PURPOSE: Nausea is a troublesome and distressing symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy. While vomiting is well controlled with current antiemetics, nausea is a more difficult symptom to manage. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of nausea on nutritional status, quality of life and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study over two cycles of chemotherapy. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a measure of nutritional status (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at the end of each chemotherapy cycle (around day 10 post-chemotherapy). RESULTS: The sample consisted of 104 patients, primarily female, receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. While vomiting was minimal (5.2-14.6 % of the patients), high levels of nausea were observed (55.2-72.9 %), and severe nausea (>6 on a 0-10 scale) was reported by 20.5-29.2 % of the participants. Severe nausea had a borderline significant impact in relation to physical functioning (p = 0.025) and a significant impact on nutritional status (severe acute nausea, p = 0.003; severe delayed nausea, p = 0.017). Clinically meaningful changes were observed in relation to the FACT-G total score. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea does have an impact on nutritional status and physical functioning and can impair anxiety and quality of life. As a key symptom associated with other symptoms, it is imperative that greater attention is given to managing treatment-related nausea through innovative non-pharmacological and nutritional interventions.
PURPOSE:Nausea is a troublesome and distressing symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy. While vomiting is well controlled with current antiemetics, nausea is a more difficult symptom to manage. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of nausea on nutritional status, quality of life and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study over two cycles of chemotherapy. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a measure of nutritional status (Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at the end of each chemotherapy cycle (around day 10 post-chemotherapy). RESULTS: The sample consisted of 104 patients, primarily female, receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. While vomiting was minimal (5.2-14.6 % of the patients), high levels of nausea were observed (55.2-72.9 %), and severe nausea (>6 on a 0-10 scale) was reported by 20.5-29.2 % of the participants. Severe nausea had a borderline significant impact in relation to physical functioning (p = 0.025) and a significant impact on nutritional status (severe acute nausea, p = 0.003; severe delayed nausea, p = 0.017). Clinically meaningful changes were observed in relation to the FACT-G total score. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea does have an impact on nutritional status and physical functioning and can impair anxiety and quality of life. As a key symptom associated with other symptoms, it is imperative that greater attention is given to managing treatment-related nausea through innovative non-pharmacological and nutritional interventions.
Authors: Madeleine T King; Martin R Stockler; David F Cella; David Osoba; David T Eton; Joanna Thompson; Amy R Eisenstein Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-08-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: A Molassiotis; M P Saunders; J Valle; G Wilson; P Lorigan; A Wardley; E Levine; R Cowan; J Loncaster; C Rittenberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexander Molassiotis; Peter A Coventry; Carrie T Stricker; Caroline Clements; Beth Eaby; Luke Velders; Cynthia Rittenberg; Richard J Gralla Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kelsey L Tinkum; Kristina M Stemler; Lynn S White; Andrew J Loza; Sabrina Jeter-Jones; Basia M Michalski; Catherine Kuzmicki; Robert Pless; Thaddeus S Stappenbeck; David Piwnica-Worms; Helen Piwnica-Worms Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Cécile Conte; Manuela Rueter; Guy Laurent; Robert Bourrel; Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre; Fabien Despas Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Komal Singh; Kord M Kober; Steven M Paul; Marilyn Hammer; Fay Wright; Yvette P Conley; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anita R Peoples; Eva Culakova; Charles E Heckler; Michelle Shayne; Tracey L O'Connor; Jeffrey J Kirshner; Peter W Bushunow; Gary R Morrow; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Catalina Hernandez Torres; Sasha Mazzarello; Terry Ng; George Dranitsaris; Brian Hutton; Stephanie Smith; Amy Munro; Carmel Jacobs; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nikolaos Papachristou; Payam Barnaghi; Bruce Cooper; Kord M Kober; Roma Maguire; Steven M Paul; Marilyn Hammer; Fay Wright; Jo Armes; Eileen P Furlong; Lisa McCann; Yvette P Conley; Elisabeth Patiraki; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mary Lou Affronti; Susan M Schneider; James E Herndon; Susan Schlundt; Henry S Friedman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Heidi S Donovan; Teresa L Hagan; Grace B Campbell; Michelle M Boisen; Leah M Rosenblum; Robert P Edwards; Dana H Bovbjerg; Charles C Horn Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 3.603