PURPOSE: This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries. METHODS: Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV. RESULTS: There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate. CONCLUSIONS: CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries. METHODS: Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV. RESULTS: There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate. CONCLUSIONS:CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Authors: Dorothy M K Keefe; Alexandre Chan; Hoon-Kyo Kim; Ruey Kuen Hsieh; Shiying Yu; Yachuan Wang; Rebecca J Nicholls; Thomas A Burke Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexander Molassiotis; Matti Aapro; Mario Dicato; Pere Gascon; Sylvia A Novoa; Nicolas Isambert; Thomas A Burke; Anna Gu; Fausto Roila Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Dyah Aryani Perwitasari; Jarir Atthobari; Mustofa Mustofa; Iwan Dwiprahasto; Mohammad Hakimi; Hans Gelderblom; Hein Putter; Johan W R Nortier; Henk-Jan Guchelaar; Ad A Kaptein Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Winnie Yeo; F K F Mo; J J S Suen; W M Ho; S L Chan; W Lau; J Koh; W K Yeung; W H Kwan; K K C Lee; T S K Mok; A N Y Poon; K C Lam; E K Hui; B Zee Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Hoon-Kyo Kim; RueyKuen Hsieh; Alexandre Chan; Shiying Yu; Baohui Han; Yunong Gao; Ana Baños; Xiaoyan Ying; Thomas A Burke; Dorothy M K Keefe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Dorothy M K Keefe; Alexandre Chan; Hoon-Kyo Kim; Ruey Kuen Hsieh; Shiying Yu; Yachuan Wang; Rebecca J Nicholls; Thomas A Burke Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alexandre Chan; Hoon-Kyo Kim; Ruey Kuen Hsieh; Shiying Yu; Gilberto de Lima Lopes; Wu-Chou Su; Ana Baños; Sandeep Bhatia; Thomas A Burke; Dorothy M K Keefe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sylvia L Crowder; Aasha I Hoogland; Taylor L Welniak; Elizabeth A LaFranchise; Kristen M Carpenter; Daneng Li; Daniel M Rotroff; Arshiya Mariam; Christine M Pierce; Stacy M Fischer; Anita Y Kinney; Thi Dong-Binh Tran; Farzaneh Rastegari; Donna L Berry; Martine Extermann; Richard D Kim; Danielle B Tometich; Jane C Figueiredo; Jameel Muzaffar; Shahla Bari; Kea Turner; George M Weinstock; Heather S L Jim Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Daniel S Childs; Sherry Looker; Jennifer Le-Rademacher; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Aminah Jatoi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.603