PURPOSE: We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles. METHODS: Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen. RESULTS: There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.
PURPOSE: We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles. METHODS: Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen. RESULTS: There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients. CONCLUSIONS:CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.
Authors: Steven M Grunberg; David Warr; Richard J Gralla; Bernardo L Rapoport; Paul J Hesketh; Karin Jordan; Birgitte T Espersen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-10-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: I Kuchuk; N Bouganim; K Beusterien; J Grinspan; L Vandermeer; S Gertler; S F Dent; X Song; R Segal; S Mazzarello; F Crawley; G Dranitsaris; M Clemons Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: G R Morrow; J A Roscoe; J T Hickok; R M Stern; H I Pierce; D B King; T K Banerjee; P Weiden Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 2.990
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: Joseph A Roscoe; Peter Bushunow; Gary R Morrow; Jane T Hickok; Philip J Kuebler; Andrew Jacobs; Tarit K Banerjee Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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: S Carnio; D Galetta; V Scotti; D L Cortinovis; A Antonuzzo; S Pisconti; A Rossi; O Martelli; F L Cecere; A Lunghi; A Del Conte; E S Montagna; J Topulli; D Pelizzoni; S G Rapetti; M Gianetta; M V Pacchiana; V Pegoraro; N Cataldo; E Bria; S Novello Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-12-21 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; Matin M Abdullah; Wan Zamaniah B Wan Ishak; Annielyn B Ong-Cornel; Antonio H Villalon; Ravindran Kanesvaran Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2016-11-09