The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS‑102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

Background Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cance...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Supportive care in cancer 2024-05, Vol.32 (5), p.291-291, Article 291
Hauptverfasser: Fujii, Hironori, Tsuchiya, Masami, Watanabe, Daichi, Otsuka, Ryo, Hirate, Daisuke, Takahashi, Katsuyuki, Go, Makiko, Kudo, Toshihiro, Shimomura, Kazuhiro, Ando, Yosuke, Tani, Shinya, Takahashi, Takao, Hayashi, Katsuhisa, Chin, Miki, Matsunami, Naomi, Takahashi, Masaya, Hasegawa, Akiko, Uchida, Takashi, Hashimoto, Hironobu, Kubo, Akiko, Matsuhashi, Nobuhisa, Suzuki, Akio, Nishimura, Junichi, Inui, Naoki, Iihara, Hirotoshi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). Methods We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. Results Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D 2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87–58.5, P  = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50–5.21, P  = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. Conclusions The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.
ISSN:0941-4355
1433-7339
DOI:10.1007/s00520-024-08498-z