Survey of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in patients with urothelial carcinoma

  • Authors:
    • Akira Yoshimi
    • Yuna Shiroma
    • Miku Iwata
    • Mariko Nakamura
    • Aya Torii‑Goto
    • Hirotake Hida
    • Noriko Tanaka
    • Masayuki Miyazaki
    • Kiyofumi Yamada
    • Yukihiro Noda
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: August 25, 2021     https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2384
  • Article Number: 219
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can cause anorexia, weight loss and deterioration of patient quality of life. It is one of the most unpleasant adverse effects of chemotherapy treatment regimens. For the optimal treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms during urothelial carcinoma chemotherapy, the present study investigated the association between gastrointestinal symptoms and therapeutic effects of gemcitabine plus platinum [cisplatin (GC) or carboplatin (GCa)] therapies. The incidence and frequency of nausea/vomiting with GC split therapy (gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; split‑dose cisplatin, 35 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; 21‑day schedule) and GCa therapy [gemcitabine, 750‑1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15; carboplatin, area under the blood concentration‑time curve=5 mg min/ml (Calvert formula) on day 2; 28‑day schedule] were lower compared with those of GC therapy (gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15; single‑dose cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 2; 28‑day schedule). However, no differences in therapeutic outcomes were observed among therapies. GCa therapy, regardless of renal function, and GC split therapy demonstrated significant increases compared with GC therapy in alleviating gastrointestinal symptoms associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Overall, these results suggested that split‑dose cisplatin administration or the use of carboplatin instead of cisplatin may be useful in patients who experience CINV without compromising treatment effectiveness.

Introduction

Platinum-based antineoplastic drugs, such as cisplatin, are reported to be effective against several malignant tumors (1); however, they frequently induce nausea and vomiting (2). Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can cause anorexia and weakness (3,4) and is one of the most unpleasant subjective symptoms experienced by patients (5). CINV significantly reduces the quality of life of patients (3) and adversely affects treatment continuation for the underlying disease (6,7). Therefore, measures to alleviate CINV are crucial for the effective and safe administration of cancer chemotherapy.

Several guidelines (2,8-10) have consistently recommended a three-drug combination therapy, consisting of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids as antiemetics for combating anticancer agents with a high emetic risk (≥90%; cisplatin), as well as those with moderate emetic risk (30-90%; carboplatin) (2).

Patients with metastatic or advanced urothelial carcinoma are treated with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) therapy, in which a single dose of cisplatin is administered in combination with gemcitabine as the standard of care (11,12). In contrast, patients with reduced kidney function are prescribed GC split therapy (split-dose of cisplatin) (13,14) or GCa therapy (administration of carboplatin instead of cisplatin) (15,16). To our knowledge, the incidence of CINV and the efficacy of chemotherapy for these alternate treatment regimens compared to standard GC therapy in patients with reduced renal function has not been investigated previously.

To elucidate which regimen presented the lowest risk of CINV without compromising effectiveness, in this study, we compared the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, use of antiemetics, therapeutic responses, and survival rates in patients receiving GC therapy, GC split therapy, or GCa therapy for urothelial carcinoma.

Materials and methods

Patients and therapeutic regimens

Patients who were treated with (a) GC therapy, (b) GC split therapy, or (c) GCa therapy (see below and Table I) at the urology ward of Nagoya University Hospital between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2017, were retrospectively evaluated. For each therapy, the following scenarios were excluded from the analysis: patients who discontinued the use of platinum preparations (cisplatin or carboplatin), cases in which nausea and vomiting during the 10-day observation period could not be clarified, and cases in which the use of opioids rendered it challenging to determine whether nausea and vomiting were induced by chemotherapy.

Table I

Treatment schedules for GC, GC split and GCa therapy.

Table I

Treatment schedules for GC, GC split and GCa therapy.

