Search

Background: Among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin (L-OHP)-based chemotherapy, delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been well controlled., Methods: We pooled data from two prospective observational studies in Japan and one phase III clinical trial to assess whether delayed CINV could be controlled with a combination of three antiemetics adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist and identified individual risk factors, using an inverse probability treatment-weighted analysis., Results: A total of 661 patients were evaluable in this study (median age: 64 years; 391 male, and 270 female). 3 antiemetics controlled delayed nausea (33.18% vs. 42.25%; p = 0.0510) and vomiting (4.15% vs. 16.08%; p < 0.0001) better than with 2 antiemetics. Female and 2 antiemetics were risk factors for both delayed nausea (female-odds ratio [OR]: 1.918; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.292-2.848; p = 0.0012; 2 antiemetics-OR: 1.485; 95% CI: 1.000-2.204; p = 0.0498) and delayed vomiting (female-OR: 2.735; 95% CI: 1.410-5.304; p = 0.0029; 2 antiemetics-OR: 4.551; 95% CI: 2.116-9.785; p = 0.0001)., Conclusions: Identifying individual risk factors can facilitate personalized treatments for delayed CINV. We recommend a 3-antiemetic combination prophylaxis for CRC patients treated with L-OHP-based chemotherapy, especially for female patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L-OHP)-based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist addition to a first-generation 5HT 3 antagonist (1st 5-HT 3 RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial to these patients remains controversial. Furthermore, whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV is unclear. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX or 1st 5-HT 3 RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, and the risk factors for delayed CINV, in CRC patients undergoing L-OHP-based chemotherapy. Data were pooled from two prospective observational Japanese studies and a phase III trial to compare CINV incidence between the PALO + DEX (PALO) and 5-HT 3 RA+DEX+APR (APR) groups by propensity score-matched analysis. CINV risk factors were identified using logistic regression models. The CINV incidence was higher in the PALO group than in the APR group. Logistic regression analysis revealed alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and the PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and the PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Compared with prophylactic PALO + DEX, 1st 5-HT 3 RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV. Thus, CRC patients receiving L-OHP-based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: Patients with lung cancer who are treated with carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens often experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, knowledge on the effect of regimen and cofactors on the risk of CINV is limited. This study aimed to analyze and compare the incidence of CINV between lung cancer patients undergoing carboplatin plus pemetrexed (CBDCA+PEM) and those undergoing carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CBDCA+PTX) chemotherapy., Methods: Pooled data of 240 patients from two prospective observational studies were compared using propensity score matching. Separate multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors for nausea and vomiting following chemotherapy., Results: Delayed nausea was significantly more common in patients treated with CBDCA+PEM than in those treated with CBDCA+PTX (51.1% vs. 36.2%, P = 0.04), but the incidence of vomiting did not significantly differ between the two groups (23.4% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.14). The occurrence of CINV peaked on day 4 in the CBDCA+PTX group and on day 5 in the CBDCA+PEM group. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, younger age, and CBDCA+PEM regimen were independent risk factors for delayed nausea, while female sex was an independent risk factor for delayed vomiting., Conclusions: The CBDCA + PEM regimen has a higher risk of causing delayed nausea than the CBDCA + PTX regimen, and aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis should be offered to patients treated with CBDCA + PEM.

Background: Of patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy (MEC), 30-90% experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); however, the optimal antiemetic treatment remains controversial., Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults treated with MEC while receiving chemotherapy for various cancer types in Japan, the enrolled patients kept diaries documenting CINV. All participants received a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone., Results: Of the 400 patients enrolled from May 2013 to January 2015, 386 were eligible for evaluation. The median age was 64 (range, 26-84). The overall complete response (CR; no emetic events and no antiemetic measures) rate was 64%. The proportion of patients showing CR was low in the carboplatin (CBDCA)- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy groups, especially among women. We showed that the CR rates in men were high in the CBDCA (AUC5) + etoposide (ETP) (80%), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) (78%), and CBDCA+ paclitaxel (PTX) groups for lung cancer (73%). Total control (TC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and no nausea) and complete control (CC; no emetic events, no antiemetic measures, and less than mild nausea) were achieved in 51 and 61% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed history of motion sickness, history of pregnancy-associated vomiting and CBDCA-based chemotherapy as risk factors for CR and history of motion sickness and history of pregnancy-associated vomiting as risk factors for TC. Additional, Ages ≥65 years is an independent predictive factor for achieving TC., Conclusions: Our data showed that two antiemetics were insufficient to control CINV in patients receiving CBDCA- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. However, two antiemetics may be sufficiently effective for elderly male patients receiving CBDCA (AUC5) + ETP, CBDCA+PTX for lung cancer, or CAPOX. Additionally, we consider that three antiemetics are necessary for women with colorectal cancer receiving CAPOX. Risk factor analysis related to CR showed that CINV prophylaxis in patients treated with CBDCA-based chemotherapy was generally supportive of the guideline-recommended three antiemetics. However, the control of nausea in patients receiving non-CBDCA-based chemotherapy is a key point to note. The further individualization of antiemetic regimens for patients receiving MEC based on both types of chemotherapy regimens and sex is needed.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) combined with neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK 1 RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT 3 RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) to prevent nausea and vomiting in carboplatin (CBDCA) combination therapy for patients with gynecological cancer., Methods: We conducted a single-arm, multi-institution, phase II study. Gynecological cancer patients scheduled to receive AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA were enrolled. All patients received 5 mg OLZ (once daily after supper on days 1-4) combined with NK 1 RA, 5-HT 3 RA, and DEX. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and rescue therapy) during overall phase (120 h after the start of carboplatin administration)., Results: Between May 2018 and June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled from 3 institutions in Japan. A total of 57 patients who met the criteria were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. The CR rate for the overall phase was 78.9%. Acute (0-24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) were 96.5% and 80.7%, respectively. Somnolence was observed in 73.7% patients. However, somnolence of grade 2 or higher was observed in only 3.5% of cases. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with OLZ., Conclusions: Preventive use of OLZ combined with standard triplet therapy had promising activity with manageable safety, suggesting that this combination could be an effective standard treatment option for patients with AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest No conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore the actual status of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) through a multicenter prospective cohort study., Methods: Patients with breast cancer treated with moderately emetogenic (MEC) or highly emetogenic (HEC) chemotherapy were eligible. A 7-day diary was provided for all patients. Acute and delayed CINV were defined as nausea and vomiting that developed ≤ 24 or > 24 h after the start of chemotherapy, respectively. The severity of nausea was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS). We also assessed the accuracy of estimations of CINV by medical staff., Results: In total, 426 patients were included; 352 patients (82.6%) received HEC, and 74 (17.3%) received MEC. In the acute phase, 44.9% of patients receiving HEC and 5.4% receiving MEC experienced nausea, and 12.8% receiving HEC and none receiving MEC experienced vomiting. More patients experienced nausea in both groups and vomiting in MEC during the delayed phase (nausea: 59.4% in HEC and 44.6% in MEC group; vomiting: 11.1% in HEC; and 13.5% in MEC group) than during the acute phase. Estimations of CINV by medical staff were not accurate, with a kappa coefficient of 0.10 and 0.08 for acute nausea and vomiting and 0.02 and 0.01 for delayed. The VAS scores showed that in the HEC group, the degree of nausea was worst on the first day., Conclusions: The degree of nausea was worst in the acute phase, although delayed nausea was more in proportion in HEC. Estimation by medical staff is not accurate.

Introduction: Adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK 1 RA) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (DEX) improved carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with thoracic cancer. NK 1 RAs with high-drug cost are raising medical expenses. Olanzapine (OLZ) is less expensive and can be expected to have an excellent effect on CINV. This phase II trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of 5 mg OLZ plus granisetron (GRN) and DEX in CBDCA combination therapy with area under curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL/min for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer., Methods and Analysis: This is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA-based therapies (AUC ≥5) and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive a combination of GRN, DEX and OLZ. The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as the absence of emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication for 120 hours after the initiation of CBDCA. Forty-eight patients are required based on our hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 65% (null hypothesis) to 80% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and a power of 0.8. We set the target sample size at 50 considering dropouts., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: UMIN000031267., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background/aim: Although neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are approved chemotherapy drugs in Japan, no nationwide surveys have been performed to validate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) guidelines in clinical practice. This study evaluated CINV in patients with haematological malignancies starting first-time chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: A nationwide CINV survey on patients with haematological malignancies was conducted at 118 institutions. Patients undergoing moderately emetic chemotherapy (n=17) and highly emetic chemotherapy (HEC; n=180) were compared., Results: Forty-one patients undergoing HEC received triple antiemetics. Female gender and young age were risk factors for early-phase nausea, while female gender remained a risk factor for late-phase nausea and vomiting. Among 125 patients receiving CHOP (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)-like regimens, complete response and complete control were increased in patients receiving triple antiemetics, compared to those with double antiemetics., Conclusion: Guideline compliance was very low. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for reduced CINV and improved disease control for triple versus double antiemetics, suggesting that triple antiemetics should be considered for HEC, especially in young female patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP-like regimens., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

