Search

Purpose: We assessed the differences in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) severity in patients with breast cancer, receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). Methods: CINV severity in patients on anthracycline-based NAC (n = 203) and AC (n = 79) was assessed at baseline (C0) and after the first and fourth chemotherapy using a 10-point Likert scale. Group-by-time interaction term was used to evaluate the effect of the group on changes in CIN (cCIN) and CIV (cCIV) from C0 to the follow-up periods (C1, C4). If insignificant, group effects were analyzed without the interaction term. Subgroup analysis was performed based on age 50. In statistical analyses, sociodemographic and clinical variables that differed between groups were adjusted for. Results: The effect of group by follow-up period was not significant in cCIN and cCIV. The AC group showed a significantly higher change in the severity of cCIN compared to the NAC group (estimated mean = 1.133, 95% CI = 0.104–2.161, p = 0.031), but there was no difference in cCIV. In those ≤ 50 years, significant differences in cCIN severity (estimated mean = 1.294, 95% CI = 0.103–2.484, p = 0.033) were observed, but not in cCIV. In those > 50 years, neither cCIN nor cCIV differed significantly between groups. Conclusions: NAC in breast cancer patients showed less severe CIN than adjuvant chemotherapy AC, but not in those over 50. Clinicians should recognize that the severity of CIN may vary across different chemotherapy settings and adjust their management accordingly. Trial registration: The clinical trial registration () numbers were NCT 01887925 (the registration date is from June 20, 2013, to November 27, 2015) and NCT02011815 (the registration date is from December 10, 2013, to September 22, 2019). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high‐dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380. Results: Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5‐Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5‐HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonists, 5‐HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported. Conclusion: Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) combined with Dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving Capecitabine plus Oxaliplatin (CapeOX) therapy. Design Open-label, prospective, multi-center phase II trial. Setting Three institutions. Participants Fifty-four patients scheduled to receive CapeOX chemotherapy. Interventions Participants received GTDS (3.1 mg applied to the upper arm 48 h before chemotherapy, replaced on day 5, and discarded on day 12) and Dexamethasone. Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was the complete control rate of CINV. Secondary endpoints included the duration of delayed complete control, complete control rate in the acute phase, safety, and quality of life. Results The complete control rate for delayed CINV over the entire period (25–480 h) was 72.7% (95% CI 0.57–0.88). The duration of delayed complete control was 17.2 ± 4.5 days, with 51.5% of patients experiencing no nausea during the delayed phase. The complete control rate in the acute phase was 81.8% (95% CI 0.69–0.95). No serious adverse events related to the antiemetic regimen were reported. Conclusion Prolonged administration of GTDS is safe and effective for preventing CINV in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies treated with CapeOX. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT05325190); registered on October 10, 2021.