  Treatment day, administration method
RegimenEmetic risk1234567891015
GC therapy            
     Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2)Lowiv      iv  iv
     Cisplatin (70 mg/m2)High iv         
     Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (iv)iv     (iv)   
     Dexamethasone iviviviv   iv  iv
     Aprepitant  popopo(po)(po)     
     Dopamine D2 receptor antagonist (iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po) 
GC split therapy            
     Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2)Lowiv      iv   
     Cisplatin (35 mg/m2)Highiv      iv   
     Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist iv      iv   
     Dexamethasone iviviv    iviviv 
     Aprepitant popopo(po)(po)      
     Dopamine D2 receptor antagonist (iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po) 
GCa therapy            
     Gemcitabine (750-1,000 mg/m2)Lowiv      iv  iv
     Carboplatin (AUC=5 mg·min/ml)Moderate iv         
     Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (iv)iv     (iv)   
     Dexamethasone iviv     iv  iv
     Aprepitant (po)(po)(po)(po)(po)      
     Dopamine D2 receptor antagonist (iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po)(iv/po) 

[i] AUC, area under the blood concentration-time curve; GC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin; GCa, gemcitabine plus carboplatin; iv, intravenous; po, per os; (iv/po), additional use of antiemetics.

(a) GC therapy

The GC therapy regimen was administered for 28 days (4-week interval), with cisplatin (70 mg/m2) administered on treatment day 2 and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) administered on treatment days 1, 8, and 15 (Table I). On the day of cisplatin administration, patients were pre-administered serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ramosetron, granisetron, or palonosetron), a corticosteroid (dexamethasone), and a selective NK1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant). Aprepitant was administered on treatment days 2 (125 mg; before cisplatin administration), 3 (80 mg), and 4 (80 mg).

(b) GC split therapy

For GC split therapy, the treatment regimen was administered for 21 days (3-week interval), with cisplatin (35 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) administered on treatment days 1 and 8 (Table I). On the days of cisplatin administration, patients were pre-administered serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Aprepitant was administered on treatment days 1 (125 mg; before administration of cisplatin), 2 (80 mg), and 3 (80 mg).

(c) GCa therapy

GCa treatment was performed for 28 days (4-week interval) and consisted of carboplatin [area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC)=5 mg·min/ml] administered on treatment day 2 and gemcitabine (750-1,000 mg/m2) administered on treatment days 1, 8, and 15 (Table I). On the day of carboplatin administration, patients were pre-administered with a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone.

Assessment

In this study, a 10-day (treatment days 1 to 10) observation period was employed from the start date of each course (GC therapy, GC split therapy, or GCa therapy). The following parameters were investigated: (i) number of days with nausea and vomiting, (ii) prevalence of nausea and vomiting on each treatment day, (iii) administration of a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, (iv) total and additional use of antiemetics (average use count, total dose, and use date of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, aprepitant, dopamine D2 receptor antagonists), (v) therapeutic response [complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD)] based on the new response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST v.1.1) (17), and (vi) the duration of patient survival from the start date of each course of treatment to the date of the final follow-up observation or date of death.

Statistical analysis

Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical data related to sex, rate of incidence of nausea and vomiting events on each treatment day, use rate of each serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, use rate of additional antiemetics and prevalence of patients with each therapeutic response. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine normality, and Leven's test was used to assess the equality of variances. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare median values of age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine clearance (Ccr) and the number of days with nausea/vomiting per course among three groups, followed by post-hoc testing using the unpaired Mann-Whitney U test, with a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level. The Cramér-von Mises test was used to assess survival rates. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Data analysis, power analysis, and sample size calculations were performed using the R statistical software (version 3.6.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Patient characteristics

In total, 67 patients (48 men and 19 women) were included in this study. There were 43 patients (27 men, 16 women) in the GC therapy group, 9 patients (8 men, 1 woman) in the GC split therapy group, and 15 patients (13 men, 2 women) in the GCa group. There were no statistically significant differences in age or sex among the groups. However, eGFR and Ccr levels were significantly lower in the GC split and GCa therapy groups than in the GC therapy group (P<0.01), and the level of Ccr was also significantly lower in the GCa therapy group than in the GC split therapy group (P<0.05; Table II).