To assess compliance with the Japanese antiemetic guidelines for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the frequencies of CINV occurrence and use of antiemetic rescue medications were examined in patients with hematological malignancy. A total of 40 patients with hematologic malignancy were eligible in this study. This study was performed in the Department of Hematology, Kyushu University Hospital, as a subgroup analysis from a nationwide, multicenter prospective cohort study conducted by the CINV Study Group of Japan. In the patients with hematological malignancy, the guideline compliance rate was 45 %. Five patients (22.7 %) experienced vomiting during the observation period after receiving non-guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis, whereas no patient experienced vomiting after receiving guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. The study was not sufficiently powered to reach a statistical significance in its frequency of occurrence between the compliance and non-compliance groups. In the entire study period, 8 out of 40 patients required rescue medication, but there was no association between the status of compliance and the antiemetic guidelines. A total of 22 (55.0 %) patients achieved complete response, which was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication, during the study period. The rate of compliance with the prophylactic antiemetic treatment guidelines seemed to be low in patients with hematological malignancy, although the status of the guideline compliance did not always influence the antiemetic effects.

Introduction: Carboplatin (CBDCA) administered at a dosage of 4 mg/mL/min or more area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) is considered to be ranked as the highest chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk of the moderately emetogenic chemotherapy agents. The complete response (CR) rate for preventing overall CINV, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication, for standard triplet antiemetic therapy (5-HT 3 RA, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist; NK 1 RA, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; DEX, dexamethasone) was approximately 60% in gynaecological cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based therapy. Further improvement in antiemetic treatment is needed to optimise care. This trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) plus standard triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV after AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy in gynaecological cancer patients., Methods and Analysis: This trial is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA (AUC ≥4)-based therapy and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive OLZ (5 mg oral administration on days 1-4, after supper) in combination with 5-HT 3 RA, NK 1 RA and DEX. The primary endpoint is the CR rate during the overall period (0-120 hours). Testing the hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 60% (null hypothesis) to 75% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and power of 0.8 will require 53 patients. Considering the dropout rate, the target sample size is set at 60., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: UMIN000031646., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background/aim: The incidence of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially nausea, in gynecologic cancer patients who receive paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) chemotherapy is unclear. We assessed risk factors for delayed CINV in these patients, and examined whether it was controlled with combination antiemetic therapy., Materials and Methods: Data were pooled from two prospective studies, and compared between the two antiemetic prophylaxis groups using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) analysis., Results: Among the 182 evaluable patients (mean age: 56.2 years), three antiemetics gave better overall control than two for delayed nausea (42.9% vs. 57.4%,) and vomiting (13.8% vs. 34.5%). Risk factor for delayed nausea was age [odds ratio (OR)=0.953; p=0.0898[and use of two antiemetics (vs. three antiemetics) for delayed vomiting (OR=0.304; p=0.0732)., Conclusion: A combination of three antiemetics controls delayed CINV among patients who undergo TC chemotherapy. Identification of risk factors can facilitate personalized treatments., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Objective: Palonosetron is effective for the management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). While emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat gynecologic cancers, few studies have evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of palonosetron in this setting., Methods: A multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of palonosetron in controlling CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg/body) and dexamethasone before the infusion of carboplatin-based chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered (orally or intravenously) on days 2-3. The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated using the patient-completed Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and treatment diaries. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing complete control (CC) of vomiting, with "no rescue antiemetic medication" and "no clinically significant nausea" or "only mild nausea" in the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR: "no vomiting" and "no rescue antiemetic medication") in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases, and CC in the acute and overall phases., Results: Efficacy was assessable in 77 of 80 patients recruited. In the acute and delayed phases, the CR rates the primary endpoint, were 71.4% and 59.7% and the CC rates, the secondary endpoint, were 97.4% and 96.1%, respectively., Conclusion: While palonosetron effectively controls acute CINV, additional antiemetic management is warranted in the delayed phase after carboplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic cancer patients (Trial registry at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012806)., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (Copyright © 2018. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Purpose: The incidence of and the risk factors for nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing low emetic risk chemotherapy (LEC) are unclear. The aim of the study was to provide information on these topics by performing a multicenter, observational, prospective study., Methods: The study consisted of patients who were administered first-time LEC that was consistent or inconsistent with current guidelines. Using the visual analog scale, patients recorded their daily food intake and the occurrence and severity of nausea over a 5-day treatment period., Results: The overall incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between patients undergoing guideline-consistent (n = 89) or guideline-inconsistent (n = 121) prophylaxis (30.3 vs. 22.3%, respectively; P = 0.19). Logistic regression analysis identified a history of nausea and LEC other than taxanes as independent risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing LEC. The mean daily visual analog scale scores for nausea severity and a decrease in food intake were <25 mm throughout the entire observation period., Conclusions: Guideline-consistent prophylaxis appeared to control nausea and vomiting effectively in patients undergoing LEC. However, patients with a history of nausea and receiving LEC other than taxanes should be carefully observed and treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms.

Objectives: Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for colorectal cancer both in the adjuvant and metastatic setting. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, many aspects of CINV in patients with colorectal cancer remain unclear., Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed the data of 190 colorectal cancer patients scheduled for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy., Results: All 190 patients received MEC and 99% of patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute CINV was well controlled. 13 (6.8%) patients suffered from acute nausea and 4 (2.1%) experienced acute vomiting, whereas the prevalence of delayed CINV was relatively high. Delayed nausea occurred in 71 (37.4%) patients and delayed vomiting in 24 (12.6%). History of motion sickness was a significant independent risk factor for delayed nausea (Odd ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval 1.49-10.19, p = 0.0056)., Conclusions: The compliance with CINV guidelines in colorectal cancer chemotherapy was quite high and led to good control of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in Japan. However, the incidence of delayed nausea remained high in patients receiving MEC.

Background: We conducted a nationwide survey on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Japan and demonstrated good compliance with Japanese CINV guidelines, resulting in good control of vomiting. However, almost half the patients experienced breakthrough CINV. We analyzed the survey results in relationship to the management of patients with breakthrough CINV., Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1910 patients in Japan scheduled for moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively). Patients who developed CINV despite prophylactic use of antiemetics were administered rescue drugs. Patients who received cisplatin-based HEC (C-HEC), non-cisplatin-based HEC (N-HEC), or MEC were evaluated separately., Results: A total of 989 patients experienced CINV, of whom 412 (44%) received rescue antiemetics during the study period. The rate at which patients with breakthrough CINV were started on rescue drugs ranged from 13% to 24%. Rescue drugs were given more frequently on days 2-4 for C-HEC and MEC and on days 1-2 for N-HEC. Eighty-six percent of patients received metoclopramide or domperidone. 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists, antipsychotics, and anti-anxiety drugs were used for 11-5% of patients. The mean duration of antiemetic use was 2.6 days., Conclusions: Fewer than half of the patients with breakthrough CINV were treated with rescue antiemetics, suggesting that CINV was mild in the remaining patients. However, CINV was sufficiently severe to prevent eating in other patients, indicating the need for new drugs with different mechanisms to control CINV.

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for esophageal cancer. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, the current state of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. This multicenter prospective observational study analyzed data for 192 patents with esophageal cancer who underwent moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The patients recorded their CINV incidence and severity daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy, using visual analog scales (VAS). Of the 192 patients, 181 received HEC including cisplatin, and 11 patients received MEC including nedaplatin. Approximately 81% of HEC and 82% of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Although CINV was controlled relatively well in the early phase (days 1-4), it was not fully controlled in late phase (days 5-7) for both the HEC and MEC groups. Female sex was a major risk factor for delayed vomiting (P=0.034). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for VAS revealed that motion sickness, age, and use of other antiemetics were risk factors for delayed nausea. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed CINV in both HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will help develop personalized treatments for CINV. In the clinical setting for esophageal cancer, regimens that include nedaplatin might need to be treated as HEC., (© 2016 International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.)

