Tan, J.Y., Molassiotis, A., Wang, T., & Suen, L.K. (2014). Current evidence on auricular therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2014, 430796.
PHASE OF CARE: Active antitumor treatment
APPLICATIONS: Pediatrics and elder care
This review was a helpful starting point to spur more research on the use of AT for the management of CINV. There was significant heterogeneity among the trials, but there appeared to be encouraging results for the use of AT to justify additional research. To better answer the question about AT's benefit, well-designed, randomized, controlled trials will be needed. From the information presented, it appears that AT may have a role in the management of delayed CINV, which can be challenging to manage and very troublesome for patients.
The investigators were only able to evaluate English and Chinese studies, which may have prevented the review of other studies such as Korean trials.
Encouraging results were identified about the adjunct use of AT for CINV, but this review demonstrated the need for well-designed trials incorporating AT with antiemetic regimens for acute and delayed CINV. The trials need to incorporate standard AT points, standard pressing length at each point, and a standard CINV assessment scale. Patient compliance also should be assessed and documented.
Tam, K.W., Chen, S.Y., Huang, T.W., Lin, C.C., Su, C.M., Li, C.L., . . . Wu, C.H. (2015). Effect of wound infiltration with ropivacaine or bupivacaine analgesia in breast cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Surgery, 22, 79–85.
STUDY PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of anesthetic wound infusion for analgesia in women undergoing breast cancer surgery
TYPE OF STUDY: Meta-analysis and systematic review
PHASE OF CARE: Active antitumor treatment
Meta-analysis was done to compare groups for pain severity at 1, 2, 12, and 24 hours. Meta-analysis showed no difference between groups. Analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in analgesic consumption. No adverse events were identified.
Findings did not show significant differences in pain outcomes between those given local anesthetic wound infiltration and those given standard care.
Findings suggest that infusion of ropivacaine or bupivacaine following breast cancer surgery did not provide significant clinical benefit in terms of pain severity or postoperative analgesic needs. Individual studies showed mixed results, and high heterogeneity existed across studies, a limitation of this analysis.
Takigawa, C., Goto, F., Tanda, S., Shima, Y., Yomiya, K., Matoba, M., . . . Eguchi, K. (2015). Breakthrough pain management using fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) in combination with around-the-clock (ATC) opioids based on the efficacy and safety of FBT, and its relationship with ATC opioids: Results from an open-label, multi-center study in Japanese cancer patients with detailed evaluation. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 45, 67–74.
To assess the safety and efficacy of fentanyl buccal tablets (FBT) in breakthrough pain (BTP) management when given in combination with around-the-clock (ATC) opioids and to explore the influence of dose adjustments on breakthrough pain management
Before the maintenance phase, the FBT dose that was successful in providing sufficient pain relief without producing unacceptable adverse events was identified by titration. During the 12-week maintenance phase, the FBT dose was administered for BTP episodes. The successful dose ranged from 100–800 ug for patients who received an ATC opioid dose of 60–1,000 mg per day of oral morphine and from 50–800 ug for those who received from 30– < 60 mg per day of oral morphine equivalents. Patients were allowed to take additional supplemental medications including FBT when no pain relief was perceived by 30 minutes after FBT administration. FBT or ATC opioid doses could be changed if additional supplemental medications (including FBT) were frequently administered for BTP episodes or if there were five or more BTP episodes per day. FBT could be administered eight times per day for a maximum of six BTP episodes per day. Prestudy medications were given for the seventh or more BTP episode in a day of if the BTP episode occurred within four hours after a FBT administration.
Open-label study
Forty-one patients completed the 12-week maintenance phase. A major reason for discontinuation was adverse events. No patients discontinued because of a lack of treatment efficacy. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 37% of patients during the maintenance phase. The most common adverse events were somnolence (16%) and nausea (10.7%). Five deaths occurred during the study, none of which were related to FBT. Both the FBT and ATC opioid doses gradually increased over time from the beginning of the maintenance phase. The breakthrough FBT dose was changed in 42 patients (56.8%). The ATC opioid dose was changed in 50 patients (67.5%).
FBT has sustained analgesic effect and was well tolerated. Quality of life was reported to improve with stable or improved pain intensity, which was not clearly measured in this study. FBT was noted to be safe for long periods of time even with needed increase in its dose.
Pain management is an important aspect of improving a patient's quality of life. Nurses play a key role in assisting patients and providing pain management medications and in teaching patients how to manage their pain when they are outside an inpatient facility. Additional agents need to be available to assist in optimal pain control.
Takeshima, N., Matoda, M., Abe, M., Hirashima, Y., Kai, K., Nasu, K., . . . Ito, K. (2014). Efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy for gynecological cancer: KCOG-G1003 phase II trial. Supportive Care in Cancer, 22(11), 2891–2898.
