Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 855–865 | Cite as

Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan

  • Kazuo TamuraEmail author
  • Keisuke Aiba
  • Toshiaki Saeki
  • Yoichi Nakanishi
  • Toshiharu Kamura
  • Hideo Baba
  • Kazuhiro Yoshida
  • Nobuyuki Yamamoto
  • Yuko Kitagawa
  • Yoshihiko Maehara
  • Mototsugu Shimokawa
  • Koichi Hirata
  • Masaki Kitajima
  • CINV Study Group of Japan
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline–cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen.

Conclusions

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline–cyclophosphamide regimen.

Keywords

Cancer chemotherapy Antiemetics Guidelines Nausea Vomiting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We appreciate a research grant from the Public Health Research Foundation, and the support from Ms. Etsuko Kumakawa, Yukimi Itoh, Noriko Ikoma, Noriko Gushima, and Kazuko Nakata for the registration and analysis of the collected data. We also thank all the patients and investigators who participated in this study.

Conflict of interest

Kazuo Tamura received lecture fees from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Keisuke Aiba received lecture fees from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Toshiaki Saeki received lecture fees from Eisai Co., Ltd. Hideo Baba received honoraria and research funding from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Nobuyuki Yamamoto received honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Yuko Kitagawa received honoraria for Astellas Pharma Inc., Ethicon Johnson & Johnson K.K., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Olympus, and received research funding from Asahi Kasei Co. Ltd., Astellas Pharma Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The other authors have no conflict of interest. This study was conducted by a research grant from the Public Health Research Foundation, Tokyo, Japan.

References

  1. 1.
    Basch E, Prestrud AA, Hesketh PJ, American Society of Clinical Oncology et al (2011) Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 29:4189–4198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roila F, Herrstedt J, Aapro M et al (2010) Warr and on behalf of the ESMO/MASCC Guidelines Working Group: guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference. Ann Oncol 21(suppl 5):v232–v243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (2014) Antiemetics. Version 2, NCCN.Org
  4. 4.
    Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (2010) Guidelines for appropriate use of antiemetic drugs, version 1. Kanehara, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roscoe JA, Hickok JT, Morrow GR (2000) Patient expectations as predictor of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Ann Behav Med 22:121–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roscoe JA, Bushunow P, Morrow GR et al (2004) Patient expectation is a strong predictor of severe nausea after chemotherapy: a University of Rochester Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer (Phila) 101:2701–2708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roscoe JA, Morrow GR, Colagiuri B et al (2010) Insight in the prediction of chemotherapy-induced nausea. Support Care Cancer 18:869–876PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shih V, Wan HS, Chan A (2009) Clinical predictors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Ann Pharmacother 43:444–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hesketh PJ, Aapro M, Street JC et al (2010) Evaluation of risk factors predictive of nausea and vomiting with current standard-of-care antiemetic treatment: analysis of two phase III trials of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 18:1171–1177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warr DG, Street JC, Carides AD (2011) Evaluation of risk factors predictive of nausea and vomiting with current standard-of-care antiemetic treatment: analysis of phase 3 trial of aprepitant in patients receiving adriamycin-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 19:807–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fraunholz I, Grau K, Weiss C et al (2011) Patient- and treatment-related risk factors for nausea and emesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 187:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pirri C, Katris P, Trotter J et al (2011) Risk factors at pretreatment predicting treatment-induced nausea and vomiting in Australian cancer patients: a prospective, longitudinal, observational study. Support Care Cancer 19:1549–1563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warr D (2014) Prognostic factors for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol 722:192–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grunberg SM, Deuson RR, Mavros P et al (2004) Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis after modern antiemetics. Cancer (Phila) 100:2261–2268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Majem M, Moreno ME, Calvo N et al (2011) Perception of healthcare providers versus patient reported incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after the addition of NK-1 receptor antagonists. Support Care Cancer 19:1983–1990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aapro M, Molassiotis A, Dicato M et al (2012) The effect of guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): the Pan European Emesis Registry (PEER). Ann Oncol 23:1986–1992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ricarte C, Anger C (2013) Emesis patterns of chemotherapy and antiemetic treatments in Western Europe. European Cancer Congress, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gilmore JW, Peacock NW, Gu A, Szabo S (2014) Antiemetic guideline consistency and incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in US community oncology practice: INSPIRE study. J Oncol Pract 10:68–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Navari RM, Gray SE, Kerr AC (2011) Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized phase III trial. J Support Oncol 9:188–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neymark N, Crott R (2005) Impact of emesis on clinical and economic outcomes of cancer therapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a retrospective analysis of three clinical trials. Support Care Cancer 13:812–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuo Tamura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Keisuke Aiba
    • 2
  • Toshiaki Saeki
    • 3
  • Yoichi Nakanishi
    • 4
  • Toshiharu Kamura
    • 5
  • Hideo Baba
    • 6
  • Kazuhiro Yoshida
    • 7
  • Nobuyuki Yamamoto
    • 8
  • Yuko Kitagawa
    • 9
  • Yoshihiko Maehara
    • 10
  • Mototsugu Shimokawa
    • 11
  • Koichi Hirata
    • 12
  • Masaki Kitajima
    • 13
  • CINV Study Group of Japan
  1. 1.Division of Medical Oncology, Hematology and Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, School of MedicineFukuoka UniversityFukuokaJapan
  2. 2.Division of Clinical Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Breast Oncology ServiceSaitama Medical University International Medical CenterHidakaJapan
  4. 4.Research Institute for Diseases of the ChestKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyKurume University School of MedicineKurumeJapan
  6. 6.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryKumamoto UniversityKumamotoJapan
  7. 7.Department of Surgical OncologyGifu UniversityGifuJapan
  8. 8.Division of Thoracic OncologyShizuoka Cancer CenterShizuokaJapan
  9. 9.Department of SurgerySchool of Medicine, Keio UniversityTokyoJapan
  10. 10.Department of Surgery and ScienceKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  11. 11.Department of Cancer Information ResearchNational Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer CenterFukuokaJapan
  12. 12.Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and ScienceSapporo Medical UniversitySapporoJapan
  13. 13.International University of Health and WelfareOhtawaraJapan

Personalised recommendations