Acute Chemotherapy-induced Nausea And Vomiting Research Articles

Granisetron Extended-Release Injection: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

An extended-release (ER) subcutaneously injectable formulation of the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist granisetron is now available in the USA (Sustol®), where it is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy regimens in adults. Granisetron ER is administered as a single subcutaneous injection and uses an erosion-controlled drug-delivery system to allow prolonged granisetron release. Primary endpoint data from phase III studies after an initial cycle of chemotherapy indicate that, when used as part of an antiemetic regimen, granisetron ER injection is more effective than intravenous ondansetron in preventing delayed CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); is noninferior to intravenous palonosetron in preventing both acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC; and is similar, but not superior, to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The benefits of granisetron ER were seen in various patient subgroups, including those receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC, and (in an extension of one of the studies) over multiple MEC or HEC cycles. Granisetron ER injection is generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of ondansetron or palonosetron. Thus, granisetron ER injection expands the options for preventing both acute and delayed CINV in adults with cancer receiving MEC or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC.

A Phase II single-arm trial of palonosetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant glioma patients receiving multidose irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab.

PurposeGiven that the prognosis of recurrent malignant glioma (MG) remains poor, improving quality of life (QoL) through symptom management is important. Meta-analyses establishing antiemetic guidelines have demonstrated the superiority of palonosetron (PAL) over older 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention, but excluded patients with gliomas. Irinotecan plus bevacizumab is a treatment frequently used in MG, but is associated with low (55%) CINV complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue antiemetic) with commonly prescribed ondansetron. A single-arm Phase II trial was conducted in MG patients to determine the efficacy of intravenous PAL (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (DEX; 10 mg) received in conjunction with biweekly irinotecan–bevacizumab treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving acute CINV CR (no emesis or antiemetic ≤24 hours postchemotherapy). Secondary end points included delayed CINV CR (days 2–5), overall CINV CR (days 1–5), and QoL, fatigue, and toxicity.Materials and methodsA two-stage design of 160 patients was planned to differentiate between CINV CR of 55% and 65% after each dose of PAL–DEX. Validated surveys assessed fatigue and QoL.ResultsA total of 63 patients were enrolled, after which enrollment was terminated due to slow accrual; 52 patients were evaluable for the primary outcome of acute CINV CR. Following PAL–DEX dose administrations 1–3, acute CINV CR rates were 62%, 68%, and 70%; delayed CINV CR rates were 62%, 66%, and 70%, and overall CINV CR rates were 47%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a clinically meaningful increase in fatigue during acute and overall phases, but not in the delayed phase. There were no grade ≥3 PAL–DEX treatment-related toxicities.ConclusionData suggest that PAL–DEX is effective in preventing CINV in MG patients, which ultimately maintains the QoL of patients with glioma.

Applicability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Southeast Asia: A Consensus Statement.

A meeting of regional experts was convened in Manila, Philippines, to develop a resource-stratified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management guideline. In patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in general clinical settings, triple therapy with a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3]) antagonist (preferably palonosetron), dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for acute CINV prevention. In resource-restricted settings, triple therapy is still recommended, although a 5-HT3 antagonist other than palonosetron may be used. In both general and resource-restricted settings, dual therapy with dexamethasone (days 2 to 4) and aprepitant (days 2 to 3) is recommended to prevent delayed CINV. In patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dual therapy with a 5-HT3 antagonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for acute CINV prevention in general settings; any 5-HT3 antagonist can be combined with dexamethasone in resource-restricted environments. In general settings, for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, corticosteroid monotherapy on days 2 and 3 is recommended. If aprepitant is used on day 1, it should be continued on days 2 and 3. Prevention of delayed CINV with corticosteroids is preferred in resource-restricted settings. The expert panel also developed CINV management guidelines for anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide combination schedules, multiday cisplatin, and chemotherapy with low or minimal emetogenic potential, and its recommendations are detailed in this review. Overall, these regional guidelines provide definitive guidance for CINV management in general and resource-restricted settings. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to contribute to collaborative efforts to improve CINV management in Southeast Asia.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children.

To update the 2009 recommendations for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis in children. We updated the original systematic literature search. Randomized studies were included in the evidence to support this guideline if they were primary studies fully published in full text in English or French; included only children less than 18years old or, for mixed studies of adults and children, reported the pediatric results separately or the median or mean age was no more than 13years; evaluated acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis; provided sufficient information to permit determination of the emetogenicity of the antineoplastic therapy administered or the study investigators stated the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered; included an implicit or explicit definition of complete acute CINV response; described the antiemetic regimen in full; and reported the complete acute CINV response rate as a proportion. Twenty-five randomized studies, including eight published since 2009, met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist (granisetron or ondansetron or palonosetron or tropisetron)±dexamethasone±aprepitant is recommended for children receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For children receiving chemotherapy of low emetogenicity, a 5-HT3 antagonist is recommended. The findings of several randomized trials were used to update recommendations for the prevention of acute CINV. However, significant research gaps remain and must be addressed before CINV control in children can be optimized.

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastrointestinal tumours

ObjectivesDuring cancer treatment, many patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), which leads to a lower quality of life and poorer adherence to the subsequent chemotherapy cycles. The aim of...

Clinical Practices and Outcomes on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Management in South Korea: Comparison with Asia-Pacific Data of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis Burden of Illness Study

PurposeThis study reported patient outcomes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens and evaluated its adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in the Korean population subset of the Pan Australasian Chemotherapy Induced Emesis burden of illness (PrACTICE) study.Materials and MethodsThis subgroup analysis evaluated 158 Korean patients receiving HEC or MEC and compared the data (wherever possible) with that of 648 patients from the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. Study endpoints included evaluation of primary CINV prophylaxis and adherence to acute-phase CINV prophylaxis in cycle 1 (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] Quality Oncology Practice Initiative [QOPI]).ResultsIn South Korea and the AP, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) prophylaxis for the acute phase was administered to 79/80 patients (98.8%) for HEC and 70/71 patients (98.6%) for MEC regimens (QOPI-1). Triple regimen (corticosteroid–5HT3-RA–neurokinin 1-RA) was initiated in 46/80 patients (57.5%) for prophylaxis of acute CINV in cycle 1 of HEC (QOPI-3). Double regimen (corticosteroid–5HT3-RA, with or within NK1-RA) was initiated in 61/71 patients (83.1%) for control of acute CINV in cycle 1 of MEC a(QOPI-2).ConclusionActive management of CINV is necessary in cycle 1 of HEC in South Korea, despite higher rates than the AP region. Adherence to the international guidelines for CINV prophylaxis requires attention in the acute phase in cycle 1 of the HEC regimen.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis: Practice Within the Children's Oncology Group

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has endorsed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in children with cancer. This project aims to describe current acute CINV prophylaxis practice at COG sites and the gap between this practice and CPG recommendations. Two surveys were developed. The first survey, sent to 94 cancer control and supportive care responsible individuals (CCL RIs) at 94 COG institutions, asked if the institution had a standardized approach to practice and focused on antiemetic agent choice. The second survey, sent to 54 pharmacists at COG sites where the CCL RI indicated that there was a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice, focused on antiemetic dosing. Survey results were described and analyzed for consistency with the CPG recommendations. Among the 69 respondents to the first survey, 54 (78%) stated that their institutions have a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice. However, antiemetic choice varied widely among respondents. Results from the 36 respondents to the second survey also demonstrated significant antiemetic dosing practice variability. Frequent sources of deviation from CPG recommendations were as follows: antiemetic choice when corticosteroids are contraindicated, dexamethasone dosing, aprepitant use in children less than 12 years, and aprepitant use in the presence of a known or suspected drug interaction. There is a great diversity in the CINV prophylaxis provided to children with cancer at COG sites. Concerted strategies are required to improve awareness of the current CINV prophylaxis CPG and to facilitate CPG-consistent CINV prophylaxis.

Combination of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone Effectively Controls Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Treated with Concomitant Temozolomide and Radiotherapy: Results of a Prospective Study.

Concomitant use of temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy, which is the standard therapy for patients with high-grade glioma, involves a unique regimen with multiple-day, long-term administration. In a previous study, we showed not only higher incidence rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the overall study period, but also substantially higher incidence rates of moderate/severe nausea and particularly severe appetite suppression during the late phase of the treatment. Here, we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for CINV in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. Twenty-one consecutive patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma were enrolled. CINV was recorded using a daily diary and included nausea assessment, emetic episodes, degree of appetite suppression, and use of antiemetic medication. The percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall period was 76.2%. The percentages of patients with no moderate/severe nausea were 90.5, 100, and 90.5% in the early phase, late phase, and overall period, respectively. Severe appetite suppression throughout the overall period completely disappeared. The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. This combination of antiemetic therapy focused on delayed as well as acute CINV and may have the potential to overcome CINV associated with a multiple-day, long-term chemotherapy regimen.

