A systematic review of methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures in randomized trials of radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting
- 309 Downloads
Clinical trials in radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) appear to have varied methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures. This complicates trial comparisons, weakens practice guideline recommendations, and contributes to variability in supportive care patterns of practice. We systematically reviewed RINV trials to describe and compare their pertinent design features.
Materials and methods
Ovid versions of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to January/February 2017 were searched for adult phase III trials of RINV management strategies. Key abstracted data included trial interventions and eligibility criteria, standard radiation therapy (RT) metrics, symptom assessment procedures, symptom definitions and grading systems, pre-specified and reported endpoints, and other outcome measures.
From 1166 references identified in the initial database search, we selected 34 trials for analysis that collectively randomized 4529 patients (median 61, range 11–1492). Twenty-eight trials (82%) were published prior to the year 2000. Twenty-seven trials (79%) involved multiple fraction RT and 7 (21%) single fraction RT. Twenty-four trials (71%) evaluated prophylactic interventions, 9 (26%) rescue interventions, and 1 trial did not specify. Thirty-three trials (97%) evaluated pharmacologic interventions. Twenty trials (59%) had patient report symptoms, 5 (15%) healthcare professionals or researchers, and 10 (29%) did not specify. Nausea was not defined in any trial but was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 26 trials (76%) and was graded in 20 (59%), with categorical qualitative scales being the most common method. Vomiting was defined in 3 trials (9%), was reported as a stand-alone symptom in 17 (47%), and was graded in 7 (21%), with continuous numerical scales being the most common method. Retching was defined in 3 trials, was not reported as a stand-alone symptom in any trial, and was graded in 1 (3%). Twenty-one trials (62%) created compound symptom measures that combined individual symptoms. Fifteen trials (44%) reported “emetic episode/event” measures but only 9 defined them. Seventeen trials (50%) reported complicated endpoints (e.g., “response,” “control,” “success”) that combined multiple symptom or compound symptom measures, but 7 did not define them comprehensively. Ten trials (29%) defined a primary endpoint a priori.
Methodologies, endpoints, and outcome measures varied considerably among 34 randomized trials in RINV.
KeywordsAntiemetic Clinical trial Emesis Endpoint Methodology Nausea Outcome Radiation therapy Radiotherapy Retching Systematic review Vomiting
KD was supported in this work by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Fellowship Award. The authors are grateful for the support of the Arseneau-Henry Families Research Fund and the Joseph Doyle Research Fund.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare regarding the organizations that sponsored this research. The authors have full control of all primary data and would agree to allow the journal to review it if requested.
- 15.Wong RK, Paul N, Ding K, Whitehead M, Brundage M, Fyles A et al (2006) 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with or without short-course dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation induced emesis: a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (SC19). J Clin Oncol 24(21):3458–3464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lanciano R, Sherman DM, Michalski J, Preston AJ, Yocom K, Friedman C (2001) The efficacy and safety of once-daily kytril (granisetron hydrochloride) tablets in the prophylaxis of nausea and emesis following fractionated upper abdominal radiotherapy. Cancer Investig 19(8):763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Priestman TJ, Roberts JT, Lucraft H, Collis CH, Adams M, Upadhyaya BK et al (1990) Results of a randomized, double-blind comparative study of ondansetron and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-dose upper abdominal irradiation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2(2):71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Spitzer TR, Bryson JC, Cirenza E, Foelber R, Wallerstadt M, Stout C et al (1994) Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of oral ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with fractionated total-body irradiation. J Clin Oncol 12(11):2432–2438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Spitzer TR, Friedman CJ, Bushnell W, Frankel SR, Raschko J (2000) Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study on the efficacy and safety of oral granisetron and oral ondansetron in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving hyperfractionated total body irradiation. Bone Marrow Transplant 26(2):203–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Sykes AJ, Kiltie AE, Stewart AL (1997) Ondansetron versus a chlorpromazine and dexamethasone combination for the prevention of nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised study to assess efficacy, cost effectiveness and quality of life following single-fraction radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer 5(6):500–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 55.LeBourgeois JP, McKenna CJ, Coster B, Feyer P, Franzen L, Goedhals L et al (1999) Efficacy of an ondansetron orally disintegrating tablet: a novel oral formulation of this 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist in the treatment of fractionated radiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 11(5):340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 83.Collis CH, Priestman TJ, Priestman S, Lucraft H, Roberts JT, Adams M et al (1991) The final assessment of a randomized double-blind comparative study of ondansetron vs. metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-dose upper abdominal irradiation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 3:241–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 89.Burwell JA, Wolfson B, Perryman CR, Foldes FF (1961) The use of trimethobenzamide (tigan) for the treatment of radiation induced nausea and emesis. Am J Roentgenol Radium Therapy, Nucl Med 86:752–756Google Scholar
- 96.Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Accessed October 4 2016. www.mascc.org/mat.
- 98.Dennis K, Makhani L, Maranzano E, Feyer P, Zeng L, De Angelis C et al (2013) Timing and duration of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist therapy for the prophylaxis of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies. J Radiat Oncol 2(3):271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar