RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Antieméticos , Antineoplásicos , Antraciclinas/efeitos adversos , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Antieméticos/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Ciclofosfamida/efeitos adversos , Dexametasona/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Náusea/induzido quimicamente , Náusea/prevenção & controle , Estudos Prospectivos , Sistema de Registros , Serotonina/efeitos adversos , Vômito/induzido quimicamente , Vômito/prevenção & controleRESUMO
AIM: To compare survival outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with modern-era drugs (antifolates, antiangiogenics, tyrosine kinase and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy) with treatment initiation in 2011-12 and 2015-16, respectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective data from Czech TULUNG Registry (960 patients from 2011-12 and 512 patients from 2015-16) were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with 2-year survival. RESULTS: Survival at 2 years was more frequent in cohort 2015-16 compared to cohort 2011-12 (43.2% vs. 24% for adenocarcinoma; p<0.001 and 28.7% vs. 11.8% for squamous-cell lung carcinoma; p=0.002). Assignment to cohort 2015-16 and treatment multilinearity (two or more lines in sequence) were associated with higher probability of 2-year survival (hazard ratio=0.666 and hazard ratio=0.597; p<0.001). Comparison of 2-year survivors from both cohorts showed no differences. CONCLUSION: Survival at 2 years probability in stage IIIB-IV NSCLC doubled between 2011-12 and 2015-16; advanced-stage NSCLC may be considered a chronic disease in a large proportion of patients.