To evaluate the efficacy of the triple therapy of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients with gynecological cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy
Women with gynecological cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy received 125 mg PO aprepitant before chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3, 0.75 mg of IV palonosetron before chemotherapy on day 1, and 9.9 mg of PO/IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1 and at 6.6 mg on days 2–4. The primary aim was to evaluate the number of patients with a complete response (CR) overall, which was defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication during the entire study period (0–120 hours postchemotherapy). The secondary aims were (1) to evaluate CR in the acute (0–24 hours postchemotherapy) and delayed (24–120 hours postchemotherapy) phases of treatment and (2) to evaluate complete protection (CP) defined as no vomiting, no rescue therapy, and no significant nausea overall and during the acute and delayed phases of treatment.
Prospective, multi-center study
No information was provided on the measurement of nausea and vomiting. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS) may have been used, although this was not expressly stated and the range and timing of administration of the VAS was undefined.
For the primary aim, overall CR rate was 54.2 %. For the secondary aim, evaluating the number of patients with CR in the acute and delayed phases of treatment, CR was 87.5% in the acute phase of treatment and 56.3% in the delayed phase of treatment. For the secondary aim evaluating CP overall and during the acute and delayed phases of treatment, CP overall was 44.8%, CP during the acute phase of treatment was 82.3%, and CP during the delayed phase of treatment was 45.8%.
CINV is often difficult to control and is especially prevalent in female patients. The combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has comparable rates of CR and CP when compared to other antiemetic regimens; however, the population used in this study has been shown to be at greater risk for severe CINV. This should be a recommended antiemetic regimen for gynecological patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
Takeda, Y., Kobayashi, K., Akivama, Y., Soma, T., Handa, S., Kudoh, S., & Kudo, K. (2001). Prevention of irinotecan (CPT-11)-induced diarrhea by oral alkalization combined with control of defecation in cancer patients. International Journal of Cancer, 92(2), 269–275.
To evaluate the use of oral alkalization (OA) with control of defecation (CD)
The study was conducted at a single institution.
This was a case-control study.
Patient response rates did not indicate that OA and CD compromised the clinical efficacy of irinotecan and cisplatin therapy. Although a reduced amount of irinotecan and SN-38 may be circulated enterohepatically, the increased dose intensity conferred by OA and CD resulted in maintenance of the same degree of clinical efficacy.
OA and CD appeared to be useful in preventing the dose-limiting side effects of irinotecan, primarily nausea, vomiting, granulocytopenia, and delayed diarrhea.
Takatori, E., Shoji, T., Miura, Y., Nagao, M., Takada, A., Nagasawa, T., . . . Sugiyama, T. (2015). A phase II clinical trial of palonosetron for the management of delayed vomiting in gynecological cancer patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin therapy. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 3, 281–286.
To evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in controlling delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin (a moderately emetogenic protocol)
On day 1 of therapy, palonosetron at 0.75 mg/body IV and dexamethasone at 19.8 mg/body IV were administered. On days 2 and 3, dexamethasone at 6.6 mg/body in 100 ml of normal saline IV was given. Patients were administered the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool to complete on days 1–8. Only the first cycle of this protocol was evaluated. The patients rated the intensity of nausea using a Visual Analog Scale scored as mild (1–2), moderate (3–4), or severe (≥ 5).
Phase 2, nonrandomized, prospective, nonblinded clinical trial
The CR rate for the acute period (0–24 hours) was 95.2%, or 40 out of 42 patients. In the delayed period (24–96 hours), a CR of 90.5%, or 38 out of 42 patients, was reported. Overall, the CR rate was 85.7%, or 36 out of 42 patients. The CC rate for the acute period was 90.5%, or 38 out of 42 patients. For the delayed period, it was 85.7%, or 36 out of 42 patients. The CC rate was 78.6%, or 33 out of 42, overall. Nausea was reported in the acute, delayed, and overall periods by four, seven, and nine patients respectively. The average overall nausea score for the nine patients who reported nausea was 3.69+ 2.77 on a five-point VAS scale. Rescue antiemetics were used by two patients in the acute phase, four patients in the delayed phase, and in six patients overall. Granisetron and dexamethasone were the most commonly used rescue antiemetics. Adverse events were minimal with 16 patients experiencing constipation, three headache, and two diarrhea.
This trial supported the use of palonosetron over other 5HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of CINV in the 24–96-hour period following therapy in female patients with gynecologic malignancies. These data also support evidence that it is difficult to achieve CR for nausea as nine (20%) of the patients in this study experienced nausea.
Palonosetron was especially helpful in the prevention of CINV during the delayed phase of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. This study also measured nausea, which was helpful because many studies primarily address vomiting even though nausea often creates more patient distress.
Takase, H., Sakata, T., Yamano, T., Sueta, T., Nomoto, S., & Nakagawa, T. (2011). Advantage of early induction of opioid to control pain induced by irradiation in head and neck cancer patients. Auris, Nasus, Larynx, 38(4), 495–500.