Purpose: This study describes chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control rates in pediatric and adult patients who did or did not receive guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies published in 2000 or later that evaluated CINV control in patients receiving guideline-consistent vs. guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis and reported at least one CINV-related patient outcome. Studies were excluded if the guideline evaluated was not publicly available or not developed by a professional organization. Over-prophylaxis was defined as antiemetic use recommended for a higher level of chemotherapy emetogenicity than a patient was receiving. Results: We identified 7060 citations and retrieved 141 publications for full-text evaluation. Of these, 21 publications (14 prospective and seven retrospective studies) evaluating guidelines developed by six organizations were included. The terms used to describe CINV endpoints and definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis varied among studies. Included studies either did not address over-prophylaxis in their definition of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (48%; 10/21) or defined it as guideline-inconsistent (38%; 8/21) or guideline-consistent (3/21; 14%). Eleven included studies (52%; 11/21) reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one CINV endpoint in patients receiving guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis. Ten reported a statistically significant improvement. Conclusions: This evidence supports the use of guideline-consistent prophylaxis to optimize CINV control. Institutions caring for patients with cancer should systematically adapt CINV CPGs for local implementation and routinely evaluate CINV outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing chemotherapy often encounter troubling and common side effects, notably Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This side effect not only impairs the patient's quality of life but could also result in the interruption or discontinuation of the chemotherapy treatment. Consequently, research into CINV has consistently remained a focal point in the realm of clinical medicine. In this research domain, bibliometric analysis has not been conducted. The purpose of this study is to deliver a thorough summary of the knowledge framework and key areas of interest in the field of Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, using bibliometric methods. This approach aims to furnish novel concepts and pathways for investigators working in this area. Methods: Publications focusing on Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, spanning from 2004 to 2023, were identified using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database. Tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix" were employed for this bibliometric analysis. Results: This research covers 734 publications from 61 countries, with the United States and China being the primary contributors. There has been a significant rise in the volume of papers published in the most recent decade compared to the one before it, spanning over the past twenty years. However, the annual publication rate in the last ten years has not shown a significant upward trend. The University of Toronto, Merck & Co., Sun Yat-sen University, and Helsinn Healthcare SA emerged as the principal research institutions in this field. Supportive Care in Cancer stands out as the most frequently published and cited journal in this domain. These works are contributed by 3,917 authors, with Rudolph M Navari, Matti Aapro, Shimokawa Mototsugu, and Lee Schwartzberg being among those who have published the most. Paul J. Hesketh is notably the most co-cited author. The primary focus of this research field lies in exploring the mechanisms of CINV and the therapeutic strategies for managing it. Key emerging research hotspots are represented by terms such as "Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," "nausea," "vomiting," "chemotherapy," and "antiemetics.". Conclusion: This represents the inaugural bibliometric study to thoroughly outline the research trends and advancements in the field of CINV. It highlights the latest research frontiers and trending directions, offering valuable insights for scholars engaged in studying CINV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. Results: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87–58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50–5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. Conclusions: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis. Methods: Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients’ files. Results: Seventeen children aged 8–18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations. Conclusion: In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan–Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1–6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7–11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion : The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common adverse effect of chemotherapy and affects the continuation of chemotherapy in cancer patients. Electrical acupoint stimulation (EAS), which includes electroacupuncture and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), has been used to treat CINV. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EAS in the treatment of CINV. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of EAS for CINV retrieved form five key databases. Two researchers independently performed article screening, data extraction and data integration. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to assesse the methodological quality according to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RevMan 5.4 was used to perform analyses. Results: 10 RCTs with a total of 950 participants were included. The results showed that there was no significant difference between EAS compared to sham EAS in terms of increasing the rate of complete control of CINV and decreasing the overall incidence of CINV [RR = 1.26, 95 % CI (0.96, 1.66), P = 0.95; RR = 1.16, 95 % CI (0.97, 1.40), p = 0.71]. In terms of CINV severity, EAS reduced the occurrence of moderate-to-severe CINV [RR = 0.60, 95 % CI (0.38, 0.94), P = 0.03; RR = 0.50, 95 % CI (0.33, 0.76), P = 0.001]. Conclusion: EAS could improve moderate-to-severe CINV. However, EAS did not show a significant difference in reducing overall incidence and improving complete control rates compared with sham EAS. Due to limitations in the quality of the included articles, the available studies are insufficient to have sufficient evidence to confirm the efficacy of EAS for CINV. Validation with rigorously designed, large-sample, high-quality clinical trial studies may also be needed.

Nausea and vomiting is one of the common adverse drug reactions associated with chemotherapy in cancer patients, and it has negative impact on following treatment and health-related quality of life. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) external treatment plays an important role in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and has achieved good therapeutic effect in clinical application. Auricular bean embedding, as a common TCM external treatment technique, is accepted by patients because of its non-invasive and high safety. This article summarizes the relevant literature on the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with auricular bean embedding in recent years, so as to provide reference for clinical application. (恶心呕吐是化疗常见的不良反应之一, 严重影响患者的后续治疗和生活质量。中医外治法在治疗化疗所致恶心呕吐方面发挥了重要的作用。本研究就耳穴埋豆中医外治法缓解化疗所致恶心呕吐的研究现状进行综述, 旨在为临床制定中西医结合干预方案提供参考。)

Background and purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can cause severe damage to body functions and even lead to death. The prevention of CINV is critically important in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and treatment of CINV in Grade-A tertiary hospitals in Shanghai and explore risk factors of CINV to improve its management. Methods: The clinical data of 376 cancer patients in Grade-A tertiary hospitals in Shanghai from October 2022 to December 2022 were collected retrospectively. The questionnaire was used to conduct a cross-sectional study. The univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the influencing factors of CINV. Results: The management and coincidence of the guideline in 2022 significantly improved compared to five years ago. For patients receiving high-emetic-risk chemotherapy regimen, the coincidence of the guideline increased from 21.6% to 67.0%. For patients receiving moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy regimen, the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist was not significantly associated with CINV. Multivariable analysis showed that the chemotherapy regimen was the only risk factor for CINV during the whole period (P

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias. Results: The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09–1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01–1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01–1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively). Conclusion: Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an ongoing problem. While effectiveness of triplet antiemetic regimens in the delayed CINV phase (24–120 hours after administration of chemotherapy) has been studied, their effectiveness in the long-delayed phase (120–168 hours post-administration) is unknown. We compared the efficacy of 3- and 5-day courses of a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis containing aprepitant (APR) in controlling long-delayed CINV after cisplatin (CDDP)-based chemotherapy. We obtained patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan. The incidence and timing of CINV after 3- and 5-day APR-containing regimens were compared using inverse probability treatment weighting. The analysis included 380 patients. The incidence rates of long-delayed nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced for the 5-day compared with the 3-day regimen (29.1% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.0042; 6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Among those without CINV, vomiting was not reported after day 2 in the 5-day APR group but increased after day 4 in the 3-day APR group. A 5-day regimen triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with APR decreased long-delayed vomiting compared with a 3-day regimen in patients receiving CDDP-based chemotherapy. However, the 5-day regimen showed no advantage over the 3-day regimen against long-delayed nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA) has long been considered the standard regimen for preventing chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, their therapeutic outcomes have been unsatisfactory. NEPA, an oral formulation combining the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5HT3RA palonosetron, has received regulatory approval for the management of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of NEPA with that of 5HT3RA alone in preventing CINV among patients undergoing multiday conditioning chemotherapy prior to HSCT. Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent HSCT between September 2019 and September 2022. Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on the rates of patients achieving complete response (CR: no emesis and no use of rescue medication), complete control (CC: CR without significant nausea), no vomiting, and no significant nausea. Results: The NEPA group consisted of 106 patients, while the 5HT3RA group included 107 patients. The NEPA group exhibited significantly higher rates of CR compared to the 5HT3RA group during the overall phase (71.7% vs. 32.7%, P<0.001), acute phase (78.3% vs. 43.0%, P<0.001), and delayed phase (84.9% vs. 58.9%, P<0.001). Similarly, rates of CC, no vomiting, and no significant nausea were significantly better in the NEPA group across all phases (P<0.001). Conclusion: NEPA demonstrated superior efficacy compared to 5HT3RA in preventing CINV during all phases of multiday conditioning regimens among patients undergoing HSCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX), a standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), is expected to be associated with a higher risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Herein, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a three-drug combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA), dexamethasone (DEX), and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK1RA) for the prevention of CINV during mFFX therapy. Methods: This study enrolled patients with APC who received mFFX as initial therapy with a combination of 5HT3RA, DEX, and NK1RA as antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate during cycle 1, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use during the overall period (0–120 h). Safety was also evaluated with a focus on hyperglycemia, which is a concern in patients with APC. Results: Seventy patients were eligible for this retrospective analysis. The CR rate during the overall period was 51.4%. Significant nausea, defined as grade 2 or higher, peaked to 77.1% on days 4–5, but remained above 65% until day 7. Hyperglycemia occurred in 37.1% of patients, and 34.3% were grade 3 hyperglycemia. Conclusions: CINV induced by mFFX was poorly controlled even with prophylactic antiemetic therapy using 5HT3RA, DEX, and NK1RA, and was found to persist beyond 5 days. Enhanced antiemetic measures for mFFX are desirable. However, in patients with diabetes mellitus complications, sparing of steroids and glycemic control should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the widespread use of medical cannabis, little is known regarding the safety, efficacy, and dosing of cannabis products in children with cancer. The objective of this study was to systematically appraise the existing published literature for the use of cannabis products in children with cancer. Methods: This systematic review, registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020187433), searched four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data on types of cannabis products, doses, formulations, frequencies, routes of administration, indications, and clinical and demographic details as well as reported efficacy outcomes were extracted. Data on cannabinoid‐related adverse events were also summarized. Results: Out of 34,611 identified citations, 19 unique studies with a total of 1927 participants with cancer were included: eight retrospective chart reviews, seven randomized controlled trials, two open‐label studies, and two case reports. The included studies reported the use of various cannabis products for the management of symptoms. Cannabinoids were commonly used for the management of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (11 of 19 [58%]). In controlled studies, somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and withdrawal due to adverse events were more commonly associated with the use of cannabinoids. Across all included studies, no serious cannabis‐related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Although there is evidence to support the use of cannabis for symptom management, in children with cancer, there is a lack of rigorous evidence to inform the dosing, safety, and efficacy of cannabinoids. Because of the increasing interest in using cannabis, there is an urgent need for more research on medical cannabis in children with cancer. In the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the use of cannabis‐based products (both natural and synthetic cannabinoids) to help children with cancer‐related symptoms. This systematic review summarizes 19 studies related to the use of cannabinoids for the management of cancer‐related symptoms in children. The most common indication for the use of cannabinoids in the included studies was chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting. A variety of cannabinoids were used: nabilone, Δ‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol, dronabinol, and cannabidiol. The most common route of administration was oral with capsules as a formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can cause severe damage to body functions and even lead to death. The prevention of CINV is critically important in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and treatment of CINV in Grade-A tertiary hospitals in Shanghai and explore risk factors of CINV to improve its management. Methods: The clinical data of 376 cancer patients in Grade-A tertiary hospitals in Shanghai from October 2022 to December 2022 were collected retrospectively. The questionnaire was used to conduct a crosssectional study. The univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the influencing factors of CINV. Results: The management and coincidence of the guideline in 2022 significantly improved compared to five years ago. For patients receiving high-emetic-risk chemotherapy regimen, the coincidence of the guideline increased from 21.6% to 67.0%. For patients receiving moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy regimen, the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist was not significantly associated with CINV. Multivariable analysis showed that the chemotherapy regimen was the only risk factor for CINV during the whole period (P＜0.05). Conclusion: The chemotherapy regimen is the main risk factor for CINV. To control CINV better, clinical practitioners should focus on the intrinsic risk of chemotherapy regimens preferentially, estimate the risk and adhere better to guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]