Cancer patients submitted to innovative chemotherapeutic agents of intermediate emetogenic potential: antiemetic prescriptions and incidence of emesis
Controversies exist regarding the classification of the emetogenic potential of chemotherapeutic agents such as taxanes, gemcitabine and irinotecan and the antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis to be administered. Instead, no prophylaxis for delayed emesis has been suggested. A prospective, observ...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Tumori 2004-01, Vol.90 (1), p.103-106 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Controversies exist regarding the classification of the emetogenic potential of chemotherapeutic agents such as taxanes, gemcitabine and irinotecan and the antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis to be administered. Instead, no prophylaxis for delayed emesis has been suggested. A prospective, observational study was carried out in 103 Italian oncological centers to evaluate the prescriptions of antiemetics and the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients submitted to these chemotherapy agents. Two hundred and nine patients treated with taxanes, 300 with gemcitabine and 93 with irinotecan were evaluated. For the prophylaxis of acute emesis a 5-HT3 antagonist alone or in combination with a corticosteroid was administered to 86.6% of patients receiving taxanes, to 59.3% of those receiving gemcitabine and to 96.8% of those submitted to irinotecan. 20% to 40% of patients received antiemetic prophylaxis for delayed emesis. In taxane-treated patients the incidence of acute vomiting and nausea was 6.2% and 27.3%, respectively, while in gemcitabine- and irinotecan-treated patients it was 6.0/33.4% and 17.9/58.9%, respectively. In conclusion, the study showed that almost all patients received prophylaxis for acute emesis and that there is overprescription of 5-HT3 antagonists. The incidence of acute emesis is low; therefore, randomized clinical trials are necessary to verify the utility of prophylaxis and to find the best antiemetic treatment. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0300-8916 2038-2529 |
DOI: | 10.1177/030089160409000121 |