Evaluation of Antiemetic Therapy for Hepatic Transcatheter Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Cisplatin.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant, a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for patients receiving intravenous cisplatin chemotherapy. Whether the same antiemetic regime is superior for hepatic transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP-TAI) is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study of antiemetic prophylaxis protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in CDDP-TAI at Nagasaki University Hospital. The rate of complete response (CR) to antiemetics in the acute (<24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) was measured. Twenty-four patients were treated with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (granisetron or azasetron) and dexamethasone on the day of chemotherapy (day 1 only). There was a significant difference between the CR rates in the acute and delayed phases, 91.6, and 69.7%, respectively. Combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone on day 1 is effective against acute CINV, but not delayed CINV during CDDP-TAI. These results may help guide the management of nausea and vomiting during CDDP-TAI to achieve better tolerance and compliance for fewer interventions and increased favorable therapeutic outcomes.

Patterns of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China.

Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines. We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) Database to identify patients with cancer who were ≥18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) between 2008 and 2012. Patients' characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC (59.4% vs. 81.3%; P<0.001). The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group (P≤0.012); however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing corticosteroids (P≤0.007). Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group (both P<0.001). Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic. These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.

A prospective observational study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gynecologic cancer by the CINV Study Group of Japan

ObjectiveThis study was performed to investigate the occurrence of and risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gynecologic cancer. MethodsIn total, 214 patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were evaluated. We investigated the relationship between CINV and clinical factors and the accuracy of estimation of CINV by medical staff in the acute and late phases. Vomiting was evaluated in terms of frequency, and nausea was evaluated with a 100-mm visual analog scale on days 1 to 7. We also analyzed the risk factors and changes in CINV over time using a generalized linear mixed (GLM) model. ResultsThe multivariate analysis revealed no significant risk factors for acute CINV. The independent risk factors for delayed nausea were a morning sickness history (odds ratio [OR], 2.687; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.450–4.976; p=0.0017), age (each 1-year increment) (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.944–0.996; p=0.0235), and HEC (OR, 2.134; 95% CI, 1.039–4.383; p=0.0391). The GLM model demonstrated that the independent factors affecting nausea were significant morning sickness (p=0.0101) and HEC (p=0.0136). These data also showed more severe nausea from days 3 to 5, but the negative predictive value for estimation of delayed nausea by medical staff was 57.8%. ConclusionOur data suggest that improvement of preventive antiemetic administration is needed for patients with risk factors to manage delayed CINV caused by HEC and by MEC.

How to improve the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? The French NAVI study.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still remain frequent. The procedure for announcing the diagnosis (PAD) was an emblematic measure of the first French Plan Cancer aiming at providing patients with time to listen, information after cancer diagnosis, and discussion on treatments and their side effects. We aimed at assessing the risk factors of CINV, focusing on patients' satisfaction with the PAD. This prospective multicentre study assessed the frequency and intensity of CINV among chemonaïve patients during the first cycle of treatment. CINV was defined by ≥1 emetic episode or reported nausea intensity ≥3 on a 0-10 scale. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors related to global CINV onset including satisfaction with the PAD (satisfaction score ≥the median on a 0-10 scale). Data from 291 patients (women, 85.2%; mean age, 57 years) were analyzed. Most patients (69.4%) received highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and 77.7% received antiemetic drugs consistent with international guidelines. Acute, delayed and overall CINV were experienced by 40.4, 34.8 and 52.4% of patients, respectively. Sixty-seven per cent of patients were satisfied with the PAD. No relation was noted between PAD satisfaction and CINV onset. The nausea and vomiting dimension of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire before chemotherapy (OR 3.62), motion sickness history (OR 2.73), highly emetogenic CT (OR 2.73), anxiety (OR 1.99) and younger age (OR 1.96) were independent predictive factors. Although patients were mostly satisfied with the PAD, half of them experienced CINV. A state of anxiety could be identified during the PAD to be managed.

Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Hematology Population: A Review of the Literature.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most bothersome problems experienced by patients with cancer and results in serious complications. Considerable progress has been made in the management of acute CINV, but many patients receiving chemotherapy still complain of delayed nausea. In particular, delayed CINV affects patients in the hematology population who typically undergo several frontline chemotherapy regimens, multiday conditioning regimens, and salvage treatments. However, no international guidelines exist for the prevention of CINV in this population. This article provides a literature review of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of delayed CINV as well as the etiologies, assessment strategies, and potential therapies in this population. A narrative review of the literature was performed. Nurses fulfill an important role in the assessment of delayed symptoms by ensuring adequate measurement of the duration, frequency, severity, and distress caused by nausea, vomiting, and retching. A systematic assessment of retching, in addition to nausea and vomiting, that involves patients' assessment of their own symptoms may enhance the accuracy of clinical reports, leading to improved tolerability of chemotherapy and patient quality of life. In addition, nurses may actively contribute to the development of specific guidelines for hematologic malignancies and a patient risk factor algorithm for optimizing the tolerability of chemotherapy.

Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan.

Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens. This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy. A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen.

QoL evaluation of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting comparing with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist.

This study evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improving the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer during chemotherapy. Two hundred twenty-nine patients with cancer who received chemotherapy from January 2008 to August 2008 were enrolled, and they were randomised to receive olanzapine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The patients completed a CINV questionnaire once daily on days 1-5 and a QoL questionnaire on days 0 and 6. The complete response (CR) rates for nausea (76.85% versus 46.2%) and vomiting (84.3% versus 67.6%) were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group for delayed CINV but not for acute CINV. The CR rates for nausea (76.85% versus 44.44%) and vomiting (85.95% versus 67.59%) were also significantly higher in the olanzapine group for the 5 days post-chemotherapy. After chemotherapy, global health status, emotional functioning, and insomnia were improved in the olanzapine group but worsened in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group, whereas cognitive functioning and appetite loss were unchanged. Moreover, olanzapine significantly improved global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, and appetite loss. Olanzapine improved the QoL of patients with cancer during chemotherapy, in part by reducing the incidence of delayed CINV.

P1-26-1 - Association of Abc Polymorphism with Antiemetic Efficacy in Cancer Patients Treated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are one of the most unpleasant non-haematological adverse effects that affect the well-being of cancer patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the antiemetic efficacy and the ABC genetic polymorphisms and clarify the risk of CINV.Methods: Patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were examined for antiemetic responses to aprepitant in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone. The efficacy endpoint of this study was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue medications). Patient DNA samples were genotyped for ABCB1 and ABCG2 single nucleotide polymorphism. In this study, the impact on complete response of treatment and a number of prespecified risk factors, including gender, age, performance status (PS) and alcohol use was assessed. Complete response and the associations with patients factor including genetic polymorphisms were evaluated in acute and in delayed phases using univariate and multivariate analyses.Results: Sixty-eight patients receiving doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and 30 patients receiving cisplatin containing chemotherapy were evaluated. The multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that female gender (odds ratio [OR], 7.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-35.82), age <50 years (OR 4.02; 95%CI 1.42-11.36), ABCB1 1236 TT (OR 3.27; 95%CI 1.18-9.07), and ABCG2 421 AA (OR 0.09; 95%CI 0.01-0.93) were associated with antiemetic treatment failure in the acute phase. In contrast, only female gender (OR 14.30; 95%CI 4.38-46.71) was associated in the delayed phase.Conclusions: In addition to gender and age known to be risk factors for CINV, ABC transporter polymorphisms may influence the extent of acute CINV control in aprepitant, granisetron and dexamethasone-treated patients. ABC genotypes might be a predictor of antiemetic response in acute phase.

Meta-analysis of adjunctive non-NK1 receptor antagonist medications for the control of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing chemotherapy-induced symptom that may adversely impact the quality of life of cancer patients. We conducted a systematic search of the Pubmed, Bireme, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials that were published in English and that evaluated the combination of adjunctive non-neurokinin 1 (NK1) antagonist drugs (i.e., neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines, and cannabinoids) with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) antagonists for adult cancer patients who were scheduled to receive moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We employed the Review Manager (RevMan) Computer program Version 5.2 for statistical calculations. We included 13 studies with a total of 1,669 patients. We observed a higher complete protection for acute CINV with adjunctive medications (risk ratio (RR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-1.01; p = 0.05; I2 = 47%), which was not the case for the delayed period (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.73-1.10, p = 0.29, I2 = 15%). We also observed that these adjunctive medications significantly increased the complete control of nausea (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.95; p = 0.02, I2 = 83%) and vomiting (RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.50-0.75; p < 0.00001; I2 = 60%). There was no subgroup analysis evidence of the superiority of any single group of adjunctive medications. We conclude that adjunctive non-NK1 antagonist medications may be useful for CINV control. Prospective randomized studies incorporating these low-cost medications into new regimens combining 5-HT3 and NK1 antagonists may be warranted.

A prospective observational study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for esophageal cancer patients in Japan.

