Antiemetic guideline consistency and incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in US community oncology practice: INSPIRE Study.

PURPOSE: Consensus guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are variably implemented in practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of guideline-consistent/guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP/GICP) on the incidence of no CINV after cycle 1 of highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled chemotherapy-naive adult outpatients who received single-day HEC or MEC at four oncology practice networks, all using electronic health record (EHR) systems, in Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Results from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool, a validated tool to measure CINV, administered 5 to 8 days postchemotherapy, were merged with EHR data. The primary end point, no CINV, defined as no emesis and no clinically significant nausea (score < 3 on 0-10 scale), was compared between cohorts using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1,295 patients were enrolled (mean age, 59.3 years; 70.0% female; 35.5% HEC). The overall prevalence of GCCP was 57.3%. When corticosteroids were prescribed on days 2 to 4 after all HEC, GCCP for HEC increased from 28.7% to 89.8%; when NK1-receptor antagonists were prescribed after all MEC, GCCP for MEC increased from 73.1% to 97.8%. Over 5 days postchemotherapy, the incidence of no CINV was significantly higher in the GCCP cohort than the GICP cohort (53.4% v 43.8%; P < .001). The adjusted odds of no CINV with GCCP was 1.31 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.69; P = .037). CONCLUSION: Increased adherence to antiemetic guidelines could significantly reduce the incidence of CINV after HEC and MEC.

Hematologic outcomes of myelodysplastic syndromes treatment with hypomethylating agents in community practice.

INTRODUCTION: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) treat myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) through suppression of abnormal clones that may cause low hemoglobin (Hgb), platelet (PLT) deficiencies, and reduced absolute neutrophil count (ANC). Our study examined hematologic outcomes in MDS among patients treated with HMAs in a large community hematology-oncology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study using electronic medical record data studied patients who received at least one cycle of a single HMA (decitabine [DAC] or azacitidine [AZA]) for MDS from June 1, 2006, to May 31, 2009, who had pretreatment and end-of-treatment Hgb, PLT counts, and ANC available. Multivariate logistic regression assessed predictors of end-of-treatment response (Hgb ≥ 11 g/dL without transfusion or erythrocyte stimulating agent; PLT ≥ 100,000 cells/µL without transfusion; ANC ≥ 1000 cells/mm(3) without colony stimulating factor) adjusting for baseline laboratory values, age, gender, and comorbidities. HMA choice was studied as a predictor of outcome. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients (mean age, 72.2 years; 57% male) met full inclusion criteria (DAC = 84, AZA = 53). Mean number of cycles was four (range, 1-16 cycles) for DAC and five (range, 1-23 cycles) for AZA. Total number of cycles significantly predicted Hgb, PLT, and ANC response (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, P = .029; OR 1.15, P = .031; OR 1.16, P = .047, respectively). Growth factor use at any point during HMA treatment was negatively associated with Hgb and ANC response (OR 0.85, P = .007; OR 0.96, P = .046). There was no difference between treatments in likelihood of PLT or ANC response. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with HMAs for MDS are more likely to achieve hematologic response when treated with a greater number of cycles.