Alexander Molassiotis1, Paul H Lee2, Thomas A Burke3, Mario Dicato4, Pere Gascon5, Fausto Roila6, Matti Aapro7. 1. School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong. Electronic address: alex.molasiotis@polyu.edu.hk. 2. School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong. 3. Global Health Outcomes, Merck Research Laboratories, Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA. 4. Hematology-Oncology, Luxembourg Medical Center, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. 5. August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Santa Maria Hospital, Terni, Italy. 7. Breast Center, IMO Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Anticipatory (prechemotherapy) nausea (AN) is a classic conditioned symptom not responding well to current antiemetics. Minimal work has been done to assess its risk factors and impact on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate risk factors for AN and assess its impact on CINV development. METHODS: We analyzed data (n = 991) from a prospective observational multisite study in eight European countries over three cycles of chemotherapy. Patient/treatment characteristics were collected before chemotherapy. History of nausea/vomiting (yes/no), patient expectation of CINV (0-100 mm visual analog scale, [VAS]), and prechemotherapy anxiety (0-100 mm VAS) also were collected before chemotherapy. A patient-completed diary during each chemotherapy cycle obtained information on AN in the 24 hours before chemotherapy administration and nausea and vomiting (episodes of vomiting and severity of nausea) daily for five days after administration of chemotherapy (0-100 mm VAS). RESULTS: AN was reported by 8.3%-13.8% of patients, increasing in frequency and intensity over each cycle. Every 1 mm increase in AN on the VAS was significantly associated with 2%-13% of increase in the likelihood of CINV (all P-values <0.05). Key predictors of AN in Cycle 1 included metastatic disease and prechemotherapy anxiety. However, predictors of AN in subsequent cycles included prechemotherapy anxiety and AN and CINV experience in the previous cycle, the latter being the strongest predictor (odds ratio = 3.30-4.09 for CINV outcomes over the cycles). CONCLUSION: AN is a challenging symptom, and its prevention needs to consider better CINV prevention in the previous cycles as well as managing prechemotherapy anxiety.
CONTEXT: Anticipatory (prechemotherapy) nausea (AN) is a classic conditioned symptom not responding well to current antiemetics. Minimal work has been done to assess its risk factors and impact on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate risk factors for AN and assess its impact on CINV development. METHODS: We analyzed data (n = 991) from a prospective observational multisite study in eight European countries over three cycles of chemotherapy. Patient/treatment characteristics were collected before chemotherapy. History of nausea/vomiting (yes/no), patient expectation of CINV (0-100 mm visual analog scale, [VAS]), and prechemotherapy anxiety (0-100 mm VAS) also were collected before chemotherapy. A patient-completed diary during each chemotherapy cycle obtained information on AN in the 24 hours before chemotherapy administration and nausea and vomiting (episodes of vomiting and severity of nausea) daily for five days after administration of chemotherapy (0-100 mm VAS). RESULTS: AN was reported by 8.3%-13.8% of patients, increasing in frequency and intensity over each cycle. Every 1 mm increase in AN on the VAS was significantly associated with 2%-13% of increase in the likelihood of CINV (all P-values <0.05). Key predictors of AN in Cycle 1 included metastatic disease and prechemotherapy anxiety. However, predictors of AN in subsequent cycles included prechemotherapy anxiety and AN and CINV experience in the previous cycle, the latter being the strongest predictor (odds ratio = 3.30-4.09 for CINV outcomes over the cycles). CONCLUSION: AN is a challenging symptom, and its prevention needs to consider better CINV prevention in the previous cycles as well as managing prechemotherapy anxiety.
Authors: Komal P Singh; Anand A Dhruva; Elena Flowers; Kord M Kober; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 6.312
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: L Lee Dupuis; Joseph A Roscoe; Ian Olver; Matti Aapro; Alexander Molassiotis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-10 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
Authors: Komal P Singh; Kord M Kober; Brenda Ernst; Jasgit Sachdev; Melanie Brewer; Qiyun Zhu; Haiwei Gu; Michele Melisko; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Marilyn Hammer; Yvette P Conley; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2022 May-Jun 01 Impact factor: 2.760