Search

While care pathways based upon clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, little is known about optimal approaches to development and adaptation in pediatric oncology. Objectives were to develop care pathway templates for pediatric cancer supportive care that are based upon CPGs and to adapt an infection management care pathway for use at a single institution.Study phases were as follows: (1) creation of care pathway templates across multiple supportive care topics; (2) refinement of the infection management care pathway template by interviewing pediatric oncology clinicians at a single institution; and (3) adaptation of the infection management care pathway template for use at a different institution.Informed by seven CPGs, an initial iteration of the infection management care pathway template was created. This template was then refined based upon 20 interviews with pediatric oncology clinicians. Adaptation of the infection management care pathway template for use at a different institution required many changes to improve its clinical usability. Specificity and additional information not considered by the source CPGs were incorporated.We developed a process to create care pathway templates across multiple supportive care topics in pediatric oncology and to refine and adapt the infection management care pathway. While we found that the process was feasible, we also identified the need to substantially modify the care pathway during the adaptation process to consider scenarios not addressed by the source CPGs. Future work should measure implementation success.

PURPOSE To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empiric management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. METHODS The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel reconvened to conduct the second update of this CPG. We updated the previous systematic review to identify new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any strategy for the management of FN in pediatric patients. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, evidence quality was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low. The panel updated recommendations related to initial management, ongoing management, and empiric antifungal therapy. Changes from the 2017 CPG were articulated, and good practice statements were considered. RESULTS We identified 10 new RCTs in addition to the 69 RCTs identified in previous FN CPGs to inform the 2023 FN CPG. Changes from the 2017 CPG included two conditional recommendations regarding (1) discontinuation of empiric antibacterial therapy in clinically well and afebrile patients with low-risk FN if blood cultures remain negative at 48 hours despite no evidence of marrow recovery and (2) pre-emptive antifungal therapy for invasive fungal disease in high-risk patients not receiving antimold prophylaxis. The panel created a good practice statement to initiate FN CPG-consistent empiric antibacterial therapy as soon as possible in clinically unstable febrile patients. CONCLUSION The updated FN CPG incorporates important modifications on the basis of recently published trials. Future work should focus on addressing knowledge gaps, improving CPG implementation, and measuring the impact of CPG-consistent care.

Children with cancer commonly experience distressing symptoms such as pain, fatigue and nausea. Improvements in patient outcomes have been associated with implementation of clinical practice guideline-consistent care across several domains. The objective of this study was to develop a process to identify symptom management clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) applicable to children and adolescents receiving cancer treatments. We focused on identifying CPGs to manage 15 symptoms. The process defined three Tiers of CPGs based upon applicability to pediatric cancer patients and ease of identification: Tier 1: endorsed by the Children’s Oncology Group; Tier 2: housed in the Emergency Care Research Institute repository, or developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and Tier 3: identified by systematic review. We first searched for CPGs published 2015–2020 and identified Tiers 1 or 2 CPGs. If unavailable or scope was too narrow, we proceeded to Tier 3. If CPGs were not identified, we repeated these steps for CPGs published 2010–2014. There were six Tier 1 and 13 Tier 2 CPGs published 2015–2020 across the 15 symptoms. Four symptoms required progression to Tier 3 because CPGs were absent (anger) or because scope was too narrow (pain, anorexia/excessive hunger and diarrhea). The systematic review identified three CPGs for pain and none for the other three symptoms. In total, CPGs were identified for 14 of 15 symptoms. None were identified for anger. We created a process to identify supportive care CPGs for pediatric cancer symptom management and were able to identify CPGs that addressed 14 of 15 symptoms. Future work should focus on evaluating implementation techniques for these CPGs and determining the impact of these CPGs on provider and patient outcomes.

Introduction: We aimed to create a Spanish-language version of the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) and examine its understandability among Spanish-speaking, Hispanic American children. Methods: Translation: Forward and backward translations of the PeNAT documents were performed and verified by a bilingual panel. Four monolingual, Spanish-speaking dyads (child/parent) and four bilingual dyads piloted the Spanish-language PeNAT documents. Four additional bilingual dyads read both versions and completed the PeNAT using their preferred version. These were reviewed for errors due to misunderstanding. Understandability: Children aged 4–18 years about to receive chemotherapy who spoke Spanish at home and were without impairments precluding PeNAT use were eligible. Participants used the Spanish-language PeNAT during a chemotherapy block. Parents gave feedback on the PeNAT documents. Recruitment continued until 10 consecutive participants offered no substantive suggestions for revision. Results: Translation: All child/parent dyads completed the PeNAT without errors attributable to misunderstanding. The Spanish-language PeNAT was preferred by three of four bilingual dyads. Understandability: Ten cancer patients (mean age: 10.6 years) used the Spanish-language PeNAT. All parents felt their child understood the PeNAT; none felt the documents were hard or very hard to use. Conclusion: The Spanish-language PeNAT was understood by Spanish-speaking Hispanic American children. Further psychometric testing is warranted.