Table II

Patient characteristics.

Table II

Patient characteristics.

CharacteristicGC therapyGC split therapyGCa therapy
Median age, years (range)67.0 (36-80)67.0 (49-76)73.0 (57-84)
Sex, n (%)   
     Men27 (62.8)8 (88.9)13 (86.7)
     Women16 (37.2)1 (11.1)2 (13.3)
Number of chemotherapy courses722319
Median eGFR, ml/min/1.73 m2 (range)61.8 (36.9-162.5)38.4 (31.8-50.6)a37.1 (15.8-64.5)a
Median Ccr, ml/min (range)57.6 (31.5-153.8)46.0 (34.5-62.3)a41.2 (18.1-70.6)a,b

[i] Ccr, creatinine clearance; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; GC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin; GCa, gemcitabine plus carboplatin.

[ii] aP<0.01 vs. GC therapy and

[iii] bP<0.05 vs. GC split therapy.

Number of days with nausea/vomiting per course

The number of days with nausea/vomiting per course ± standard deviation in the GC, GC split, and GCa therapy groups is shown in Fig. 1. We found that the number of days with nausea per course was significantly lower in the GC split and GCa therapy groups than in the GC therapy group (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively; Fig. 1A). Although several patients experienced vomiting during the observation period in the GC and GCa therapy groups, there were no patients with vomiting episodes in the GC split therapy group (Fig. 1B).

Prevalence of nausea and vomiting on each treatment day

The prevalence of nausea on treatment days 4 to 7 was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group than in the GC therapy group (treatment days 4 and 6: P<0.01, treatment days 5 and 7: P<0.05; Fig. 2A). On treatment days 3 and 4, prevalence of nausea/vomiting was significantly lower in the GCa therapy group than in the GC therapy group (P<0.01; Fig. 2A). No differences in the prevalence of vomiting were observed among the treatment groups (P<0.05; Fig. 2B).

Use rate of each serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist

The use rates of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ramosetron, granisetron, or palonosetron) in each therapy group are shown in Fig. 3. A significant difference was observed in the use rate between the GC split therapy and the GC therapy groups (P<0.05; Fig. 3). In particular, a second-generation serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron) was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group (P<0.05; Fig. 3). No differences were observed between the GCa and GC therapy groups or the GC split therapy group.

Total and additional use of antiemetics

The total and additional use of antiemetics is summarized in Table III. The total dose of antiemetics during the observation period was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group than in the GC and GCa therapy groups (P<0.01). The metoclopramide dose was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group than in the GC therapy group (P<0.05). Aprepitant dose was significantly lower in the GCa therapy group than in the GC and GC split therapy groups (P<0.01).

Table III

Antiemetics.

Table III

Antiemetics.

A, Total use of antiemetics (included in regimen and additional use).
Antiemetics RegimenNaMean count ± SD (range)Mean dose, mg/course ± SD (range)
Granisetron GC71.14±0.38 (1-2)2.00±1.00 (1-3)
  GC split11.00±0.00(1)3.00±0.00(3)
  GCa31.00±0.00(1)3.00±0.00(3)
Palonosetron GC351.00±0.00(1)0.75±0.00 (0.75)
  GC split51.00±0.00(1)0.75±0.00 (0.75)
  GCa51.00±0.00(1)0.75±0.00 (0.75)
Ramosetron GC302.23±0.94 (1-3)0.67±0.28 (0.3-0.9)
  GC split171.00±0.00(1)0.30±0.00 (0.3)d
  GCa112.55±0.82 (1-3)0.74±0.28 (0.3-0.9)e
Domperidone GC720.15±0.82 (0-6)3.61±22.35 (0-180)
Metoclopramide GC724.04±8.96 (0-31)20.97±45.48 (0-160)
  GC split230.06±0.24 (0-1)0.29±1.21 (0-5)c
  GCa192.16±4.89 (0-15)11.05±24.47 (0-75)
Aprepitant GC723.57±0.90 (3-5)330.56±72.09 (285-445)
  GC split233.35±0.49 (3-4)313.24±39.41 (285-365)
  GCa190.95±1.43 (0-3)90.00±136.11 (0-285)d,e
B, Additional use of antiemetics (not included in regimen).
AntiemeticsRegimenNbMean count ± SD (range)Mean dose, mg/course ± SD (range)Day administered (N)
GranisetronGC11.00±0.00(1)1.00±0.00(1)Day 1(1)
 
RamosetronGC201.85±0.37 (1-2)0.56±0.11 (0.3-0.6)Day 1(20), day 8(17)
 GCa91.89±0.33 (1-2)0.57±0.10 (0.3-0.6)Day 1(9), day 8(8)
DomperidoneGC33.67±2.08 (2-6)86.67±83.27 (20-180)Day 3(1), day 4(2), day 5(3), day 6(2), day 7(1)
MetoclopramideGC2910.03±11.88 (1-30)52.07±59.72 (5-150)Day 1(7), day 2(8), day 3(12), day 4(13), day 5(15), day 6(16), day 7(15), day 8(15), day 9(10), day 10(9)
 GC split11.00±0.00(1)5.00±0.00(5)Day 9(1)
 GCa410.25±5.74 (2-15)52.50±26.30 (15-75)Day 3(1), day 4(1), day 5(2), day 6(3), day 7(3), day 8(2), day 9(3), day 10(2)
AprepitantGC211.95±0.22 (1-2)156.19±17.46 (80-160)Day 5(21), day 6(20)
 GC split91.00±0.00(1) 80.00±0.00(80)dDay 4(9)
 GCa63.00±0.00(3) 285.00±0.00(285)d,eDay 2(6), day 3(6), day 4(6)

[i] SD, standard deviation; N, the number of courses; GC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin; GCa, gemcitabine plus carboplatin; date, treatment day during observation period (from day 1-10).

[ii] aNumber of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (granisetron, palonosetron and ramosetron) indicates courses of each serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist users receiving each chemotherapy. The number of dopamine D2 receptor antagonists (domperidone and metoclopramide) and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) indicates all courses receiving each chemotherapy.

[iii] bAdditional user of each antiemetics.

[iv] cP<0.05,

[v] dP<0.01 vs GC therapy and

[vi] eP<0.01 vs GC split therapy.

The use rates of additional antiemetics in the GC, GC split, and GCa therapy groups were 70.8% (51/72 courses), 39.1% (9/23 courses), and 78.9% (15/19 courses), respectively. The use rate was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group than in the GC and GCa therapy groups (P<0.05). Considering the dose of additional antiemetics during the observation period, aprepitant dose was significantly lower in the GC split therapy group than in the GC therapy group (P<0.01), whereas it was significantly higher in the GCa therapy group than in the GC and GC split therapy groups (P<0.01; Table III).

Therapeutic response and survival rates

No differences were observed in the proportion of each therapeutic response in the GC therapy group [CR: 0% (0/34 patients), PR: 8.8% (3/34 patients), SD: 50.0% (17/34), PD: 41.2% (14/34 patients)], GC split therapy group [CR: 0% (0/4 patients), PR: 25.0% (1/4 patients), SD: 75.0% (3/4 patients), PD: 0.0% (0/4 patients)], and GCa therapy group [CR: 0% (0/6 patients), PR: 16.7% (1/6 patients), SD: 66.7% (4/6 patients), PD: 16.7% (1/6 patients)] (P>0.05). No differences in the duration of survival or survival rates were observed among the treatment groups (P>0.05; Fig. 4).

Power analysis and sample size calculation

This study had a power of 0.42-0.59 to detect a medium effect (18) and could not obtain the estimated sample size (n=53-108).

Discussion

This study compared the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms, use of antiemetics, therapeutic responses, and survival rates in patients receiving GC therapy, GC split therapy, or GCa therapy for urothelial carcinoma. Although CINV in the acute phase (within the first 24 h after chemotherapy) was well-controlled in all therapy groups, patients receiving GC therapy showed a higher incidence of vomiting in the delayed phase (>24 h after chemotherapy) than the other groups. In the GC split therapy group, there were no vomiting episodes, and the number of days with nausea per course and the prevalence of nausea on treatment days 4 to 7 were significantly lower than those observed in the GC therapy group. This suggests that low-dose cisplatin administration can suppress the emergence of delayed nausea. In the GCa therapy group, the number of days with nausea per course was significantly lower, and the prevalence of nausea on treatment days 3 and 4 was significantly lower than that observed in the GC therapy group. These results can be explained by the fact that carboplatin is a platinum-based antineoplastic drug with moderate emetic risk (2).

A second-generation serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, palonosetron, is effective against both the acute and delayed phases of CINV (19). Among the serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists used in this survey, the use rate of palonosetron in the GC split and GCa therapy groups was lower than that in the GC therapy group. This could be attributed to the fewer number of days with nausea per course, as well as the lower prevalence of nausea on each treatment day in both the GC split and GCa therapy groups than in the GC therapy group. Therefore, our findings suggest that both GC split therapy and GCa therapy can reduce the prevalence of acute and delayed CINV, regardless of palonosetron administration. The GC split therapy group presented a significantly lower administration rate and aprepitant dose of additional antiemetics than the GC therapy and GCa therapy groups. This could be attributed to several factors. First, GC split therapy has a lower risk of CINV than GC or GCa therapy. Second, all patients receiving GC therapy and GC split therapy, who were administered cisplatin (a high emetic risk drug), were also administered a three-drug combination antiemetic therapy according to the treatment schedules. Third, patients receiving GCa therapy, using carboplatin, were additionally administered aprepitant, which was not listed in the treatment schedule. When we compared the need for antiemetic use during the observation period, the aprepitant dose was significantly lower in the GCa therapy group than in the GC and GC split therapy groups. Moreover, the frequency of additional use of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was lower in aprepitant users (16.7%) than in non-users (61.5%). GCa therapy can reduce both early and late CINV with the minimum requirement of aprepitant use, and aprepitant use may result in additional antiemetic effects. Furthermore, although the treatment duration for the GC split therapy was shorter (21 days) than that for a single course of GC therapy (28 days), CINV events were adequately controlled with the three-drug antiemetic therapy. Therefore, if the dose of cisplatin administered per course was the same, split-dose treatments may be more effective in mitigating CINV onset than single-dose treatments.

Cisplatin-based treatment regimens are used as first-line therapies for metastatic or advanced urothelial carcinoma; however, the use of cisplatin has been associated with renal dysfunction, deterioration of the general condition, and medical complications in 40-50% of patients (20). Carboplatin or split-dose administration of cisplatin is employed as an alternative platinum formulation in patients presenting with these adverse events (13-16). In this study, we found that eGFR and Ccr levels were significantly lower in patients receiving GC split therapy and GCa therapy than in those receiving GC therapy, suggesting that GC split therapy and GCa therapy can be prioritized in patients with reduced kidney function. It has been suggested that adverse events are less common in regimens that use carboplatin instead of cisplatin (21), although the therapeutic efficacy of cisplatin is significantly inferior to that of carboplatin (22). However, only a few reports have presented direct comparisons between GC, GC split, and GCa therapies (16,23). Results from our preliminary survey indicated that there were no significant differences in the therapeutic effects and survival rates among the three groups. Therefore, the selection of GC split therapy or GCa therapy, instead of GC therapy, may reduce CINV incidence without adversely affecting the therapeutic effects and survival rates in patients with urothelial carcinoma.

This study was limited by its retrospective design based on electronic medical records and a small sample size compared to the estimated ideal sample size (n=53-108), which may induce biases owing to insufficient statistical power (0.42-0.59 to detect a medium effect). Additionally, it is possible that the patients' memories and medical staff records were inaccurate, resulting in recall bias. As there was probably some information that was not recorded in the medical records, it should be noted that the occurrence of nausea/vomiting may have been underestimated. Furthermore, we did not examine the relationship between patient-related factors (e.g., age, sex, and history of alcohol intake) or genetic risk factors (6,24,25) and the incidence of CINV. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution.

In conclusion, GC split therapy and GCa therapy were superior to GC therapy in reducing the incidence of CINV in patients with urothelial carcinoma. In particular, GCa therapy is likely to be superior to GC and GC split therapy because carboplatin can be administered regardless of renal function and has few side effects such as nausea and vomiting.

Although further investigations on the therapeutic effects and other adverse events are required, split-dose cisplatin administration or the use of carboplatin instead of cisplatin may be useful in patients who experience CINV without compromising treatment effectiveness.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' contributions

AY, MM, KY and YN conceived and designed the current study. AY, YS, MI, MN, ATG, HH, NT and MM acquired the data. AY, YS, MI, MN, ATG and YN analyzed and interpreted the data. AY, YS and MI performed statistical analysis. AY and YS drafted the manuscript. AY and YN supervised the study and confirmed the authenticity of all the raw data. YN critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This survey was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects (26). This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine (approval no. 2016-0539-3), and written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design. To protect personal information, all data obtained were handled after anonymization.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Dasari S and Tchounwou PB: Cisplatin in cancer therapy: Molecular mechanisms of action. Eur J Pharmacol. 740:364–378. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

2 

Razvi Y, Chan S, McFarlane T, McKenzie E, Zaki P, DeAngelis C, Pidduck W, Bushehri A, Chow E and Jerzak KJ: ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO: A comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult patients. Support Care Cancer. 27:87–95. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

3 

Bloechl-Daum B, Deuson RR, Mavros P, Hansen M and Herrstedt J: Delayed nausea and vomiting continue to reduce patients' quality of life after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy despite antiemetic treatment. J Clin Oncol. 24:4472–4478. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

4 

Navari RM: Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Focus on newer agents and new uses for older agents. Drugs. 73:249–262. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

5 

Coates A, Abraham S, Kaye SB, Sowerbutts T, Frewin C, Fox RM and Tattersall MH: On the receiving end-patient perception of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 19:203–208. 1983.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

6 

Hesketh PJ: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 358:2482–2494. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

7 

Van Laar ES, Desai JM and Jatoi A: Professional educational needs for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): Multinational survey results from 2388 health care providers. Support Care Cancer. 23:151–157. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Basch E, Bohlke K, Barbour SY, Clark-Snow RA, Danso MA, Dennis K, Dupuis LL, Dusetzina SB, et al: Antiemetics: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 35:3240–3261. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

9 

Berger MJ, Ettinger DS, Aston J, Barbour S, Bergsbaken J, Bierman PJ, Brandt D, Dolan DE, Ellis G, Kim EJ, et al: NCCN guidelines insights: Antiemesis, version 2.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 15:883–893. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

10 

Roila F, Molassiotis A, Herrstedt J, Aapro M, Gralla RJ, Bruera E, Clark-Snow RA, Dupuis LL, Einhorn LH, Feyer P, et al: 2016 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 27 (Suppl 5):v119–v133. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

11 

von der Maase H, Sengelov L, Roberts JT, Ricci S, Dogliotti L, Oliver T, Moore MJ, Zimmermann A and Arning M: Long-term survival results of a randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin, with methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin in patients with bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 23:4602–4608. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