Background: Substance P contributes to the hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to paclitaxel in a rat model. Aprepitant acts as an inhibitor of the binding of substance P to the neurokinin-1 receptor and, consequently, may reduce the frequency of paclitaxel-induced HSR. While aprepitant has a prophylactic effect against vomiting caused by high-dose cisplatin, the benefits of aprepitant have not been clearly demonstrated in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) combination chemotherapy., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study in Japanese patients with gynecologic cancer who received TC combination chemotherapy. Patients received aprepitant or placebo together with both a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HSR, and the secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with "no vomiting", "no significant nausea", and complete response, respectively., Results: Of the 324 randomized patients, 297 (151 in the aprepitant group; 146 in the placebo group) were evaluated. The percentage of patients with HSR (9.2 vs. 7.5 %, respectively; P = 0.339) was not significantly different between the groups. The percentage of "no vomiting" patients (78.2 vs. 54.8 %; P < 0.0001), "no significant nausea" patients (85.4 vs. 74.7 %; P = 0.014), and patients showing complete response (61.6 vs. 47.3 %, P = 0.0073) was significantly higher in the aprepitant group than in the placebo group., Conclusion: The administration of aprepitant did not have a prophylactic effect on the HSR but was effective in reducing nausea and vomiting in gynecologic cancer patients receiving TC combination chemotherapy.

Background: This study investigated the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HBP) cancer in a prospective nationwide survey., Patients and Methods: One hundred patients with HBP cancer (biliary tract cancer; n=70, hepatocellular carcinoma; n=20, and pancreatic cancer; n=10) who received chemotherapy for the first time were analyzed. Medical personnel were surveyed to examine the accuracy of their predicted frequency of CINV., Results: The compliance rate with the Japanese guideline with highly emetogenic chemotherapy was 36/89 (40%). Although the prevalence of CINV in patients with HBP cancer was significantly lower than that of the total 1,910 patients with cancer, the prevalence of delayed CINV in patients with HBP cancer was as high as 28%. The survey results suggested that the medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV., Conclusion: CINV appears to be controlled under management according to the guidelines, but delayed nausea remains prevalent and requires further investigation., (Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study was performed to investigate the occurrence of and risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gynecologic cancer., Methods: In 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., Results: The 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%., Conclusion: Our 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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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.

The efficacy of methylprednisolone (MP) (500 or 250 mg) or droperidol 2.5 mg administered i.v., was studied in 200 women undergoing major gynaecological surgery. Following a standardised general anaesthesia technique with intrathecal morphine, the incidence of nausea and vomiting was assessed. The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the non-treated group was 59% and 35%; the group of MP 500 mg has a significant reduction of nausea and vomiting to 21% and 13%. Droperidol 2.5 mg decreased the incidence of postoperative nausea alone (nausea: 36%, vomiting: 19%). MP 250 mg was not effective in reducing either nausea or vomiting (nausea: 44%, vomiting: 38%). It was concluded that, of the drugs studied, MP 500 mg was most effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after major gynaecological surgery.

