Objective: The aim of the study was to study the prescription pattern of prophylactic antiemetics in breast cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective observational study was carried out. Over a period of 3 months, all chemotherapy order sheets of breast cancer patients were collected and evaluated for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared each antiemetic drug used for CINV prophylaxis with international antiemetic guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Results: A total of 103 breast cancer patients were included in the study, for which 141 chemotherapy physician prescriptions included antiemetic drugs. Approximately 51.06% of anticancer agents had high emetic risk, 2.13% had moderate emetic risk, and 43.26% and 3.55% of anticancer agents had low and minimal emetic risk, respectively. Most frequently prescribed anticancer drug was paclitaxel 49 (34.75%). About 43.97% of the antiemetic regimen were found following NCCN guidelines. Conclusion: The development of institutional policy for assessment and guidance of the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis may improve the consistency between antiemetic prescribing and guidelines.
Context: Aims The prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by olanzapine can improve patients adherence to treatment. and objectives: To study the efcacy of olanzapine as prophylactic antiemetic in parenteral highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen of breast cancer and to compare its side effects with aprepitant. Prospect Settings and Design: ive, comparative, open-label, non randomized study was conducted on 146 eligible breast cancer patients, equally distributed into aprepitant and olanzapine groups. The Methods and Material: Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Tool (MAT) and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 was used for evaluation. Chi-square test and unpaired t test was applied to test for sta Statistical analysis used: tistical signicance using ©2021 GraphPad Prism. P value ≤ 0.05 was considered signicant. Data were represented using frequency distribution table and bar diagrams. Patients achieving Complete Response (CR, no emesis and no rescue me Results: dication) was signicantly higher in olanzapine treated group. Nausea was signicantly controlled but vomiting wasn't signicantly controlled with olanzapine when compared with aprepitant. Assessment of side effects showed signicantly increased sedation on day 2 on those receiving olanzapine in comparison to aprepitant. Conclusions: Olanzapine has signicant results in controlling CINV caused by parenteral HEC regimens when compared with aprepitant in acute, delayed and overall period with minimal increase in sedation
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.