mode, statistically significant reductions were observed in gastric dose parameters in ABC-DIBH mode, including Dmax (46.60 vs 17.25, p < 0.001), D1cc (38.42 vs 9.60, p < 0.001), Dmean (4.10 vs 0.80, p < 0.001), V40Gy (0.50 vs 0.00, p < 0.001), V30Gy (6.30 vs 0.00, p < 0.001), V20Gy (20.80 vs 0.00, p < 0.001), V10Gy (51.10 vs 0.77, p < 0.001), and V5Gy (93.20 vs 9.60, p < 0.001). ABC-DIBH increased the distance between the stomach and the breast PTV when compared to FB, from 1.3 cm to 2.8 cm (p < 0.001). Physiologic decrease in stomach volume was not found from FB to ABC-DIBH (415.54 cm3 vs 411.61 cm3, p = 0.260). The stomach volume showed a positive correlation with V40Gy (r2 = 0.289; p < 0.05), V30Gy (r2 = 0.287; p < 0.05), V20Gy (r2 = 0.343; p < 0.05), V10Gy (r2 = 0.039; p < 0.001), V5Gy (r2 = 0.439; p < 0.001), Dmax (r2 = 0.269; p < 0.05) and D1cc (r2 = 0.278; p < 0.05) in FB mode. While in ABC-DIBH mode, most stomach dosimetric parameters were not correlated with gastric volume.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ABC-DIBH in LSBCPs radiotherapy resulted in lower irradiation of the stomach. Larger stomach volume was associated with statistically significantly higher dose irradiation in FB mode. To reduce radiotherapy related side effects in FB mode, patients should be fast for at least 2 hours before the CT simulation and treatment.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04636632.

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

BACKGROUND

Nausea seems underreported during pelvic radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

A multidisciplinary expert opinion on CINV and RINV, unmet needs and practical real-life approaches

Introduction: A range of combination chemotherapy regimens are currently used in clinical practice. However, international antiemetic guidelines often only categorize the emetogenic potential of single agents rather than the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. To manage the nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic combinations, guidelines suggest antiemetics that are appropriate for the component drug with the highest emetogenic potential. Furthermore, antiemetic guidelines generally do not consider the influence of other factors, including individual patient characteristics, on the emetic effects of cancer treatments. Similarly, the emetogenic potential of radiotherapy is stratified only according to the site of radiation, while other factors contributing to emetic risk are overlooked.Areas covered: An Expert Panel was convened to examine unresolved issues and summarize the current clinical research on managing nausea and vomiting associated with combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy.Expert opinion: The panel identified the incidence of nausea and vomiting induced by multi-drug combination therapies currently used to treat cancer at different anatomic sites and by radiotherapy in the presence of other risk factors. Based on these data and the clinical experience of panel members, several suggestions are made for a practical approach to prevent or manage nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy regimens and radiation therapy.

Proton beam therapy for gastrointestinal cancers: past, present, and future

Despite the conformality of modern X-ray therapy limiting high dose received by normal tissues the physical properties of X-rays make it impossible to avoid dose being delivered distal to the target. This "exit dose" is likely clinically significant especially for patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers when considering that even low dose received by the heart, lungs, bowel, and other radiosensitive structures can lead to morbidity and even may affect long-term tumor control. In contrast, proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers no "exit dose" and a growing body of literature suggests that this may improve clinical outcomes by reducing toxicity and even allowing for safe dose intensification to enhance tumor control. While there are not yet robust prospective data demonstrating the role of PBT for GI cancers, emerging retrospective data provide a strong rationale for continued study of how PBT may improve the therapeutic ratio for these patients. Here we review these data as well as discuss ongoing clinical trials of PBT for GI cancers.

Radiation-Induced Emesis: A Problem with Many Open Questions

Radiation-induced emesis (RIE) is often considered to be less frequent and less severe than nausea/vomiting encountered in patients receiving chemotherapy, although the issue has only been addressed in a few studies. It is possible that radiation oncologists undervalue the clinical relevance of RIE. If untreated, sickness produces an adverse effect on the patient's quality of life and may cause interruption of the treatment with possible unfavorable effects on tumor control. A prospective observational trial on RIE has recently been published by the Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy (IGARR). The study evidenced that the overall cumulative incidence of vomiting and nausea occurred in about 40% of patients undergoing radiotherapy, and that the irradiated site, radiation field size, and previous chemotherapy were significant risk factors. Patients submitted to abdominal radiotherapy were at major risk of vomiting and nausea (71%), followed by those treated on the thorax, brain, head and neck, and pelvis (49%, 40%, 40%%, and 39%, respectively). Few small randomized clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of various antiemetic drugs in preventing RIE. Generally, patients who entered these trials were those submitted to total body irradiation, half body irradiation or upper abdomen irradiation because of the greater risk of developing nausea and/or vomiting. The few controlled trials published have shown that dopamine receptor antagonists were effective in only about 50% of patients, whereas 5-hydroxytrypta-mine antagonists were more effective. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of antiemetics have recently been published by MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) and ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology). Unfortunately, their recommendations were quite different, when classifying radiation emetogenic risk categories and when giving indications for the use of antiemetic drugs. However, MASCC and ASCO recommendations both suggested a prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid for patients submitted to high emetogenic radiotherapy. There is evidence about the effectiveness of oral dexamethasone alone in fractionated upper abdomen radiotherapy and the use of a rescue antiemetic treatment as a possible alternative to the prophylaxis. Many questions remain open, and other prospective controlled trials on RIE are needed to answer them. Considering that radiotherapy to the abdomen, pelvis and thorax presents the most frequent problems in radiation oncology clinical practice, future trials on RIE should deal with these irradiated sites. The IGARR is carrying out a double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing prophylactic ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron and dexamethasone given as a rescue treatment in patients undergoing fractionated radiotherapy to the upper abdomen.

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.

Effectiveness and toxicity of conventional radiotherapy treatment for painful spinal metastases: a detailed course of side effects after opposing fields versus a single posterior field technique

Background

Conventional radiotherapy for painful spinal metastases can be delivered with a single posterior-anterior (PA) or two opposed anterior-posterior (APPA) fields. We studied the effectiveness and toxicity of both techniques and studied whether treatment technique was predictive for abdominal and skin toxicity.

Patients and methods

Within the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study, 343 patients received 8 Gray in a single fraction or 24 Gray in six fractions for painful spinal metastases. Treatment technique was not randomized. At baseline and weekly during follow-up, patients reported pain and other physical complaints. Any complaint increasing within 4 weeks after treatment was noted as a side effect. Pain response was calculated according to international standards, taking into account changes in pain score and medication. Repeated measurement analyses and multivariate logistic analyses were performed.

Results

Patients were mainly treated on the thoracic (34%) and lumbar (53%) spine and 73% received a PA field. Pain response was similar between both techniques (74%). In patients treated at the thoraco-lumbar and lumbar spine, with multiple fractions, significantly more abdominal complaints were noticed. In multivariate analysis, radiotherapy technique did not predict for side effects.

Conclusion

Conventional radiotherapy of painful spinal metastases provides limited toxicity. Radiotherapy technique is not an independent predictor of abdominal and skin toxicity of irradiation.

Correlation between delivered radiation doses to the brainstem or vestibular organ and nausea & vomiting toxicity in patients with head and neck cancers - an observational clinical trial

Objective

Today intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) can be considered the standard of care in patients with head and neck tumors. IMRT treatment plans are proven to reduce acute treatment related side effects by optimal sparing of organs at risk (OAR). At the same time, areas that were out of the former 3D fields now receive low radiation doses. Amongst those areas the brainstem (BS) and the vestibular system (VS) are known to be physiologically connected to nausea and vomiting (NV). In our study we tried to find out, if doses to these areas are linked to NV.

Material & Methods

NV were assessed at different time points during treatment in 26 patients leading to 98 documented toxicity scores that were later correlated to dose deposition in the described areas. Patients were either treated with normo-fractionated or simultaneously integrated boost IMRT plans in a curative approach. Subareas of the BS as well as the VS were delineated. Toxicity was rated based on the common toxicity criteria (CTCAE Version 4.0). Other factors such as age, gender, chemotherapy, location of the tumor, irradiated volume and unilateral dose to the VS were taken into account and analyzed also.

Results

The majority (65.4%) of our patients experienced an episode of NV at least once during treatment. NV was more frequent when treating the oropharyngeal region compared to the hypopharyngeal region, as well as when patients were female and/ or of a younger age. Nevertheless, upon statistical analysis (ROC analysis, ‘within/ between analysis’) no significant association between delivered doses to subareas and toxicity could be demonstrated.

Conclusion

In our analysis, no significant correlation between radiation dose to the BS or the VS and the occurrence of NV could be found. Therefore, until conclusive data are available, we recommend to rely on the published data regarding OAR tolerance within the BS and not to compromise on dose coverage.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-017-0846-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Role of Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer in the Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Settings

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Although surgery remains the only curative treatment, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are frequently used. In the adjuvant setting, radiation is usually delivered with chemotherapy to eradicate residual microscopic or macroscopic disease in the resection bed. Neoadjuvant radiation therapy has become more frequently utilized. This article reviews the historical and modern literature regarding radiation therapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, focusing on the evolution of radiation therapy techniques and clinical trials in an attempt to identify patients best suited to receiving radiation therapy.

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.

An Overview of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is common occurrence in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. When radiation is prescribed to certain sites, it can lead to retching, vomiting, and nausea that can lead to impairments on quality of life and even effect adherence to treatment regimes. The present study reports select literature examining RINV phenomena and reviews mechanisms of RINV as well as current management strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using search strategies such as "radiation-induced nausea vomiting," "RINV," and "radiation and antiemetics." The search was limited to articles published from January 2000 to April 2016 and those that involved humans and were published in English. Information regarding emetic risk of each treatment and management strategies used were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this select review. The current evidence regarding the standard antiemetics for RIINV are discussed, as well as upcoming therapies and future potential endeavors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients treated with emetogenic radiotherapy are at risk of experiencing RINV. RINV has the potential to impact patient quality of life and treatment delivery and optimal prophylactic strategies should be implemented, particularly in radiation naïve patients. More awareness on these topics is warranted, so that standard antiemetic regimens can be used in both the prophylactic and rescue settings.

Beam path toxicity in candidate organs-at-risk: assessment of radiation emetogenesis for patients receiving head and neck intensity modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

To investigate potential dose-response relationship between radiation-associated nausea and vomiting (RANV) reported during radiotherapy and candidate nausea/vomiting-associated regions of interest (CNV-ROIs) in head and neck (HNC) squamous cell carcinomas.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

A total of 130 patients treated with IMRT with squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck were evaluated. For each patient, CNV-ROIs were segmented manually on planning CT images. Clinical on-treatment RANV data were reconstructed by a review of the records for all patients. Dosimetric data parameters were recorded from dose-volume histograms. Nausea and vomiting reports were concatenated as a single binary "Any N/V" variable, and as a "CTC-V2+" variable.

RESULTS

The mean dose to CNV-ROIs was higher for patients experiencing RANV events. For patients receiving IMRT alone, a dose-response effect was observed with varying degrees of magnitude, at a statistically significant level for the area postrema, brainstem, dorsal vagal complex, medulla oblongata, solitary nucleus, oropharyngeal mucosa and whole brain CNV-ROIs.

CONCLUSION

RANV is a common therapy-related morbidity facing patients receiving HNC radiotherapy, and, for those receiving radiotherapy-alone, is associated with modifiable dose to specific CNS structures.

