| Literature DB >> 35875071 |
Fanming Kong1,2, Ziwei Wang1,2, Na Wang1,2, Lu Zhao1,2, Qingyun Mei1,2, Yongchao Yu1,2, Dou Zhang1,2, Xiaojiang Li1,2, Yingjie Jia1,2.
Abstract
Objective: The present study aimed to explore the effectiveness of acupuncture combined with antiemetic drugs in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among breast cancer patients receiving postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: acupuncture; antiemetic drug; breast cancer; chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; curative effect
Year: 2022 PMID: 35875071 PMCID: PMC9304862 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.888651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
The basic information of 81 patients with following a curative resection for breast cancer.
| All (n=81) | Group A (n=41) | Group B (n=40) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender* | ||||
| Female | 81 | 41 | 40 | – |
| Age | ||||
| <50 | 37(45.7%) | 20(48.8%) | 17(42.5%) | 0.570 |
| ≥50 | 44(54.3%) | 21(51.2%) | 23(57.5%) | |
| BMI | ||||
| Normal | 36(44.4%) | 16(39.0%) | 20(50.0%) | 0.320a |
| Annormal | 45(55.6%) | 25(61.0%) | 20(50.0%) | |
| Stage | ||||
| I | 9(11.1%) | 5(12.2%) | 4(10%) | 0.904 |
| II | 62(76.5%) | 30(73.2%) | 32(80%) | |
| III | 9(11.1%) | 5(12.2%) | 4(10%) | |
| IV | 1(1.2%) | 1(2.4%) | 0 | |
| ECOG-PS (before) | ||||
| 0 | 6(7.4%) | 5(12.2%) | 1(2.5%) | 0.201 |
| 1 | 75(92.6%) | 36(87.8%) | 39(97.5%) | |
| Alcohol | ||||
| yes | 9(11.1%) | 4(9.8%) | 5(12.5%) | 0.737 |
| no | 72(88.9%) | 37(90.2%) | 35(87.5%) | |
| Motion sickness symptoms | ||||
| yes | 4(4.9%) | 1(2.4%) | 3(7.5%) | 0.359 |
| no | 77(95.1%) | 40(97.6%) | 37(92.5%) | |
| Pregnancy* | ||||
| no | 81 | 41 | 40 | – |
Definition of abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; ECOG-PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data are presented as rate (%) unless otherwise indicated. P values < 0.05 are set in bold for emphasis.
x2 test.
Fisher’s exact test.
*Pregnancy and gender are constant.
Figure 1The flow chart of this study.
The efficacy evaluation of antiemetic drugs. .
| Group A (n=41) | Group B (n=40) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| No happen | 31(75.6%) | 35(87.5%) | 0.300 |
| 0-24 h | 2(4.9%) | 0 | |
| 24-120 h | 7(17.1%) | 5(12.5%) | |
| 0-120 h | 1(2.4%) | 0 | |
|
| |||
| No happen | 27(65.9%) | 33(82.5%) | 0.274 |
| 0-24 h | 3(7.3%) | 2(5%) | |
| 24-120 h | 10(24.4%) | 5(12.5%) | |
| 0-120 h | 1(2.4%) | 0 | |
|
| |||
| 0 | 4(9.8%) | 11(27.5%) | 0.040 |
| 1 | 37(90.2%) | 29(72.5%) | |
| ≥2 | 0 | 0 | |
|
|
|
| |
| 0 | 5(12.2%)/4(9.8%) | 1(2.5%)/11(27.5%) | 0.157 |
| 1 | 36(87.8%)/37(90.2%) | 39(97.5%)/29(72.5%) | |
| ≥2 | 0 | 0 | |
Definition of abbreviations: ECOG-PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Data are presented as rate (%) unless otherwise indicated. P values < 0.05 are set in bold for emphasis.
x2 test.
Fisher’s exact test.
CWilcoxon’s Sign Rank Test.
#The P values of group A.
*The P values of group B.
The frequency of nausea and vomiting in the whole observation period.
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Group A (n=41) | 30 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.094 |
| Group B | 35 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Group A | 26 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.034 |
| Group B | 33 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Mann-Whitney U test is used to data analysis. P values < 0.05 are set in bold for emphasis.
Figure 2The number of nausea and vomiting in acupuncture group and control group.
The grade of the adverse events.
| Group A(n=41) | Group B(n=40) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Grade 0 | 36(87.8%) | 38(95.0%) | 0.252 |
| Grade 1-2 | 5 (12.2%) | 2 (5.0%) | |
| ≥Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| |||
| Grade 0 | 33(80.5%) | 38(95.0%) | 0.049 |
| Grade 1-2 | 8 (19.5%) | 2 (5.0%) | |
| ≥Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | |
|
| |||
| Grade 0 | 37(90.3%) | 40(100%) | 0.044 |
| Grade 1-2 | 4 (9.7%) | 0 | |
| ≥Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | |
Mann-Whitney U test is used to data analysis. P values < 0.05 are set in bold for emphasis.