1
|
Báez-Gutiérrez N, Suárez-Casillas P, Pérez-Moreno MA, Blázquez-Goñi C, Abdelkader-Martín L. Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review. Eur J Haematol 2024. [PMID: 39074908 DOI: 10.1111/ejh.14282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2024] [Revised: 07/03/2024] [Accepted: 07/11/2024] [Indexed: 07/31/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens. METHODS We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380. RESULTS Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported. CONCLUSION Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nerea Báez-Gutiérrez
- Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital Nuestra Señora de Valme, Seville, Spain
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Khairnar SI, Kulkarni YA, Singh K. Cardiotoxicity linked to anticancer agents and cardioprotective strategy. Arch Pharm Res 2022; 45:704-730. [DOI: 10.1007/s12272-022-01411-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
|
3
|
Ye P, Pei R, Wang T, Cao J, Zhang P, Chen D, Liu X, Du X, Li S, Tang S, Hu Y, Jiang L, Lu Y. Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study. Ann Hematol 2022; 101:1835-1841. [PMID: 35668198 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-022-04877-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2021] [Accepted: 05/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peipei Ye
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Renzhi Pei
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Tiantian Wang
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Junjie Cao
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Pisheng Zhang
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Dong Chen
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Xuhui Liu
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Xiaohong Du
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Shuangyue Li
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Shanhao Tang
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Youqian Hu
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China
| | - Lei Jiang
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China. .,Department of Pathology, Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Pathophysiology, Ningbo University School of Medicine, Ningbo, 315211, China.
| | - Ying Lu
- Department of Hematology, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, 315101, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. Clin Hematol Int 2022; 4:89-98. [PMID: 36131129 PMCID: PMC9492824 DOI: 10.1007/s44228-022-00012-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.
Collapse
|
5
|
Clemmons A, Gandhi A, Clarke A, Jimenez S, Le T, Ajebo G. Premedications for Cancer Therapies: A Primer for the Hematology/Oncology Provider. J Adv Pract Oncol 2022; 12:810-832. [PMID: 35295545 PMCID: PMC8631343 DOI: 10.6004/jadpro.2021.12.8.4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy are associated with numerous potential adverse events (AEs). Many of these common AEs, namely chemotherapy- or radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, hypersensitivity reactions, and edema, can lead to deleterious outcomes (such as treatment nonadherence or cessation, or poor clinical outcomes) if not prevented appropriately. The occurrence and severity of these AEs can be prevented with the correct prescribing of prophylactic medications, often called "premedications." The advanced practitioner in hematology/oncology should have a good understanding of which chemotherapeutic agents are known to place patients at risk for these adverse events as well as be able to determine appropriate prophylactic medications to employ in the prevention of these adverse events. While several guidelines and literature exist regarding best practices for prophylaxis strategies, differences among guidelines and quality of data should be explored in order to accurately implement patient-specific recommendations. Herein, we review the existing literature for prophylaxis and summarize best practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber Clemmons
- University of Georgia College of Pharmacy, Augusta, Georgia.,Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia
| | | | | | | | - Thuy Le
- Augusta University Medical Center, Augusta, Georgia
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Piechotta V, Adams A, Haque M, Scheckel B, Kreuzberger N, Monsef I, Jordan K, Kuhr K, Skoetz N. Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 11:CD012775. [PMID: 34784425 PMCID: PMC8594936 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012775.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another. OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC. MAIN RESULTS Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty). Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively. We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty). Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons. Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV. When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa Piechotta
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anne Adams
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Madhuri Haque
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Benjamin Scheckel
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ina Monsef
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Karin Jordan
- Department of Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Kathrin Kuhr
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation. Support Care Cancer 2021; 30:1521-1527. [PMID: 34533630 PMCID: PMC8727426 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-021-06495-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2021] [Accepted: 08/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)-containing regimens, there have been no studies evaluating antiemetic use during chemomobilization prior to ASCT. Methods This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated. Results Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported. Conclusion NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT.
Collapse
|
8
|
Nakamura ZM, Deal AM, Park EM, Quillen LJ, Chien SA, Stanton KE, McCabe SD, Heiling HM, Wood WA, Shea TC, Rosenstein DL. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous thiamine for prevention of delirium following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Psychosom Res 2021; 146:110503. [PMID: 33945982 PMCID: PMC8172461 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine if high dose intravenous (IV) thiamine can prevent delirium during hospitalization following allogeneic HSCT. Secondarily, we evaluated the effects of high dose IV thiamine on thiamine levels and explored risk factors for delirium. METHODS Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT at a U.S. academic medical center between October 2017 and March 2020. 64 participants were randomized 1:1 to thiamine 200 mg IV three times daily for 7 days or placebo. We used the Delirium Rating Scale to assess for delirium. Delirium incidence was compared between groups using the chi-square test. Group differences in time to onset and duration of delirium were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Fisher's Exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to examine associations between pre-transplantation variables and delirium. RESULTS 61 participants were analyzed. Delirium incidence (25% vs. 21%, Chi-square (df = 1) = 0.12, p = 0.73), time to onset, duration, and severity were not different between study arms. Immediately following the intervention, thiamine levels were higher in the thiamine arm (275 vs. 73 nmol/L, t-test (df = 57) = 13.63, p < 0.0001), but not predictive of delirium. Variables associated with delirium in our sample included disease severity, corticosteroid exposure, infection, and pre-transplantation markers of nutrition. CONCLUSION High dose IV thiamine did not prevent delirium in patients receiving allogeneic HSCT. Given the multiple contributors to delirium in this population, further research regarding the efficacy of multicomponent interventions may be needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trials NCT03263442. FUNDING Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zev M Nakamura
- Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
| | - Allison M Deal
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Eliza M Park
- Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Laura J Quillen
- Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Stephanie A Chien
- Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Kate E Stanton
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Sean D McCabe
- Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Hillary M Heiling
- Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - William A Wood
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Thomas C Shea
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Donald L Rosenstein
- Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Qiu T, Men P, Xu X, Zhai S, Cui X. Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020; 99:e21559. [PMID: 32872006 PMCID: PMC7437786 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000021559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2019] [Revised: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice. METHODS Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes. CONCLUSION The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tingting Qiu
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital
- Institute for Drug Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Peng Men
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital
- Institute for Drug Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center
| | - Xiaohan Xu
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital
- Institute for Drug Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center
| | - Suodi Zhai
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital
- Institute for Drug Evaluation, Peking University Health Science Center
| | - Xiangli Cui
- Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of NEPA without dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a phase IIa, multicenter study. Bone Marrow Transplant 2020; 55:2114-2120. [PMID: 32346078 PMCID: PMC7588339 DOI: 10.1038/s41409-020-0909-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2020] [Revised: 04/02/2020] [Accepted: 04/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Despite the availability of several antiemetics, clinical findings show that control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a serious concern for hematological patients, mainly for those receiving multiple-day (MD) and high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CT). For CINV prophylaxis, 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3-RAs) and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) are usually administered together with dexamethasone, which may increase the risk of serious infections in patients undergoing myeloablative treatment. The rationale of this multicenter, open-label and phase IIa study was to explore the efficacy of multiple doses of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) given as an every-other-day regimen without dexamethasone in preventing CINV in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (R/R-NHL), eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and treated with MD-HD-CT. Seventy patients participated to the study. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. The CR values were 87.1% (primary endpoint, overall phase: days 1–8), 88.6% (acute phase: days 1–6), and 98.6% (delayed phase: days 7–8), while complete control (CR with no more than mild nausea) was 85.7% (overall phase), 88.6% (acute phase), and 95.7% (delayed phase). Moderate and severe episodes of nausea were reported by less than 10% of patients in the overall phase and less than 5% in both the acute and delayed phases. Regarding safety, NEPA was well tolerated with only one adverse event (constipation) evaluated as possibly related to NEPA administration. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that multiple alternate dosing of NEPA without the addition of dexamethasone is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting in this difficult setting, with a good tolerability profile.
Collapse
|
11
|
Pastore D, Bruno B, Carluccio P, De Candia MS, Mammoliti S, Borghero C, Chierichini A, Pavan F, Casini M, Pini M, Nassi L, Greco R, Tambaro FP, Stefanoni P, Console G, Marchesi F, Facchini L, Mussetti A, Cimminiello M, Saglio F, Vincenti D, Falcioni S, Chiusolo P, Olivieri J, Natale A, Faraci M, Cesaro S, Marotta S, Proia A, Donnini I, Caravelli D, Zuffa E, Iori AP, Soncini E, Bozzoli V, Pisapia G, Scalone R, Villani O, Prete A, Ferrari A, Menconi M, Mancini G, Gigli F, Gargiulo G, Bruno B, Patriarca F, Bonifazi F. Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs. Ann Hematol 2020; 99:867-875. [PMID: 32036421 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-020-03945-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2018] [Accepted: 01/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Benedetto Bruno
- SSCVD Trapianto di Cellule Staminali, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
| | - Paola Carluccio
- Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Hematology and Transplantation Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico Consorziale, Bari, Italy
| | | | - Sonia Mammoliti
- National Registry GITMO & Data Managing, Ospedale San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | - Carlo Borghero
- Department of Cellular Therapy and Hematology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
| | - Anna Chierichini
- Department of Hematology, S. Giovanni Addolorata Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Pavan
- Clinica Pediatrica Ospedale S. Gerardo, Fondazione MBBM, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
| | - Marco Casini
- Hematology Department, San Maurizio Regional Hospital, Bolzano, South Tyrol, Italy
| | - Massimo Pini
- Ematologia, AON SS Antonio e Biagio e Cesare Arrigo, Alessandria, Italy
| | - Luca Nassi
- Department of Translational Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
| | - Raffaella Greco
- Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Paola Stefanoni
- Hematology Unit, Ospedale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Console
- Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, AO BMM, Reggio Calabria, Italy
| | - Francesco Marchesi
- Experimental and Clinical Oncology Department, Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Luca Facchini
- Hematology Unit, Arcispedale S Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Alberto Mussetti
- Dipartimento di Ematologia e Onco-Ematologia Pediatrica, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Saglio
- Pediatric Onco-Hematology, Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Division, Regina Margherita Children's Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Daniele Vincenti
- U.O.C. Oncoematologia, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Sadia Falcioni
- U.O.C. Ematologia e Trapianto di Cellule Staminali Emopoietiche, Ospedale Mazzoni, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
| | - Patrizia Chiusolo
- Istituto di Ematologia, Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli, Università Cattolica, Rome, Italy
| | - Jacopo Olivieri
- UOC Medicina Interna ed Ematologia, ASUR-AV3, Civitanova Marche, Italy
| | - Annalisa Natale
- Department of Hematology, Bone Marrow Transplant Centre, Transfusion Centre and Biotechnology, Ospedale Civile, Pescara, Italy
| | - Maura Faraci
- Hematopoetic Stem Cell Transplant Unit, Hematology-Oncology, G. Gaslini Institute, Genoa, Italy
| | - Simone Cesaro
- Department of Pediatric Hematology Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
| | - Serena Marotta
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Hematology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
| | - Anna Proia
- Unit of Hematology and Stem Cell Transplant, Azienda Ospedaliera S. Camillo-Forlanini, Rome, Italy
| | - Irene Donnini
- SODc Terapie Cellulari e Medicina Trasfusionale, AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniela Caravelli
- Medical Oncology, Hematopoietic Stem Cells Unit, Turin Metropolitan Transplant Centre, Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO, IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy
| | | | - Anna Paola Iori
- Department of Hematology, Azienda Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Roma, Rome, Italy
| | - Elena Soncini
- Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, BMT Unit, Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy
| | | | - Giovanni Pisapia
- Hematology Unit and BMT, Department of Oncology, San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Taranto, Italy
| | - Renato Scalone
- Dipartimento Oncologico "La Maddalena", UOC di Oncoematologia e TMO, Palermo, Italy
| | - Oreste Villani
- Department of Onco-Hematology, IRCCS-CROB, Referral Cancer Centre of Basilicata, Rionero in Vulture, Potenza, Italy
| | - Arcangelo Prete
- Oncology, Hematology and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Program, U.O. Pediatrics-S. Orsola-Malpighi, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Mariacristina Menconi
- Division of Hematology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Giorgia Mancini
- Division of Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy
| | | | | | - Barbara Bruno
- National Registry GITMO & Data Managing, Ospedale San Martino, Genova, Italy
| | | | - Francesca Bonifazi
- Unit of Hematology and Medical Oncology, "L. and A. Seragnoli", St. Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Basch E, Bohlke K, Barbour SY, Clark-Snow RA, Danso MA, Dennis K, Dupuis LL, Dusetzina SB, Eng C, Feyer PC, Jordan K, Noonan K, Sparacio D, Somerfield MR, Lyman GH. Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:3240-3261. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2017.74.4789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 369] [Impact Index Per Article: 52.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016. Results Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy. Recommendation Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul J. Hesketh
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Mark G. Kris
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Ethan Basch
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Kari Bohlke
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Sally Y. Barbour
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Rebecca Anne Clark-Snow
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Michael A. Danso
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Kristopher Dennis
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - L. Lee Dupuis
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Stacie B. Dusetzina
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Cathy Eng
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Petra C. Feyer
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Karin Jordan
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Kimberly Noonan
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Dee Sparacio
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Mark R. Somerfield
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| | - Gary H. Lyman
- Paul J. Hesketh, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington; Kimberly Noonan, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mark G. Kris, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Ethan Basch and Stacie B. Dusetzina, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; Sally Y. Barbour, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Kari Bohlke and Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria; Michael A. Danso, Virginia Oncology Associates, Virginia Beach; Michael A
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Einhorn LH, Rapoport B, Navari RM, Herrstedt J, Brames MJ. 2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and breakthrough nausea and vomiting. Support Care Cancer 2016; 25:303-308. [DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3449-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2016] [Accepted: 10/09/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|