Priya Patel1, Paula D Robinson2, Andrea Orsey3,4, Jason L Freedman5,6, Anne-Marie Langevin7, Debbie Woods8, Lillian Sung9,10, L Lee Dupuis1,9,11. 1. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, Connecticut. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut. 5. Division of Oncology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, University of Texas Health Science Centre at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. 8. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 9. Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 10. Division of Haematology/Oncology, Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 11. Department of Pharmacy, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has endorsed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in children with cancer. This project aims to describe current acute CINV prophylaxis practice at COG sites and the gap between this practice and CPG recommendations. PROCEDURE: Two surveys were developed. The first survey, sent to 94 cancer control and supportive care responsible individuals (CCL RIs) at 94 COG institutions, asked if the institution had a standardized approach to practice and focused on antiemetic agent choice. The second survey, sent to 54 pharmacists at COG sites where the CCL RI indicated that there was a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice, focused on antiemetic dosing. Survey results were described and analyzed for consistency with the CPG recommendations. RESULTS: Among the 69 respondents to the first survey, 54 (78%) stated that their institutions have a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice. However, antiemetic choice varied widely among respondents. Results from the 36 respondents to the second survey also demonstrated significant antiemetic dosing practice variability. Frequent sources of deviation from CPG recommendations were as follows: antiemetic choice when corticosteroids are contraindicated, dexamethasone dosing, aprepitant use in children less than 12 years, and aprepitant use in the presence of a known or suspected drug interaction. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great diversity in the CINV prophylaxis provided to children with cancer at COG sites. Concerted strategies are required to improve awareness of the current CINV prophylaxis CPG and to facilitate CPG-consistent CINV prophylaxis.
BACKGROUND: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) has endorsed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in children with cancer. This project aims to describe current acute CINV prophylaxis practice at COG sites and the gap between this practice and CPG recommendations. PROCEDURE: Two surveys were developed. The first survey, sent to 94 cancer control and supportive care responsible individuals (CCL RIs) at 94 COG institutions, asked if the institution had a standardized approach to practice and focused on antiemetic agent choice. The second survey, sent to 54 pharmacists at COG sites where the CCL RI indicated that there was a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice, focused on antiemetic dosing. Survey results were described and analyzed for consistency with the CPG recommendations. RESULTS: Among the 69 respondents to the first survey, 54 (78%) stated that their institutions have a standardized approach to CINV prophylaxis practice. However, antiemetic choice varied widely among respondents. Results from the 36 respondents to the second survey also demonstrated significant antiemetic dosing practice variability. Frequent sources of deviation from CPG recommendations were as follows: antiemetic choice when corticosteroids are contraindicated, dexamethasone dosing, aprepitant use in children less than 12 years, and aprepitant use in the presence of a known or suspected drug interaction. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great diversity in the CINV prophylaxis provided to children with cancer at COG sites. Concerted strategies are required to improve awareness of the current CINV prophylaxis CPG and to facilitate CPG-consistent CINV prophylaxis.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: M Aapro; A Molassiotis; M Dicato; I Peláez; Á Rodríguez-Lescure; D Pastorelli; L Ma; T Burke; A Gu; P Gascon; F Roila Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Wilson C Mertens; Donald J Higby; David Brown; Regina Parisi; Janice Fitzgerald; Evan M Benjamin; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hyoung Jin Kang; Susan Loftus; Arlene Taylor; Cara DiCristina; Stuart Green; Christian Michel Zwaan Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: L Lee Dupuis; Cindy Milne-Wren; Marilyn Cassidy; Maru Barrera; Carol Portwine; Donna L Johnston; Mariana Pradier Silva; Cathryn Sibbald; Michael Leaker; Stacey Routh; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: L Lee Dupuis; Sabrina Boodhan; Mark Holdsworth; Paula D Robinson; Richard Hain; Carol Portwine; Erin O'Shaughnessy; Lillian Sung Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: J Flank; T Schechter; P Gibson; D L Johnston; A D Orsey; C Portwine; L Sung; L L Dupuis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Antonio Ruggiero; Daniela Rizzo; Martina Catalano; Paola Coccia; Silvia Triarico; Giorgio Attiná Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 1.671