Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO).

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1-5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study. RESULTS: 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

Determinants of Survival After Emergency Intrapericardial Cisplatin Treatment in Cancer Patients with Recurrent Hemodynamic Instability After Pericardiocentesis.

BACKGROUND: Pericardial effusion is associated with high mortality in oncology. The etiology of infectious pericarditis and iatrogenic effects of previous radio-/chemotherapy may be always suspected, especially when a subsequent episode is observed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 17 hemodynamically-unstable patients with cancer due to recurrent pericardial bloody effusion after previous pericardiocentesis and analyzed survival determinants after intrapericardial chemotherapy with cisplatin. RESULTS: The mortality rate was not significantly associated with the level of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, low hemoglobin (<12 g/dl), elevated white blood cell account (>104/µl), large volume (>1500 ml) and long duration (>8 days) of pericardial drainage, cardiac arrhythmias, positive culture test results nor fever occurring during cisplatin administration. Subsequent systemic anticancer therapy was the strongest factor determining a longer survival (hazard ratio(HR)=0.31, 95% confidence interval(CI)=0.11-0.9; p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Efficacy of rescue intrapericardial chemotherapy with cisplatin is independent of parameters of hemodynamic instability and levels of inflammatory markers in recurrent pericardial effusion.