Mototsugu Shimokawa,1,2,&ast; Naoki Haratake,3,&ast; Kazuki Takada,4 Gouji Toyokawa,5 Shinkichi Takamori,6 Fumitaka Mizuki,7 Tomoyoshi Takenaka,3 Toshinobu Hayashi8 1Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi University, Yamaguchi, Japan; 2Cancer Biostatistics Laboratory, Clinical Research Institute, National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan; 3Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan; 4Department of Surgery, Saiseikai Fukuoka General Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; 5Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Fukuoka National Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; 6Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan; 7Center for Clinical Research, Yamaguchi University Hospital, Yamaguchi, Japan; 8Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Management, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Fukuoka University, Fukuoka, Japan&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Mototsugu Shimokawa, Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi University, 1-1-1 Minamikogushi, Ube, Yamaguchi, 755-8505, Japan, Tel +81-836-22-2805, Fax +81-836-22-2805, Email moto@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp Toshinobu Hayashi, Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Management, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Fukuoka University, 8-19-1 Nanakuma, Jonan-ku, Fukuoka, 814-0180, Japan, Tel +81-92-871-6631, Email toshinobu@fukuoka-u.ac.jpPurpose: The incidence of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy (CBDCA + pemetrexed or paclitaxel) has not been clearly described. Therefore, we attempted to evaluate whether delayed CINV could be controlled using a combination of three antiemetics and identify individual risk factors.Methods: We pooled data from two prospective observational studies, namely a nationwide survey of CINV and a prospective, observational study in Japan, to assess whether delayed CINV could be controlled using a combination of three antiemetics and identified individual risk factors via inverse probability treatment-weighted analysis.Results: In total, 240 patients were evaluable in this study (median age, 66 years; male, 173; female, 67). The three-antiemetic regimen controlled delayed nausea (31.6% vs 47.3%) and vomiting (5.1% vs 23.1%) better than two antiemetics. Younger age (< 70 years; odds ratio [OR] = 2.233), motion sickness (OR = 3.472), drinking habits (OR = 1.972), receipt of the CBDCA + pemetrexed regimen (OR = 2.041), and the use of two antiemetics (OR = 1.926) were risk factors for delayed nausea. Female sex (OR = 3.372), drinking habits (OR = 2.272), receipt of the CBDCA+ pemetrexed regimen (OR = 2.314), and the use of two antiemetics (OR = 6.830) were risk factors for delayed vomiting.Conclusion: Female sex, younger age, and receipt of the CBDCA + pemetrexed regimen increased the risk of CINV. Therefore, we recommend additional supportive antiemetics treatment for these patients.Keywords: NSCLC, aprepitant, carboplatin, nausea, vomiting

Background The emetogenic classification of antineoplastic agents has provided a framework for defining antiemetic treatment recommendations in international guidelines. The most widely used classification schema identified four emetic risk levels. However, information on the emetogenicity of each chemotherapeutic regimen is insufficient. We previously reported that the emetic risk of pemetrexed was higher than that of taxans. Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were also assessed in patients with lung cancer receiving carboplatin plus pemetrexed (CBDCA+PTX) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CBDCA+PEM), and the CINV incidence was compared between these two regimens. Methods Data were pooled from two prospective studies, and propensity score matching was used to compare the CINV incidence between CBDCA+PTX and CBDCA+PEM groups. Risk factors for CINV were identified using logistic regression models. The pattern of CINV occurrence was evaluated by 7-day patient diary for recording CINV after the commencement of chemotherapy. Results Among 240 evaluable patients, the CINV incidence was higher in the CBDCA+PEM group than in the CBDCA+PTX group at the delayed phase (nausea: 51.1% vs. 36.2%, P = 0.040; vomiting: 23.4% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.138). The pattern of delayed CINV occurrence peaked on days 5 and 4 for CBDCA+PEM and CBDCA+PTX regimens, respectively. Logistic regression analysis identified younger age, female sex, no alcohol consumption, two antiemetics, and CBDCA+PEM regimen as independent risk factors associated with delayed nausea, and female sex and two antiemetics for delayed vomiting. Conclusions The emetic risk of CDBCA+PEM regimen was higher than that of CBDCA+PTX regimen. More aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis such as quadruple therapy, including olanzapine, may be considered in patients receiving CDBCA+PEM regimen. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin (L-OHP)-based chemotherapy. Whether adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to a first-generation 5HT3 antagonist (1st-5HT3RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial in patients on L-OHP-based chemotherapy is controversial. It is unclear whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX (PALO group) or 1st-5HT3RA+DEX+APR (APR group) was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, as well as risk factors for delayed CINV, in patients with CRC treated with L-OHP-based chemotherapy. Methods We pooled data from two prospective observational studies in Japan and one phase III clinical trial and compared the incidence of CINV between the PALO and APR groups using propensity score-matched analysis. Risk factors for CINV were identified using logistic regression models. Results Among the 404 eligible patients, those in the PALO group showed a higher incidence of delayed CINV than those in the APR group (nausea: 43.4% vs. 32.4%, P = 0.061; vomiting: 12.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.017). The logistic regression analysis identified alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Conclusions Treatment with the three antiemetics, including APR, was more effective in controlling delayed CINV than prophylactic treatment with the two antiemetics, including PALO. Thus, patients with CRC receiving L-OHP-based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]