135 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still one of the major problems in cancer treatment. However detailed profile of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer is not known. Prospective multi-center observational study was conducted to assess the current status of CINV in Japan. Methods: Between May 2011 and December 2012, 193 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent systemic chemotherapy with high (HEC) or moderate emetogenic agents (MEC) were registered. Antiemetic drugs (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dexamethasone and NK1receptor antagonist) were used to suppress CINV. Occurrence and severity of CINV were assessed with a diary provided to the patients prior to chemotherapy. Acute phase (within 24 hours from the start of chemotherapy) and late phase CINV (24 hours or later) were assessed separately. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the predictive factors for acute and late phase CINV. Results: Of 193 patients 165 were male and 28 were female. Median age was 66 (range 40-84). HEC and MEC were administered in 180 and 13 patients, respectively. Acute phase nausea and vomiting were observed in 9 (4.7%) and 7 (3.6%) of 193 patients, respectively. Late-phase nausea and vomiting were observed in 75 (38.9%) and 18 (9.3%) of 193 patients, respectively. Risk factors for acute phase nausea, acute phase vomiting, late phase nausea and late-phase vomiting were assessed separately. By multivariate analysis for late-phase vomiting, younger age (Odds ratio 0.523 [every 10 years]; 95%CI 0.278-0.986; p=0.045) and male gender (Odds ratio 5.796; 95%CI 1.806-18.603; p=0.003) were independent predictive factors. By multivariate analyses for acute phase nausea, acute phase vomiting and late-phase nausea, no independent predictive factor was identified. Conclusions: Acute phase CINV was effectively suppressed by antiemetic drugs, while late phase CINV was not sufficiently suppressed. Further intervention to suppress late phase CINV should be considered, especially in high-risk patients. Clinical trial information: UMIN000005971.

Prospective observational study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for colorectal cancer patients by the CINV study group of Japan.

652 Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the incidence of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-naive patients with colorectal cancer. We also assessed whether the medical staff accurately recognized the incidence of CINV in their own practices. Methods: A prospective observational study of patients receiving the first cycle of oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based chemotherapy was performed. A 7-day diary for CINV was provided to the patients prior to chemotherapy to record daily incidence of CINV. Observed incidence rates of acute (day1) and delayed (days 2-7) CINV were compared with medical staff's predictions. Results: A total of 191 patients (110 males and 81 females) were registered during the period from April 2011 to December 2012. All patients were treated with oxaliplatin-based (n = 175) or irinotecan-based chemotherapy (n = 16). Acute vomiting was observed in 4 patients (2.1%), while delayed vomiting was observed in 19 patients (10.0%). Acute nausea occurred in 14 patients (7.3%), while 63 patients (33%) were affected by delayed nausea. Irinotecan significantly induced acute nausea more frequently than oxaliplatin did (p = 0.019). The presence of motion sickness was significantly associated with the incidence of acute nausea (p &lt; 0.001) and vomiting (p = 0.003). Antiemetics were given along the guideline to all patients. 58 patients were administered a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist. Patients with NK-1 receptor antagonist showed significantly less incidence of delayed vomiting than patients without one (3% vs 13%, p = 0.048). 30 patients (15.7%) required rescue antiemetics. The staff had estimated the incidence of acute CINV in 91 patients (47.6%). However, only 14 patients (7.3%) really experienced acute CINV. Conclusions: CINV seems to be controllable with appropriate management, but delayed CINV still remains an important problem to be targeted. The presence of motion sickness should be affected by efficient antiemetic management. The extent of CINV in this patient group seems to be overestimated.

Current evidence on auricular therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Auricular therapy (AT) has been historically viewed as a convenient approach adjunct to pharmacological therapy for cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this study was to assess the evidence of the therapeutic effect of AT for CINV management in cancer patients. Relevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from 12 electronic databases without language restrictions. Meanwhile, manual search was conducted for Chinese journals on complementary medicine published within the last five years, and the reference lists of included studies were also checked to identify any possible eligible studies. Twenty-one studies with 1713 participants were included. The effect rate of AT for managing acute CINV ranged from 44.44% to 93.33% in the intervention groups and 15% to 91.67% in the control groups. For delayed CINV, it was 62.96% to 100% and 25% to 100%, respectively. AT seems to be a promising approach in managing CINV. However, the level of evidence was low and the definite effect cannot be concluded as there were significant methodological flaws identified in the analyzed studies. The implications drawn from the 21 studies put some clues for future practice in this area including the need to conduct more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials.