Catalina Hernandez Torres1, Sasha Mazzarello2, Terry Ng1, George Dranitsaris3, Brian Hutton4, Stephanie Smith2, Amy Munro2, Carmel Jacobs1, Mark Clemons5,6,7. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2. Cancer Therapeutics Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. , Toronto, Canada. 4. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 5. Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. mclemons@toh.on.ca. 6. Cancer Therapeutics Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. mclemons@toh.on.ca. 7. Division of Medical Oncology, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Box 912, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. mclemons@toh.on.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A considerable challenge when comparing antiemetic trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the large number of outcome measures for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal definition of CINV control from the patients' perspective. METHODS: Patients with early-stage breast cancer who had received anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were surveyed. They were asked about their experiences of CINV and perceptions of different CINV assessment tools. RESULTS: Of 201 patients approached, 168 (83 %) completed the survey. Patients consistently ranked nausea over vomiting as the "worst side effect from chemotherapy." Despite the use of multi-agent antiemetic regimens, 71 % of patients experienced nausea and 26 % vomiting. Only 57 % of patients with any nausea or vomiting took rescue medications and only then when the symptom was severe. Most (76 %) patients believed that the primary end point of antiemetic trials should include the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients felt that CINV should be evaluated for the overall period post chemotherapy (i.e., days 1-5) and not simply the acute (the first 24 h) or delayed (days 2-5) periods. CONCLUSIONS: Patients strongly favored a CINV end point that includes the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients' experience with CINV is underestimated when nausea is not included in composite end points. "Use of rescue medication," a commonly used surrogate for emesis control, is inappropriate as it underestimates nausea. A standardized primary end point that includes nausea is essential if CINV control is to be improved.
PURPOSE: A considerable challenge when comparing antiemetic trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the large number of outcome measures for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal definition of CINV control from the patients' perspective. METHODS:Patients with early-stage breast cancer who had received anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy were surveyed. They were asked about their experiences of CINV and perceptions of different CINV assessment tools. RESULTS: Of 201 patients approached, 168 (83 %) completed the survey. Patients consistently ranked nausea over vomiting as the "worst side effect from chemotherapy." Despite the use of multi-agent antiemetic regimens, 71 % of patients experienced nausea and 26 % vomiting. Only 57 % of patients with any nausea or vomiting took rescue medications and only then when the symptom was severe. Most (76 %) patients believed that the primary end point of antiemetic trials should include the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients felt that CINV should be evaluated for the overall period post chemotherapy (i.e., days 1-5) and not simply the acute (the first 24 h) or delayed (days 2-5) periods. CONCLUSIONS:Patients strongly favored a CINV end point that includes the absence of both nausea and vomiting. Patients' experience with CINV is underestimated when nausea is not included in composite end points. "Use of rescue medication," a commonly used surrogate for emesis control, is inappropriate as it underestimates nausea. A standardized primary end point that includes nausea is essential if CINV control is to be improved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; CINV; End points; Patient; Perception
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: Felipe Melo Cruz; Daniel de Iracema Gomes Cubero; Patrícia Taranto; Tatiana Lerner; Andrea Thaumaturgo Lera; Michele da Costa Miranda; Mariana da Cunha Vieira; Angelo Bezerra de Souza Fêde; Fernanda Schindler; Mércia Maleckas Carrasco; Samuel Oliveira de Afonseca; Hélio Pinczowski; Auro del Giglio Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: George Dranitsaris; Nathaniel Bouganim; Carolyn Milano; Lisa Vandermeer; Susan Dent; Paul Wheatley-Price; Jenny Laporte; Karen-Ann Oxborough; Mark Clemons Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2013-03
Authors: N Bouganim; G Dranitsaris; S Hopkins; L Vandermeer; L Godbout; S Dent; P Wheatley-Price; C Milano; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.677
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: Mallika P Patel; Sarah Woodring; Dina M Randazzo; Henry S Friedman; Annick Desjardins; Patrick Healy; James E Herndon; Frances McSherry; Eric S Lipp; Elizabeth Miller; Katherine B Peters; Mary Lou Affronti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kednapa Thavorn; Doug Coyle; Jeffrey S Hoch; Lisa Vandermeer; Sasha Mazzarello; Zhou Wang; George Dranitsaris; Dean Fergusson; Mark Clemons Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Carmel Jacobs; Mark Clemons; Sasha Mazzarello; Brian Hutton; Anil A Joy; Muriel Brackstone; Orit Freedman; Lisa Vandermeer; Mohammed Ibrahim; Dean Fergusson; John Hilton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: G Dranitsaris; A Molassiotis; M Clemons; E Roeland; L Schwartzberg; P Dielenseger; K Jordan; A Young; M Aapro Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976