To determine whether early induction of low-dose opioid for the treatment of mild pain improves dietary and caloric intake and reduces weight loss among patients with head and neck cancer
The low-dose opioid this study used was controlled-release oxycodone (CRO). The intial dose was 10 mg and the dose was titrated upward as needed. Because all patients agreed to use an opioid at some point, patients were classified into two groups, mild and moderate (referring to pain), according to when the opioid was introduced.
Prospective descriptive study
Results indicated that the introduction of opioids for mild pain during radiotherapy controls the level of pain and increases the food intake of head and neck cancer patients. For such patients, use of opioids, beginning when pain is mild, may help to ensure a better dietary intake during radiotherapy.
For the population of patients with head and neck cancer, maintaining food intake is a challenge, so this study is relevant. The intervention uses a standard pain control agent; the point at issue is the advisability of early intervention (early in terms of the World Health Organization ladder). The patient population pertinent to the study is very specific; the study is not generalizable.
Takahashi, H., & Shimoyama, N. (2010). A prospective open-label trial of gabapentin as an adjuvant analgesic with opioids for Japanese patients with neuropathic cancer pain. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 46–51.
To assess the usefulness of gabapentin in the treatment of cancer-related neuropathic pain
Patients who met the eligibility criteria of a score of 5 or greater on a numeric pain rating scale were entered. Gabapentin was begun at baseline at 200 mg and titrated to a maximum dose of 2,400 mg per day. Patients were asked to keep a pain diary and were assessed by a clinician throughout the 15-day study period.
The study was conducted in a single-site inpatient setting in Japan.
This was an open-label, prospective study.
Measurements included a numeric pain rating scale using the Brief Pain Inventory, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, a numeric pain relief scale, and the Patient Global Impression of Change scale.
A significant reduction was noted at various time points for worst, least, and average pain on the numeric scale (p < 0.004). Mean change in scores from baseline ranged from 0.6 to 1.3. No differences were found in any other outcome measure.
A statistical reduction in pain occurred as measured on the five-point numeric rating scale; however, the change was relatively small.
The study findings do not provide strong support for the effectiveness of gabapentin for the management of cancer-related neuropathic pain or other symptoms.
Takahashi, T., Hoshi, E., Takagi, M., Katsumata, N., Kawahara, M., & Eguchi, K. (2010). Multicenter, phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of aprepitant in Japanese patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Cancer Science, 101, 2455–2461.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant plus standard therapy (granisetron and dexamethasone) in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Japanese patients with cancer undergoing treatment with chemotherapy including a highly emetogenic cisplatin-based regimen (≥ 70 mg/m2)
Patients were allocated to three groups.
All patients received standard therapy consisting of 40 µg/kg IV granisetron on day 1 and dexamethasone. Concomitant use of other antiemetics was prohibited from 48 hours before day 1 to the morning of day 6, except for rescue therapy for CINV.
The study was conducted at multiple sites in Japan.
Study participants were in active treatment.
This was a phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized parallel comparative study.
In the three study groups, the percentage of patients with complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) was 50.3% (standard therapy), 66.4% (aprepitant 40/25 mg), and 70.5% (aprepitant 125/80 mg). Efficacy was significantly higher in the aprepitant 40⁄25 mg and 125/80 mg groups than in the standard therapy group (p = 0.0053 and p = 0.0004, respectively), and efficacy was the highest is the aprepitant 125/80 mg group. The delayed phase efficacy was similar to the overall phase efficacy, indicating that aprepitant is effective in the delayed phase when standard therapy is not very effective. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated.
Aprepitant was shown to be more effective in the overall phase, including both acute and delayed, when compared to the standard group, irrespective of sex, age, or previous treatment with cisplatin.
Aprepitant used in combination with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and a corticosteroid is effective in preventing CINV associated with highly emetogenic agents.
Takahashi, T., Kumanomidou, S., Takami, S., Okada, T., Adachi, K., Jo, Y., . . . Suzumiya, J. (2016). A retrospective study of R-CHOP/CHOP therapy-induced nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: A comparison of intravenous and oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. International Journal of Hematology, 104, 378–383.
To compare the effectiveness of oral versus IV 5-HT3s for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving R-CHOP or CHOP chemotherapy
Data were obtained from medical records of patients who received CHOP or R-CHOP as initial chemotherapy from 2006–2012. Symptoms for five days from the start of treatment were investigated. Risk factors influencing CINV were also investigated. CINV prophylaxis was an 5-HT3 alone.
PHASE OF CARE: Active antitumor treatment
Retrospective cohort comparison
Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication.
CR was observed in 80.6% of patients. No significant differences were observed in the CR rate between those who were given oral or IV antiemetics. Female gender and an age younger than 70 years were independent predictors of CINV.
IV and oral 5-HT3 had similar efficacy for CINV prevention; however, 5-HT3 alone may not be sufficient for prophylaxis for individuals with greater risk.
Oral and IV 5-HT3 achieved similar results for CINV prophylaxis. Female gender and younger age were independent risk factors for CINV.