Biological Effects of Space Radiation and Development of Effective Countermeasures

As part of a program to assess the adverse biological effects expected from astronaut exposure to space radiation, numerous different biological effects relating to astronaut health have been evaluated. There has been major focus recently on the assessment of risks related to exposure to solar particle event (SPE) radiation. The effects related to various types of space radiation exposure that have been evaluated are: gene expression changes (primarily associated with programmed cell death and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling), oxidative stress, gastrointestinal tract bacterial translocation and immune system activation, peripheral hematopoietic cell counts, emesis, blood coagulation, skin, behavior/fatigue (including social exploration, submaximal exercise treadmill and spontaneous locomotor activity), heart functions, alterations in biological endpoints related to astronaut vision problems (lumbar puncture/intracranial pressure, ocular ultrasound and histopathology studies), and survival, as well as long-term effects such as cancer and cataract development. A number of different countermeasures have been identified that can potentially mitigate or prevent the adverse biological effects resulting from exposure to space radiation.

A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)

With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as well as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients' average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V18Gy), stomach (mean and V20Gy), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V18Gy), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V20Gy and mean dose), and small bowel (V15Gy absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.

Effects of solar particle event proton radiation on parameters related to ferret emesis

The effectiveness of simulated solar particle event (SPE) proton radiation to induce retching and vomiting was evaluated in the ferret experimental animal model. The endpoints measured in the study included: (1) the fraction of animals that retched or vomited, (2) the number of retches or vomits observed, (3) the latency period before the first retch or vomit and (4) the duration between the first and last retching or vomiting events. The results demonstrated that γ ray and proton irradiation delivered at a high dose rate of 0.5 Gy/min induced dose-dependent changes in the endpoints related to retching and vomiting. The minimum radiation doses required to induce statistically significant changes in retching- and vomiting-related endpoints were 0.75 and 1.0 Gy, respectively, and the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton radiation at the high dose rate did not significantly differ from 1. Similar but less consistent and smaller changes in the retching- and vomiting-related endpoints were observed for groups irradiated with γ rays and protons delivered at a low dose rate of 0.5 Gy/h. Since this low dose rate is similar to a radiation dose rate expected during a SPE, these results suggest that the risk of SPE radiation-induced vomiting is low and may reach statistical significance only when the radiation dose reaches 1 Gy or higher.

Acupuncture compared with placebo acupuncture in radiotherapy-induced nausea--a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

It is not known if verum (real) acupuncture is effective for nausea and vomiting (emesis) during radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly treated 215 blinded cancer patients with verum: penetrating 'deqi' creating acupuncture (n = 109) or non-penetrating sham needles (n = 106) two to three times per week. The patients documented emesis daily during the radiotherapy period. Primary end point was the number of patients with at least one episode of nausea.

RESULTS

In the verum and the sham acupuncture group, 70% and 62% experienced nausea at least once during the radiotherapy period (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4) for a mean number of 10.1 and 8.7 days. Twenty five percent and 28% vomited, and 42% and 37% used antiemetic drugs at least once, respectively. Ninety-five percent in the verum acupuncture group and 96% in the sham acupuncture group believed that the treatment had been effective against nausea. In both groups, 67% experienced positive effects on relaxation, mood, sleep or pain reduction and 89% wished to receive the treatment again.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture creating deqi is not more effective than sham in radiotherapy-induced nausea, but in this study, nearly all patients in both groups experienced that the treatment was effective for nausea.

Pilot testing of methods for evaluation of acupuncture for emesis during radiotherapy: a randomised single subject experimental design

BACKGROUND

Many acupuncture studies are of weak methodological quality, possibly due to lack of pilot testing. This pilot study tested design features, including test of feasibility, compliance to treatment and data collection, level of blinding success and the patients' potential perceived effects of the treatment, in preparation for an efficacy study.

METHOD

A modified single subject experimental design was conducted. 10 cancer patients were randomised to verum penetrating acupuncture or non-penetrating sham needles for 30 min 2-3 times/week during radiotherapy over abdomen/pelvis. They answered test-retested emesis questions (r=0.527-1.0) covering nausea, vomiting, use of antiemetics, wellbeing and activities of daily living.

RESULTS

Overall, the patients completed 98% of the 345 emesis-questionnaire days and 101 of the 115 offered treatments. All patients believed they received verum acupuncture. 10 patients experienced antiemetic effects, seven relaxation, five pain-reduction and five experienced sleep improvement. Two types of nausea questions showed absolute concordance (r=1.0) (n of observations=456). Nausea was experienced by one of five verum acupuncture treated patients (duration median 0% of the radiotherapy-days) and four of five sham acupuncture treated patients (duration median 24% of the radiotherapy-days). Patients experiencing nausea rated decreased wellbeing and performance of daily activities compared to patients free from nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients were blinded, complied with verum/sham treatments and data-collection, and believed they had effects of the received treatment. The methods for verum/sham treatment and data collection may thus be used in an adequately powered randomised controlled study of the effect of acupuncture for radiotherapy-induced emesis.

Getting the grip on nonspecific treatment effects: emesis in patients randomized to acupuncture or sham compared to patients receiving standard care

Background

It is not known whether or not delivering acupuncture triggers mechanisms cited as placebo and if acupuncture or sham reduces radiotherapy-induced emesis more than standard care.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy over abdominal/pelvic regions were randomized to verum (penetrating) acupuncture (n = 109; 99 provided data) in the alleged antiemetic acupuncture point PC6 or sham acupuncture (n = 106; 101 provided data) performed with a telescopic non-penetrating needle at a sham point 2–3 times/week during the whole radiotherapy period. The acupuncture cohort was compared to a reference cohort receiving standard care (n = 62; 62 provided data). The occurrence of emesis in each group was compared after a mean dose of 27 Gray. Nausea and vomiting were experienced during the preceding week by 37 and 8% in the verum acupuncture group, 38 and 7% in the sham acupuncture group and 63 and 15% in the standard care group, respectively. The lower occurrence of nausea in the acupuncture cohort (verum and sham) compared to patients receiving standard care (37% versus 63%, relative risk (RR) 0.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.5–0.8) was also true after adjustment for potential confounding factors for nausea (RR 0.8, CI 0.6 to 0.9). Nausea intensity was lower in the acupuncture cohort (78% no nausea, 13% a little, 8% moderate, 1% much) compared to the standard care cohort (52% no nausea, 32% a little, 15% moderate, 2% much) (p = 0.002). The acupuncture cohort expected antiemetic effects from their treatment (95%). Patients who expected nausea had increased risk for nausea compared to patients who expected low risk for nausea (RR 1.6; Cl 1.2–2.4).

Conclusions/Significance

Patients treated with verum or sham acupuncture experienced less nausea and vomiting compared to patients receiving standard care, possibly through a general care effect or due to the high level of patient expectancy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00621660

Factors associated with weight loss during radiotherapy in patients with stage I or II head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to identify factors associated with weight loss during radiotherapy (RT) in patients with stage I or II head and neck (HN) cancer.

METHODS

This study was conducted as part of a phase III chemoprevention trial. A total of 540 patients were randomized. The patients were weighed before and after RT. Patients' characteristics, dietary intake, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), tumor characteristic, treatment characteristics, and acute adverse effects of RT were evaluated at baseline and during RT. Factors independently associated with weight loss during RT were identified using the multiple linear regression (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

The mean weight loss during RT was 2.2 kg (standard deviation, 3.4). In bivariate analyses, the occurrence of adverse effects of RT and most of the HRQOL dimensions evaluated during RT were correlated with weight loss. In the multivariate analysis, eight factors were associated with a greater weight loss: all HN cancer sites other than the glottic larynx (P < 0.001), TNM stage II disease (P = 0.01), higher pre-RT body weight (P < 0.001), dysphagia before RT (P < 0.005), higher mucosa adverse effect of RT (P = 0.03), lower dietary energy intake during RT (P < 0.001), lower score of the digestive dimension on the Head and Neck Radiotherapy Questionnaire (P < 0.001) and a higher score of the constipation symptom on the EORTC QLQ-C30 during RT (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results underline the importance of maintaining energy intake in early stage HN cancer patients during RT and the importance of preventing and treating adverse effects.

