Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/95586
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Baseline patient characteristics, incidence of CINV, and physician perception of CINV incidence following moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Asia Pacific countries
Author: Hsieh, R.
Chan, A.
Kim, H.
Yu, S.
Kim, J.
Lee, M.
Dalén, J.
Jung, H.
Liu, Y.
Burke, T.
Keefe, D.
Citation: Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014; 23(1):263-272
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Issue Date: 2014
ISSN: 0941-4355
1433-7339
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Ruey Kuen Hsieh, Alexandre Chan, Hoon-Kyo Kim, Shiying Yu, Jong Gwang Kim, Myung-Ah Lee, Johan Dalén, Hun Jung, Yan Ping Liu, Thomas A. Burke, Dorothy M. K. Keefe
Abstract: PURPOSE: This paper describes the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries. METHODS: Sequential adult patients naïve to chemotherapy and scheduled to receive at least two cycles of single-day HEC or MEC were enrolled in this prospective observational study. Patients completed the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Antiemesis Tool on post-chemotherapy days 2 and 6 to record acute-phase (first 24 h) and delayed-phase (days 2-5) CINV. RESULTS: There were 648 evaluable patients (318 HEC, 330 MEC) from Australia (n = 74), China (153), India (88), Singapore (57), South Korea (151), and Taiwan (125). Mean (SD) patient age was 56 (12) and 58% of patients were women; the most common primary cancers were breast (27%), lung (22%), and colon (20%). Overall in cycle 1, complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) was recorded by 69% (95% confidence interval (CI), 66-73) of all evaluable patients, with country percentages ranging from 55 to 78% (p < 0.001). After HEC, no emesis was recorded by 75% and no nausea by 38% of patients. After MEC, 80% had no emesis and 50% no nausea. Acute-phase CINV was better controlled than delayed-phase CINV, and the control of nausea was the lowest of any CINV measure in all phases. In a CINV perception survey, physicians tended to overestimate emesis rate and underestimate nausea rate. CONCLUSIONS: CINV remains a substantial problem, and country-specific information about CINV can be useful in developing strategies to improve outcomes for patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Keywords: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; Incidence; Observational; Prescribing patterns
Rights: © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
RMID: 0030014634
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-014-2373-2
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.