Les nausées et les vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie (NVIC) nuisent à la qualité de vie tant des adultes que des patients pédiatriques atteints d’un cancer (Dupuis, Milne-Wren, Cassidy et al., 2010; Farrell, Brearley, Pilling et Molassiotic, 2013; Russo, Cinausero, Gerratana et al., 2014; Hinds, Gattuso, Billups et al., 2009; Sommariva, Pongiglione, et Tarricone, 2016). Les vomissements et les haut-le-cœur sont des symptômes qui s’évaluent objectivement, alors que la nausée est subjective et plus difficile à mesurer. En général, l’intensité de la nausée chez les adultes peut être décrite à l’aide d’échelles d’évaluation visuelle analogique ou qualitative. Il existe à cette fin des instruments validés et recommandés par des spécialistes du domaine, comme celui de la Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (en ligne : www.mascc.org) (Hesketh, Gralla, du Bois et Tonato, 2016).

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continue to negatively influence the quality of life of both adult and pediatric cancer patients (Dupuis et al., 2010; Farrell et al., 2013; Russo et al., 2014; Hinds et al., 2009; Sommariva et al., 2016). Vomiting and retching are symptoms that can be assessed objectively while nausea, a subjective symptom, is more difficult to quantify. Adult cancer patients can usually describe the severity of the nausea they feel using self-report visual analog or adjectival rating scales. Instruments such as the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (available from www.mascc.org) have been validated for this purpose and are recommended by experts in the field (Hesketh et al., 2015).

To qualitatively describe reasons for disagreement in ratings of bothersome symptoms between child self-report and parent proxy-report. We enrolled child and parent dyads, who understood English and where children (4–18 years of age) were diagnosed with cancer or were hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. Each child and parent separately reported symptoms using self-report or proxy-report Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi). We then used semi-structured interviews to elicit reasons for discrepancies in symptom reporting. We enrolled 12 dyads in each of four age cohorts, resulting in 48 dyads. Forty-one dyads (85.4%) had disagreement in rating the presence or absence of at least one symptom. Themes identified as reasons for disagreement included (1) perception, differing perception of symptom or availability or palatability of intervention; (2) understanding, difficulty orienting to time frame or concept of bother; (3) lack of communication, including child not acknowledging or talking about experiences; (4) projection, of how the parent felt or how they assumed the child would feel; and (5) discrepancy, in how the amount of symptom bother that was initially reported on SSPedi, by either child or parent, did not align with what was reported during the dyad discussion. We identified themes that explained disagreement in ratings of bothersome symptoms between child self-report and parent proxy-report. Some disagreement may be reduced by enhancing communication about symptom reporting between child and parent. Future research should focus on methods of symptom screening that encourage communication between children with cancer and their caregivers.

ObjectivesPrimary objectives were to determine the relationship between prevalence of symptom documentation and intervention provision, and increasing severity of bothersome symptoms, as identified by guardians using guardian-reported Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (proxy-SSPedi), which is validated and measures the extent of bothersome symptoms in paediatric patients with cancer.MethodsWe included guardians of children 2–7 years of age receiving cancer treatments and seen in hospital daily for 4 consecutive days. Guardians reported proxy-SSPedi at study enrolment and 3 days later. Chart review was performed between the day prior and the day following proxy-SSPedi completion. Symptom documentation and intervention provision were determined by two independent abstractors.ResultsWe enrolled 190 guardians who provided 371 proxy-SSPedi assessments in 190 children. The most common severely bothersome symptoms were ‘feeling tired’, ‘feeling more or less hungry than they usually do’ and ‘feeling cranky or angry’. Among those with increasing severity of bother, documentation was significantly more common for 12 symptoms while intervention was significantly more common for 7 symptoms. Intervention was not significantly more common with increasing severity of bother due to ‘feeling tired’, ‘feeling more or less hungry than they usually do’ and ‘feeling cranky or angry’.ConclusionsSymptom documentation was generally more common in patients with severely bothersome symptoms. Intervention was not more common among those with increasing severity of bother due to fatigue, changes in hunger or anger, which were the most common severely bothersome symptoms. Future efforts should focus on facilitating intervention provision to patients with bothersome symptoms.

PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. METHODS Recommendations were developed by an international multidisciplinary panel that included a patient advocate. We conducted a systematic review of systemic antifungal prophylaxis in children and adults with cancer and HSCT recipients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify level of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. The panel considered directness of the data to pediatric patients. RESULTS There were 68 randomized trials included in the systematic review, of which 6 (9%) were conducted in a solely pediatric population. Strong recommendations were made to administer systemic antifungal prophylaxis to children and adolescents receiving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, to those undergoing allogeneic HSCT pre-engraftment, and to those receiving systemic immunosuppression for graft-versus-host disease treatment. A strong recommendation was made to administer a mold-active agent with an echinocandin or a mold-active azole when systemic antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. For children younger than 13 years of age, an echinocandin, voriconazole, or itraconazole is suggested. Posaconazole may also be used in those age 13 years or older. A strong recommendation against routine administration of amphotericin as systemic antifungal prophylaxis was made. CONCLUSION We developed a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and HSCT recipients. Implementation and assessment of guideline-concordant rates and impacts are important future steps.

PURPOSE To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy. RESULTS The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non–small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor–containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE To identify factors associated with chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS An individual, patient‐level, pooled analysis was performed using data from five clinical trials of aprepitant or fosaprepitant in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. The proportion of individuals who experienced no vomiting (complete CIV control) during the phase of interest was the primary study end point. The association of acute-phase complete CIV control (from first chemotherapy dose to 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose of the chemotherapy block) with age, sex, race, cancer type, acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen was examined. Association of the same factors and acute-phase complete CIV control with complete CIV control in the delayed phase (end of acute phase until ≤ 96 hours later) was examined. RESULTS A total of 735 patients (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 0.3 to 17.9 years) were included in the acute-phase analysis. Acute-phase complete CIV control was less likely in older patients (relative risk [RR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98 per year) and longer acute-phase duration (RR, 0.89 per day; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.94 per day). Receipt of ondansetron plus aprepitant or fosaprepitant was associated with a higher likelihood of acute-phase complete CIV control versus ondansetron alone (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50). Delayed-phase complete CIV control was more likely in patients with acute-phase complete CIV control (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.34) and in those who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant. CONCLUSION Younger age, shorter acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen were associated with acute-phase complete CIV control in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. Acute-phase complete CIV control and antiemetic regimen were associated with delayed-phase complete CIV control.

Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) (age 8‐18 years) and mini‐SSPedi (age 4‐7 years) can be used to self‐report and proxy‐report bothersome symptoms in pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. There are limitations of sole child self‐report or proxy‐report. An approach in which children and parents complete symptom reports together may be useful. The aim of our study was to describe discordance between child self‐report and parent proxy‐report symptom scores, and to determine how these scores compare to an approach in which reporting is performed together (co‐SSPedi). Children and parents completed SSPedi or mini‐SSPedi separately. Discordant symptoms were shared with respondents and discussed. Next, the dyad completed co‐SSPedi together and were asked which approach they preferred. Discordance was evaluated for each symptom and was defined as a difference of at least 2 points on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (not at all bothered) to 4 (extremely bothered). Of the 48 enrolled dyads (children, median age, 10.8 years; 54.2% male), 41 (85.4%) had discordance in at least one symptom. There was no clear pattern in discordance by age group. When a dyad approach was used, more co‐SSPedi scores agreed with the original child self‐report scores (59 dyads, 56.2%) compared to original parent proxy‐report scores (15 dyads, 14.3%) for discordant symptoms. Forty‐three (89.6%) dyads preferred to complete SSPedi together. Future work should evaluate the psychometric properties of co‐SSPedi., Discordance is common between child self‐report and parent proxy‐report of symptom in children receiving cancer treatments, with no clear pattern in discordance by whether the symptom was subjective or objective, nor was there a clear pattern by age group. When a dyad approach was used, more scores agreed with the original child self‐report scores compared to original parent proxy‐report scores for discordant symptoms.

Background Temozolomide oral suspension is not commercially available. Objective To evaluate the stability of three temozolomide 10 mg/mL suspensions prepared in Oral Mix SF® in three container types stored at 4°C and 23°C. Methods Using commercial capsules, three separate batches of three different temozolomide 10 mg/mL formulations (Oral Mix SF® with PK-30; PK-30 and citric acid; and neither PK-30 nor citric acid) were made and stored in three container types (amber glass bottles, amber polyethylene terephthalate bottles, and polypropylene oral syringes). The aliquots in each container type were stored protected from light, half at 25°C and half at 4°C. On study days 0, 5, 8, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 56, physical properties of samples from each container type at each temperature were assessed, and the temozolomide concentration was determined using a stability-indicating method. The beyond-use-date (time to achieve 90% of initial concentration calculated using the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the observed degradation rate) was calculated. Results Samples stored at 25°C turned from white to orange within seven days. Temozolomide crystals were observed in all samples. Concentration changes due to study day and temperature (p Conclusions We recommend that these temozolomide 10 mg/mL formulations be stored at 4°C and be assigned a beyond-use-date of 30 days.

Change in hunger is a common and bothersome symptom among pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. Objectives were to describe how children and adolescents receiving cancer treatments experience changes in hunger, factors associated with both increases and decreases in hunger, and coping strategies used by these patients. We enrolled children and adolescents 4–18 years of age with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients who were actively receiving treatment or who had completed therapy. Using a single, qualitative, semi-structured interview, we asked participants about the experience of increases or decreases in hunger, including characteristics of the change and identified coping strategies. There were 50 children enrolled; 25 (50%) were 4–10 years of age and 33 (66%) were boys. Most often, patients associated an increase in hunger with corticosteroid administration, while other treatments, accompanying symptoms, inactivity, and the hospital environment were associated with a decrease in hunger. Many reported that no coping strategies were successful. For those who did report successful strategies to manage an increase in hunger, these included sleep and having food available. Strategies used to manage a decrease in hunger included anti-emetic medications, increased caloric intake, varied food choices, encouragement to eat, scheduling or tracking of meals, and physical activity. Both increases and decreases in hunger were commonly described. Some coping strategies were reported to be successful. Further research should identify and test interventions to manage changes in hunger in pediatric cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Prescribing guideline-recommended anti-emetics is an effective strategy to prevent CINV. However, the rate of guideline-concordant care is not well-understood. The purpose of this study was to describe the proportion of pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients receiving HEC or MEC who received guideline-concordant antiemetic prophylaxis for acute CINV, and to identify potential predictors of guideline-concordant antiemetic prophylaxis. METHODS: Using electronic health record data from 2016 through 2018, a retrospective single-institution cohort study was conducted to investigate how often patients less than 26 years of age receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy receive guideline-concordant prophylaxis for acute CINV. Guideline-concordant care was defined according to guidelines from the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario for patients < 18 years and the American Society of Clinical Oncology for those ≥ 18 years. Independent variables included: sex, age, insurance status, race, ethnicity, cancer type, chemotherapy regimen, clinical setting, chemotherapy emetogenicity, and patient location. Predictors of receiving guideline-concordant care were determined using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 180 eligible patients, 65 (36.1%) received guideline-concordant care. In multivariable analysis, being treated in adult oncology setting (aOR: 14.3, CI(95): 5.3 – 38.6), with a cisplatin-based regimen (aOR: 3.5, CI(95):1.4 – 9.0), solid tumor diagnosis (aOR: 2.2, CI(95): 1.0 – 4.8), and commercial insurance (aOR: 2.4, CI(95): 1.1 – 5.2) were associated with significantly higher likelihood of receiving guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-level factors were associated with receiving guideline concordant care for prevention of CINV in children, adolescents, and young adults receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. These findings can inform current efforts to optimize implementation strategies for supportive care guidelines

Background Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing HSCT. Methods An international and multidisciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate, and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature. Results The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia. Conclusions We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis., This clinical practice guideline presents recommendations for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients. The recommendations were developed by an international panel based on the results of a systematic review of 114 randomized trials.

Background Objectives were to describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. Methods We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators prior to randomization to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. Results Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P = 0.003). Conclusions The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic may not be a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences and perspectives of parents of pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) regarding oral chemotherapy administration during maintenance therapy. METHODS: English-speaking parents of patients 4 to

ObjectivesSymptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) is a validated self-report symptom screening tool for patients with cancer 8–18 years of age. Co-SSPedi is a novel dyad approach in which both child and parent complete SSPedi together. The objective was to finalise the approach to co-SSPedi administration with instruction that is easy to understand, resulting in dyads completing co-SSPedi correctly.MethodWe enrolled child and parent dyads, who understood English and where children (4–18 years) had cancer or were hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients. We provided each dyad with instruction on how to complete co-SSPedi together. Mixed methods were used to determine how easy or hard the instruction was to understand. Two raters adjudicated if co-SSPedi was completed correctly. Dyads were enrolled in cohorts of 12 evenly divided by age (4–7, 8–10, 11–14 and 15–18 years).ResultsWe enrolled 5 cohorts of 12 dyads, resulting in 60 dyads. Following verbal instruction provided in the first cohort, we identified the need for written instruction emphasising children should wait for parent response prior to entering scores. The instruction was iteratively refined based on qualitative feedback until the fifth cohort, where all 12 dyads found the instruction easy to understand and completed co-SSPedi correctly.ConclusionsWe developed a standard approach to dyad symptom screening named co-SSPedi with instruction that is easy to understand, resulting in correct co-SSPedi completion. Future efforts should focus on co-SSPedi validation and understanding how co-SSPedi scores compare to self- or proxy-reported symptom reporting.

Background: Features of clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations may affect understanding and consequently successful uptake and implementation. We aimed to develop a recommendation format to improve understandability among healthcare professionals involved in pediatric cancer care.Methods: We conducted a multi-center qualitative study of health care professionals at participating pediatric oncology sites. We developed an initial format based on the current literature and used the “think-aloud” technique in multiple rounds of one-on-one cognitive interviews to iteratively improve it. Interviews were conducted until the format was well understood and no new, substantive suggestions for revision were raised. We took a directed (deductive) approach to content analysis of the interview notes to identify concerns related to the understandability of the recommendation. Results: Five investigators interviewed 33 healthcare professionals from multiple disciplines in seven rounds. We identified important factors influencing how to communicate recommendations. Regarding the strength of the recommendation, participants found understanding weak recommendations more challenging than strong. Understanding was improved by using the word ‘conditional’ instead of ‘weak’. Participants believed the inclusion of a rationale section to be very helpful. More information was desirable when a recommendation entailed a practice change. Although participants wanted additional information, they were concerned that there could be too much information. They, therefore, suggested that key words and the studies included in the evidence synthesis be hyperlinked to explanatory data. In the final format, the recommendation strength is clearly indicated in the title, highlighted, and defined within a text box. The rationale for the recommendation is in a column on the left, with supporting evidence on the right. In a bulleted list, the rationale section describes the benefits and harms and additional factors, such as implementation, that were balanced by the CPG developers. Each bullet under the supporting evidence section indicates the level of evidence with an explanation and the supporting studies with hyperlinks when applicable. Conclusions: A well-understood recommendation format to present strong and conditional recommendations was created through an iterative interview process. The format is straightforward, making it easy for organizations and CPG developers to use it to communicate recommendations clearly to intended users.

There is growing recognition of the degree to which symptoms negatively impact on children receiving cancer treatments. A recent study described that almost all inpatient pediatric oncology patients are experiencing at least one bothersome symptom and almost 60% are experiencing at least one severely bothersome symptom. Poor symptom control occurs because of challenges with communication of bothersome symptoms to clinicians, lack of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for most of these symptoms, and failure to administer preventative and therapeutic interventions known to be effective for symptom control. This article reviews approaches used to improve symptom control for children receiving cancer treatments. Areas addressed include systematic symptom screening and creation of CPGs for symptom management. Challenges with electronic health integration are also addressed. Several multi-symptom assessment scales have been developed but none have yet been used to directly influence patient management. The number of CPGs applicable to symptom control in pediatric oncology is increasing but remains small. Improving the creation of and adherence to CPGs for symptom management is an important priority. Finally, identifying ways that symptom management systems can be integrated into clinical work flows is essential; these will likely need to focus on electronic health records.

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic systemic antibiotics in adult and pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS We conducted a systematic review and performed searches of Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process and Embase; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if patients had cancer or were HSCT recipients with anticipated neutropenia, and the intervention was systemic antibacterial prophylaxis. Strategies synthesized included fluoroquinolone vs no antibiotic/nonabsorbable antibiotic; fluoroquinolone vs trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs no antibiotic; and cephalosporin vs. no antibiotic. Fluoroquinolone vs cephalosporin and levofloxacin vs ciprofloxacin were compared by network meta-analysis. Primary outcome was bacteremia. RESULTS Of 20 984 citations screened, 113 studies comparing prophylactic antibiotic to control were included. The following were effective in reducing bacteremia: fluoroquinolone vs no antibiotic/nonabsorbable antibiotic (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.76), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole vs no antibiotic (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41-0.85) and cephalosporin vs no antibiotic (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16-0.58). Fluoroquinolone was not significantly associated with increased Clostridium difficile infection (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31-1.24) or invasive fungal disease (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.79-2.08) but did increase resistance to fluoroquinolone among bacteremia isolates (RR 3.35, 95% CI 1.12 to 10.03). Heterogeneity in fluoroquinolone effect on bacteremia was not explained by evaluated study, population, or methodological factors. Network meta-analysis revealed no direct comparisons for pre-specified analyses; superior regimens were not identified. CONCLUSIONS Fluoroquinolone, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and cephalosporin prophylaxis reduced bacteremia. A clinical practice guideline to facilitate prophylactic antibiotic decision-making is required.

Changes in taste is a common bothersome symptom in children receiving cancer treatments. However, little is known about how pediatric cancer patients experience this symptom. The objective was to describe how children receiving cancer treatments experience taste alterations and the approaches they use to address the issue. In this qualitative study, we included English-speaking children 4–18 years of age with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients who were actively receiving cancer treatment or who had completed therapy. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, we asked questions about the experience of altered taste sensation. We asked about its characteristics, impacts and identified coping strategies. We included 50 children. Children experienced changes in taste in a heterogeneous fashion although commonly described food as tasting “different”, “not right” or “funny”. While change in food preferences due to taste alterations was common, specific choices varied. Many found changes started with treatment initiation or mid-way through treatment, and some found that symptoms persisted up to 9 months following treatment completion. Actions taken to address taste changes were sucking on candy, brushing teeth and modifying food choices. The experience of changes in taste was common yet highly variable in its presentation and resultant changes in food preferences. Taste changes did not always resolve soon after treatment completion. Future research should identify ways to manage this symptom in pediatric cancer patients.

Little evidence exists regarding the emetogenicity of chemotherapy in pediatric patients. This study describes the prevalence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients receiving etoposide plus ifosfamide over 5 days, a common pediatric regimen. English-speaking, non-chemotherapy-naive patients aged 4 to 18 years about to receive etoposide 100 mg/m2/day plus ifosfamide 1800 mg/m2/day over 5 days participated. Antiemetic prophylaxis was determined by each patient’s care team. Emetic episodes were recorded and nausea severity was assessed by patients beginning with the first chemotherapy dose, continuing until 24 h after the last chemotherapy dose (acute phase) and ending 7 days later (delayed phase). The proportion of patients experiencing complete acute CINV control (no nausea, no vomiting, and no retching), the primary study endpoint, was described. The prevalence of complete chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) and chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) during the acute, delayed, and overall (acute plus delayed) phases; complete delayed and overall CINV control; and anticipatory CINV were also determined. Twenty-four patients participated; acute CINV was evaluable in 22. Most (75%; 18/24) received a 5-HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Few (23%; 5/22) experienced complete acute CINV control. Complete acute CIV and CIN control were experienced by 57% (13/23) and 27% (6/22) of patients, respectively. Complete delayed CINV, CIV, and CIN control rates were 42% (8/19), 70% (14/20), and 42% (8/19), respectively. Our findings support the classification of etoposide 100 mg/m2/day plus ifosfamide 1800 mg/m2/day IV over 5 days as highly emetogenic. This information will optimize antiemetic prophylaxis selection and CINV control in pediatric patients.

