OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of CINV (i.e., acute and delayed) on breast cancer patients QOL and to discern opinions related with antiemetic guidelines used dependent on the three main races in Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, Indian).
METHODS: In this longitudinal prospective observational study, 158 breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were interviewed and valid questionnaires (MANE and ONEM) were used to report the impact of CINV on their QOL within the first 24 hours and after 3 to 5 days of chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: The main result was that delayed CINV has an impact on QOL greater than acute CINV. The impact of nausea was reportedly higher than that of vomiting. Also differences in race i.e., genetic polymorphisms (pharmacogenomics) influenced the utility of antiemetic treatments and patients opinions.
CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study a new guideline for antiemetic treatment should be used to reduce the impact of CINV on QOL, taking into account variation in genetic polymorphisms among the three races in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were 303 consecutive adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in an academic medical center. The short form Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS-SF), which covers three domains of symptoms (global distress, physical- and psychological symptoms) was used to cross-sectionally measure symptom frequency and associated distress via self-reporting. One-way ANOVA and t-tests were used to test mean differences among MSAS-SF subscale scores.
RESULTS: Complete data were available for 303 patients. The mean number of symptoms was 14.5. The five most prevalent were fatigue, dry mouth, hair loss, drowsiness and lack of appetite. Overall, symptom burden and frequency were higher than in other published MSAS-SF studies. Higher symptom frequency was also found to be significantly related to greater distress in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing chemotherapy suffer from multiple physical and psychological symptoms. Better symptom control or palliative care is needed. Greater frequency of reported symptoms may also indicate a subconscious bid by patients for care and reassurance - thus tailored intervention to manage distress should be offered.
OBJECTIVE: To study the association between plasma AAG level and non-haematological AEs of docetaxel in Malaysian breast cancer patients of three major ethnic groups (Malays, Chinese and Indians).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty Malaysian breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel as single agent chemotherapy were investigated for AAG plasma level using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. Toxicity assessment was determined using Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events v4.0. The association between AAG and toxicity were then established.
RESULTS: There was interethnic variation of plasma AAG level; it was 182 ± 85 mg/dl in Chinese, 237 ± 94 mg/dl in Malays and 240 ± 83 mg/dl in Indians. It was found that low plasma levels of AAG were significantly associated with oral mucositis and rash.
CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes plasma AAG as a potential predictive biomarker of docetaxel non-haematological AEs namely oral mucositis and rash.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 110 Malaysian breast cancer patients were enrolled in the present study, and their blood samples were investigated for different single nucleotide polymorphisms using polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism. AEs were evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
RESULTS: Fatigue, nausea, oral mucositis, and vomiting were the most common nonhematologic AEs. Rash was associated with heterozygous and mutant genotypes of ABCB1 3435C>T (P < .05). Moreover, patients carrying the GG genotype of ABCB1 2677G>A/T reported more fatigue than those carrying the heterozygous genotype GA (P < .05). The presence of ABCB1 3435-T, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-G alleles was significantly associated with nausea and oral mucositis. The coexistence of ABCB1 3435-C, ABCC2 3972-C, ABCC2 1249-G, and ABCB1 2677-A was significantly associated with vomiting (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of nonhematologic AEs in breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel has been relatively high. The variant allele of ABCB1 3435C>T polymorphism could be a potential predictive biomarker of docetaxel-induced rash, and homozygous wild-type ABCB1 2677G>A/T might predict for a greater risk of fatigue. In addition, the concurrent presence of specific alleles could be predictive of vomiting, nausea, and oral mucositis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.
RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.
CONCLUSIONS: This NMA suggests that cryotherapy was the most effective intervention for preventing chemotherapy-induced OM with a safety profile similar to control, but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. Large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: Patients receiving cancer-related treatment regimes underwent screening of cardiac involvement with CMR, either within 3 months (early Tx) or >12 months (late Tx) post-treatment. T1 and T2 mapping, cardiac function, strain, ischaemia-testing, scar-imaging and serological cardiac biomarkers were obtained.
RESULTS: Compared to age/gender matched controls (n = 57), patients (n = 115, age (yrs): median(IQR) 48(28-60), females, n = 60(52%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) and strain, and higher native T1 and T2. The early Tx group (n = 52) had significantly higher native T1, T2 and troponin levels compared to the late Tx group, indicating myocardial inflammation and oedema (p
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.
METHODS: A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.
LIMITATIONS: This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.