Nausea and vomiting induced by gastrointestinal radiation therapy: current status and 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.

Migraine and gasdermin D: a new perspective on the inflammatory basis of migraine

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder and inflammation is a proposed factor in the complex ethiology of the disease. Gasdermin D (GSDMD) is a membrane pore-forming protein acting through the caspase system. End result is cell death caused by leakage of intracellular components to extracellular space which also results in inflammation. Stemming from this knowledge, the potential role of GSDMD in migraine was investigated in this prospective study. This prospective study was conducted between September 2022 to April 2023. 47 patients with migraine were designated as the patient group, whereas 47 healthy volunteers were designated as the control group. Serum GSDMD levels of both groups were compared, with an additional comparison between migraine patients during symptom-free and attack periods. Migraine related characteristics of the patients were also included in the study. Median GSDMD levels of the patient and control group did not reveal a significant difference. Nausea, vomiting and severity of headache were found to be correlated with GSDMD levels in migraine patients. Patients with nausea revealed a higher GSDMD level compared to patients without nausea during both symptom-free and attack periods (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Nausea was correlated to higher GSDMD levels in the patient population during symptom-free period (p = 0.030). The severity of pain was positively correlated with GSDMD levels during the attack period (p < 0.001). Gasdermin family and GSDMD in particular are promising prospects for therapy in a wide spectrum of disorders. Gasdermin proteins are candidates to be the focus for future studies both related to pathogenesis and drug therapy in migraine and varying inflammatory-driven clinical pictures.

Antiemetic activity of abietic acid possibly through the 5HT3 and muscarinic receptors interaction pathways

The present study was designed to evaluate the antiemetic activity of abietic acid (AA) using in vivo and in silico studies. To assess the effect, doses of 50 mg/kg b.w. copper sulfate (CuSO4⋅5H2O) were given orally to 2-day-old chicks. The test compound (AA) was given orally at two doses of 20 and 40 mg/kg b.w. On the other hand, aprepitant (16 mg/kg), domperidone (6 mg/kg), diphenhydramine (10 mg/kg), hyoscine (21 mg/kg), and ondansetron (5 mg/kg) were administered orally as positive controls (PCs). The vehicle was used as a control group. Combination therapies with the referral drugs were also given to three separate groups of animals to see the synergistic and antagonizing activity of the test compound. Molecular docking and visualization of ligand-receptor interaction were performed using different computational tools against various emesis-inducing receptors (D2, D3, 5HT3, H1, and M1-M5). Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics and toxicity properties of the selected ligands were predicted by using the SwissADME and Protox-II online servers. Findings indicated that AA dose-dependently enhances the latency of emetic retching and reduces the number of retching compared to the vehicle group. Among the different treatments, animals treated with AA (40 mg/kg) exhibited the highest latency (98 ± 2.44 s) and reduced the number of retching (11.66 ± 2.52 times) compared to the control groups. Additionally, the molecular docking study indicated that AA exhibits the highest binding affinity (- 10.2 kcal/mol) toward the M4 receptors and an elevated binding affinity toward the receptors 5HT3 (- 8.1 kcal/mol), M1 (- 7.7 kcal/mol), M2 (- 8.7 kcal/mol), and H1 (- 8.5 kcal/mol) than the referral ligands. Taken together, our study suggests that AA has potent antiemetic effects by interacting with the 5TH3 and muscarinic receptor interaction pathways. However, additional extensive pre-clinical and clinical studies are required to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of AA.

Post-laparotomy heterotopic ossification of the xiphoid process: A case report

BACKGROUND

Heterotopic ossification (HO) represents all types of extraskeletal ossification in the body. It occurs in various areas, including the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, and joints. Surgical excision is recommended for symptomatic HO. Postoperative radiotherapy, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and topical sealants, such as bone wax, have been recommended as preventive measures. As HO is rare in occurrence, these recommendations are based on personal experiences, and there is a lack of information on individualized treatments depending on its location.

CASE SUMMARY

A 62-year-old male was admitted for symptomatic HO along a laparotomy scar. Surgical excision was performed for an 11 cm-sized ossification originating from the xiphoid process, and bone wax was applied to the excisional margin. However, the surgical wound failed to heal. After several weeks of saline-soaked gauze dressing, delayed wound closure was performed. The patient was finally discharged eight weeks after the excision. Because HO can occur in various areas of the body, a treatment strategy that may be effective for some may not be for others. Bone wax has been used as a topical sealant over excisional margins in the shoulder, elbow, and temporomandibular joints. However, in our case, its application on an abdominal surgical wound delayed its primary healing intention. The valuable lesson was that, when choosing a treatment method for HO based on available research data, its location must be considered.

CONCLUSION

Complete excision should be the priority treatment option for symptomatic HO along the laparotomy scar. Bone wax application is not recommended.

Mechanisms of Nausea and Vomiting: Current Knowledge and Recent Advances in Intracellular Emetic Signaling Systems

Nausea and vomiting are common gastrointestinal complaints that can be triggered by diverse emetic stimuli through central and/or peripheral nervous systems. Both nausea and vomiting are considered as defense mechanisms when threatening toxins/drugs/bacteria/viruses/fungi enter the body either via the enteral (e.g., the gastrointestinal tract) or parenteral routes, including the blood, skin, and respiratory systems. While vomiting is the act of forceful removal of gastrointestinal contents, nausea is believed to be a subjective sensation that is more difficult to study in nonhuman species. In this review, the authors discuss the anatomical structures, neurotransmitters/mediators, and corresponding receptors, as well as intracellular emetic signaling pathways involved in the processes of nausea and vomiting in diverse animal models as well as humans. While blockade of emetic receptors in the prevention of vomiting is fairly well understood, the potential of new classes of antiemetics altering postreceptor signal transduction mechanisms is currently evolving, which is also reviewed. Finally, future directions within the field will be discussed in terms of important questions that remain to be resolved and advances in technology that may help provide potential answers.

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.

Adjuvant Radiochemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for Gastric Cancer: Implications for Target Definition

The INT0116 trial was a milestone study and laid the foundation for the adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) associated to concurrent chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC) after gastrectomy. However, it is still controversial whether adding RT to CT could further benefit D2-dissected GC patients. The ARTIST trial indicated that the addition of RT to CT did not have a positive impact on disease-free survival (DFS). Nevertheless, in a subgroup of 396 patients with positive pathological lymph nodes, combined treatment with RT was superior to CT alone. A similar randomized Chinese trial confirmed the superiority of adding RT to CT in terms of DFS for patients with D2 lymphadenectomy. However, several previous randomized studies provided inconsistent results with the benefits of combined treatment of RT and CT. The inconsistent results of several studies may be due to the differences between tumor epidemiology, treatment policies, and treatment outcomes. During the past decade, major progress in accurate target delineation utilizing RT technology has been observed. However, even though the use of adjuvant RT doubled after the INT-0116 trial results became public, the fraction of patients receiving adjuvant RT was still low according to the SEER database. The low rate of adjuvant RT can partially be explained by concern over toxicity while undergoing RT. Several studies have also defined the specific location of locoregional recurrence for postoperative RT in GC, but these studies are still limited. A number of retrospective studies demonstrated that the most prevalent nodal recurrence was outside the D2 dissection field. In order to overcome the restricted nature of a retrospective study and provide more individual radiation field determination, additional large-scale prospective multicenter studies are required to evaluate the optimal RT target.

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.

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.