Background Objectives were to describe the proportion of bothersome symptoms self-reported using the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) documented in the medical records and associated with an intervention. Methods Eligible respondents were inpatients aged 8–18 years receiving cancer treatments and expected to be in hospital or clinic three days later. Children self-reported symptom bother using SSPedi. We evaluated symptom documentation and interventions in the medical records proximal to SSPedi administration. Results There were 168 children included. Symptoms rated as at least ‘a lot’ bother were documented in the medical record less than 60% of the time for 12 of 15 symptoms. Of these symptoms, the most infrequently documented symptoms were problems with thinking or remembering things (0%), changes in how your body or face look (4.8%), changes in taste (7.7%) and tingly or numb hands or feet (11.1%). Intervention provision for symptoms rated as ‘a lot’ bother occurred less than 60% of the time for 10 of 15 symptoms. Of these symptoms, the most infrequently treated were thinking or remembering things (0%), changes in how your body or face look (0%), tingly or numb hands or feet (0%), changes in taste (0%), diarrhoea (0%) and feeling tired (1.6%). Conclusions Documentation of symptoms and intervention provision were generally infrequent. Symptoms that were almost never documented or treated included problems with cognition, body image, taste changes and peripheral neuropathy. Future efforts should incorporate symptom screening into routine care and facilitate symptom management by improving access to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Purpose Use of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients unable to swallow capsules is hindered by the lack of a commercially available oral liquid formulation in many jurisdictions. A stable oral suspension can be extemporaneously prepared using commercially available capsules. We aimed to determine the bioavailability of this aprepitant suspension relative to the capsule. Methods This two-period crossover study enrolled 17 healthy adult volunteers. Volunteers received a single 125 mg aprepitant dose during each study period. Order of formulation presentation (capsule vs suspension first) was randomized. Thirteen blood samples were collected over a 48-h period. Aprepitant plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy. Relative bioavailability was defined as the geometric least squares mean ratio for area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity of the aprepitant suspension versus the capsule. Bioequivalence, defined as per Health Canada guidelines, was assessed as a secondary aim. Results Relative bioavailability of the aprepitant suspension was 82.3% (90% CI: 69.09-98.00%). Bioequivalence was not established: geometric least squares mean ratios (suspension/capsule) for AUC time zero to 48 h and maximum concentration were 87.8% (90% CI: 75.48–102.16%) and 86.1% (90% CI: 75.59–98.16%), respectively. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions With a relative bioavailability of 82.3%, the extemporaneous aprepitant oral suspension was well-absorbed relative to the capsule. Though not bioequivalent to the oral capsule, the clinical use of this aprepitant oral suspension in adult and pediatric patients unable to swallow capsules is likely to be effective and safe.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most distressing and feared treatment-related adverse effects for cancer patients. Selection of antiemetic agents to prevent CINV should be based on an evaluation of their efficacy and safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis describes the adverse effects associated with antiemetic agents recommended for the prevention of acute CINV in children by clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Areas covered: A systematic literature search was conducted using four databases to identify papers describing adverse effects in pediatric patients receiving aprepitant, dexamethasone, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, or tropisetron. Meta-analysis was conducted for adverse effects reported in at least three prospective studies with a cumulative incidence of at least 1%. Expert opinion: Antiemetic agents currently recommended by CPGs are relatively safe to use in children. The presence of patient-specific risk factors for rare adverse effects, especially cardiac arrhythmia, should be evaluated when selecting a patient's antiemetic therapy. Evaluation of the long-term safety of CPG-recommended antiemetic agents in pediatric cancer patients is needed.

Objectives were to describe bothersome fatigue in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell (HSCT) recipients and to identify factors associated with severely bothersome fatigue. We included children ages 8–18 years treated for cancer or HSCT recipients from three groups: [1] receiving active cancer treatment and admitted to hospital for at least 3 days, [2] attending outpatient clinic for acute lymphoblastic leukemia maintenance therapy, and [3] attending outpatient clinic following treatment completion. Fatigue was measured using the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi); severely bothersome fatigue was defined as a lot or extremely bothersome fatigue (score of 3–4 on 0–4 scale). Factors associated with severely bothersome fatigue were examined using univariate and multiple logistic regression. Of 502 children included, 414 (82.5%) reported some degree of bothersome fatigue (scores 1–4), and 123 (24.5%) reported severely bothersome fatigue (score 3 or 4). In multiple regression analysis, factors significantly associated with severely bothersome fatigue were child age 11–14 and 15–18 years vs 8–10 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–3.77 and OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.66–5.44), and inpatients receiving cancer treatment vs outpatients who had completed therapy (OR 3.85, 95% CI 2.17–7.27). We found that 82.5% of children with cancer or HSCT recipients reported bothersome fatigue and 24.5% of children reported severely bothersome fatigue. Risk factors for severely bothersome fatigue were older age and inpatients receiving active cancer treatment. Future work should evaluate systematic symptom screening in clinical practice and apply interventions to reduce fatigue.