Risk factors at pretreatment predicting treatment-induced nausea and vomiting in Australian cancer patients: a prospective, longitudinal, observational study

PURPOSE

Despite significant advances in antiemetic management, almost 50% of cancer patients still experience nausea and vomiting during treatment. The goal of antiemetic therapy is complete prevention of treatment-induced nausea and/or vomiting (TINV); however, realisation of this goal remains elusive, thus supplementary strategies identifying patients at high risk must be employed in the interim. Consequently, we examined TINV incidence and its risk factors, including patient, clinical and pretreatment quality of life (QOL)/psychological factors.

METHODS

Two hundred newly diagnosed cancer patients beginning combined treatment participated in this prospective, longitudinal, observational study. QOL (including TINV), psychological adjustment, and patient/clinical characteristics were examined at pretreatment, on-treatment (8 weeks ± 1 week) and post-treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 62% of patients experienced TINV, with TIN incidence (60%) doubling that of TIV (27%). Eight independent risk factors predicted 73% of TIN incidence: high premorbid/anticipatory NV, moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy (M/HEC), longer treatment (>3 months), female gender, surgery prior to adjuvant chemotherapy ± radiotherapy, private health insurance and low emotional functioning (pretreatment). Six independent risk factors predicted 77% of TIV incidence: premorbid/anticipatory vomiting, M/HEC, female gender, cancer resection and low role functioning (pretreatment).

CONCLUSIONS

TINV still represents a very major concern for patients. Several pretreatment risk factors for the development of TIN and TIV, respectively, were identified. Patients about to undergo cancer treatment, particularly combined treatment involving emetogenic chemotherapy and surgery, should be screened for these factors with a view to modifying standard pretreatment/maintenance antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, and consistent with recent research, it is recommended that more comprehensive interventions combining antiemetics with other effective pharmacological (e.g. anxiolytics) and non-pharmacological approaches (e.g. acupuncture, relaxation techniques) be considered by clinicians in attempts to improve control of TIN and TIV (and overall QOL) for their patients. In this way, optimal holistic care will be ensured for cancer patients by clinicians providing conventional oncology treatment.

Ramosetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting during 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy for pancreatico-biliary cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the role of ramosetron for the prevention of chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CRINV) in patients receiving upper abdominal irradiation with concurrent 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

METHODS

Between November 2006 and April 2007, 25 patients with pancreatico-biliary cancer underwent adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. A total dose of 40 Gy was delivered using 2 Gy/fraction, 5 days a week, with 2 weeks of planned rest after 20 Gy. Concomitant 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)/day i.v. bolus) was administered for the first 3 days of each split course. During the first course of chemoradiotherapy, all patients had prophylactic metoclopramide before treatment and those refractory to metoclopramide received rescue medication with ondansetron. During the second course of chemoradiotherapy, prophylactic ramosetron was given to patients who were refractory to ondansetron. Response to antiemetics was scored in four tiers: none, no CRINV; mild, did not interfere with normal daily life; moderate, interfered with normal daily life and severe, patient bedridden because of CRINV.

