Comparative Quantification of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Emesis between the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool

Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are generally evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) developed the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) to facilitate recognition for CINV between patients and oncology specialists. In the present study, MAT and CTCAE were comparatively assessed in Japanese patients with hematological malignancies. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. The CTCAE data were collected from an electronic medical record system. The patients were asked to complete the Japanese version of MAT in the hospital, on the first and fourth days after the start of chemotherapy. The percentages of patients in whom nausea was completely controlled, with severity scores of zero, ranged from 70.5 to 82.0% for CTCAE and from 59.0 to 75.4% for MAT, during the first five days after the chemotherapy. The percentages of patients who had no vomiting ranged from 93.4 to 96.7% for CTCAE and from 90.2 to 98.4% for MAT. During the observation periods, the day-today response profiles of patients who received antiemetic treatment were comparable between CTCAE and MAT cohorts, and these two assessment tools showed good, positive correlations for nausea severity scores. The present study shows that the MAT is a useful tool for assessing the severity of CINV in patients with hematological malignancy, is comparable to CTCAE, and facilitates the identification of poor cancer care conditions by medical staff.

The emerging role of olanzapine in paediatric CINV control: A review

“…CR was measured using the multinational association of supportive care in cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) and the common toxicity criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grading system. [ 39 , 40 ] The safety profile of olanzapine was the secondary objective of the study. A higher portion of CR was observed in the placebo group compared to olanzapine group for vomiting [84% vs 86.5% (MAT) and 94.7% vs 81.25% (CTCAE), P > .05] and for nausea [89.5% vs 62.5% (MAT) and 79% vs 68.7% (CTCAE), P > .05].…”

“…Davis et al [40] ( olanzapine in first cycle of chemotherapy and then crossed over in second cycle of chemotherapy. Dosing for olanzapine (> 60 kg; olanzapine 10 mg orally daily for 4 doses, 40-59.9 kg; olanzapine 5 mg orally daily for 4 doses, 20-39.9 kg; olanzapine 2.5 mg orally daily for 4 doses, <20 kg; olanzapine 1.25 mg orally daily for 4 doses) and for aprepitant (> 40 kg; aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, then 80 mg orally daily on days 2 and 3, 35-39.9 kg; aprepitant 80 mg orally daily for 3 doses, 20-34.9 kg; aprepitant 40 mg orally daily for 3 doses, < 20 kg; aprepitant 1.5-2 mg/kg orally daily for 3 doses).…”

Cyclophosphamide and epirubicin induce high apoptosis in microglia cells while epirubicin provokes DNA damage and microglial activation at sub-lethal concentrations

“…Both chemotherapies, EPI and CTX, have similar action mechanisms that include DNA damage (Taymaz-Nikerel et al, 2018[ 40 ]), cell cycle arrest (Xiong et al, 2016[ 48 ]), mitochondrial alterations and oxidative stress (Prasad et al, 2010[ 31 ]), in different tumoral cell lines and some non-neoplastic cell lines (Standish et al, 2008[ 39 ]). Even though chemotherapies are effective against cancer cells, they also induce secondary effects, such as nausea, alopecia (Uchida et al, 2018[ 42 ]), hepatotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity (Wu et al, 2016[ 46 ]), directly diminishing patient's quality life. Immune cells are frequently damaged by cancer treatments (Verma et al, 2016[ 44 ]), either around the body or in specific organs, such as liver, lungs and recently associated, brain (Matsos et al, 2017[ 23 ]).…”