RESULTS

Fifty-six percent of the patients (14 of 25) had moderate CRINV despite metoclopramide, and received ondansetron. Ten patients who experienced moderate CRINV despite the ondansetron had prophylactic ramosetron, and 60% of the patients (6 of 10) had the symptom improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron proved to be an effective alternative for the control of CRINV during upper abdominal irradiation with concurrent 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Beam path toxicities to non-target structures during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) beams traverse nontarget normal structures not irradiated during three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) for head and neck cancer (HNC). This study estimates the doses and toxicities to nontarget structures during IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Oropharyngeal cancer IMRT and 3D-CRT cases were reviewed. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were used to evaluate radiation dose to the lip, cochlea, brainstem, occipital scalp, and segments of the mandible. Toxicity rates were compared for 3D-CRT, IMRT alone, or IMRT with concurrent cisplatin. Descriptive statistics and exploratory recursive partitioning analysis were used to estimate dose "breakpoints" associated with observed toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were evaluated for toxicity; 60 had detailed DVH evaluation and 15 had 3D-CRT plan comparison. Comparing IMRT with 3D-CRT, there was significant (p </= 0.002) nonparametric differential dose to all clinically significant structures of interest. Thirty percent of IMRT patients had headaches and 40% had occipital scalp alopecia. A total of 76% and 38% of patients treated with IMRT alone had nausea and vomiting, compared with 99% and 68%, respectively, of those with concurrent cisplatin. IMRT had a markedly distinct toxicity profile than 3D-CRT. In recursive partitioning analysis, National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria adverse effects 3.0 nausea and vomiting, scalp alopecia and anterior mucositis were associated with reconstructed mean brainstem dose >36 Gy, occipital scalp dose >30 Gy, and anterior mandible dose >34 Gy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose reduction to specified structures during IMRT implies an increased beam path dose to alternate nontarget structures that may result in clinical toxicities that were uncommon with previous, less conformal approaches. These findings have implications for IMRT treatment planning and research, toxicity assessment, and multidisciplinary patient management.

Effects of radiation upon gastrointestinal motility

Whether due to therapeutic or belligerent exposure, the gastrointestinal effects of irradiation produce symptoms dreaded by a majority of the population. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal cramping are hallmarks of the prodromal phase of radiation sickness, occurring hours to days following radiation exposure. The prodromal phase is distinct from acute radiation sickness in that the absorptive, secretory and anatomic changes associated with radiation damage are not easily identifiable. It is during this phase of radiation sickness that gastrointestinal motility significantly changes. In addition, there is evidence that motor activity of the gut contributes to some of the acute and chronic effects of radiation.

Radiation Therapy and the Geriatric Oncology Patient

Delivering radiotherapy to the geriatric cancer patient raises several questions: Are there objective reasons to consider the elderly population as potentially more vulnerable to radiation therapy than younger people? In practice, how are geriatric patients treated when radiotherapy is indicated? Recent data from French tumor registries on rectal cancers are reviewed to illustrate the evolution of the practices during a 20-year period up to 2000. Is there a changing landscape in radiotherapy research protocols in the elderly? Thirty-one European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Brussels, Belgium) radiotherapy protocols are analyzed regarding compliance to the 1996 recommendation of having no upper age limit when other eligibility factors are fulfilled. To conclude, specific recommendations for optimal radiotherapeutic management of geriatric patients are made for some common cancers in the elderly.

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of four 5-HT3-receptor antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced emesis

GOALS OF WORK

Comparing antiemetic efficacy of different 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)RAs) is difficult due to inter-study variability. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to comparatively evaluate dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Comparisons between 5-HT(3)RAs were based on 44 randomized studies (including 12,343 patients) identified by MEDLINE, CANCERLIT or EMBASE searches and subcategorized by chemotherapy type (cisplatin- or non-cisplatin-based).

MAIN RESULTS

When all studies were combined, granisetron was equivalent to ondansetron (n = 27), and showed an advantage vs tropisetron (p = 0.018; n = 12). Ondansetron vs tropisetron (n = 11) and ondansetron vs dolasetron (n = 3) revealed equivalence in each comparison. An advantage for 3 mg granisetron vs 8 mg ondansetron was found in non-cisplatin-based studies (p = 0.015; n = 6). Overall equivalence was seen between ondansetron, 24 or 32 mg, and granisetron, 2 or 3 mg, for all studies (n = 13). There was a possible advantage for higher (24 or 32 mg) vs lower (8 mg) ondansetron dose regimens with cisplatin-based trials (n = 6). No differences were seen between 3 and 1 mg granisetron doses (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of 5-HT(3)RAs for preventing CINV following cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable, with the exception of granisetron vs tropisetron. Some differences were noted in dosing subanalyses.