12 

Bellmunt J, von der Maase H, Mead GM, Skoneczna I, De Santis M, Daugaard G, Boehle A, Chevreau C, Paz-Ares L, Laufman LR, et al: Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC intergroup study 30987. J Clin Oncol. 30:1107–1113. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

13 

Hussain SA, Stocken DD, Riley P, Palmer DH, Peake DR, Geh JI, Spooner D and James ND: A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Br J Cancer. 91:844–849. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

14 

Kim YR, Lee JL, You D, Jeong IG, Song C, Hong B, Hong JH and Ahn H: Gemcitabine plus split-dose cisplatin could be a promising alternative to gemcitabine plus carboplatin for cisplatin-unfit patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 76:141–153. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

15 

De Santis M, Bellmunt J, Mead G, Kerst JM, Leahy M, Maroto P, Gil T, Marreaud S, Daugaard G, Skoneczna I, et al: Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: EORTC study 30986. J Clin Oncol. 30:191–199. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

16 

Einstein DJ and Sonpavde G: Treatment approaches for cisplatin-ineligible patients with invasive bladder cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 20(12)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

17 

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 45:228–247. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

18 

Cohen J: A power primer. Psychol Bull. 112:155–159. 1992.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

19 

Saito M, Aogi K, Sekine I, Yoshizawa H, Yanagita Y, Sakai H, Inoue K, Kitagawa C, Ogura T and Mitsuhashi S: Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: A double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 10:115–124. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

20 

Morales-Barrera R, Bellmunt J, Suárez C, Valverde C, Guix M, Serrano C, Gallén M and Carles J: Cisplatin and gemcitabine administered every two weeks in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma and impaired renal function. Eur J Cancer. 48:1816–1821. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

21 

Sakaeda T, Kadoyama K and Okuno Y: Adverse event profiles of platinum agents: Data mining of the public version of the FDA adverse event reporting system, AERS, and reproducibility of clinical observations. Int J Med Sci. 8:487–491. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

22 

de Vos FY and de Wit R: Choosing chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer who are unfit to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2:381–388. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

23 

Dogliotti L, Carteni G, Siena S, Bertetto O, Martoni A, Bono A, Amadori D, Onat H and Marini L: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium: Results of a randomized phase 2 trial. Eur Urol. 52:134–141. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

24 

Sekine I, Segawa Y, Kubota K and Saeki T: Risk factors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Index for personalized antiemetic prophylaxis. Cancer Sci. 104:711–717. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

25 

Mukoyama N, Yoshimi A, Goto A, Kotani H, Ishikawa K, Miyazaki N, Miyazaki M, Yamada K, Kikkawa F, Hasegawa Y, et al: An analysis of behavioral and genetic risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japanese subjects. Biol Pharm Bull. 39:1852–1858. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar

26 

Ministry of Education, Culture Sports, Science and Technology/Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: The ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000757566.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2021. (In Japanese).

Related Articles

Journal Cover

October-2021
Volume 15 Issue 4

Print ISSN: 2049-9450
Online ISSN:2049-9469

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Yoshimi A, Shiroma Y, Iwata M, Nakamura M, Torii‑Goto A, Hida H, Tanaka N, Miyazaki M, Yamada K, Noda Y, Noda Y, et al: Survey of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol 15: 219, 2021
APA
Yoshimi, A., Shiroma, Y., Iwata, M., Nakamura, M., Torii‑Goto, A., Hida, H. ... Noda, Y. (2021). Survey of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 15, 219. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2384
MLA
Yoshimi, A., Shiroma, Y., Iwata, M., Nakamura, M., Torii‑Goto, A., Hida, H., Tanaka, N., Miyazaki, M., Yamada, K., Noda, Y."Survey of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in patients with urothelial carcinoma". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 15.4 (2021): 219.
Chicago
Yoshimi, A., Shiroma, Y., Iwata, M., Nakamura, M., Torii‑Goto, A., Hida, H., Tanaka, N., Miyazaki, M., Yamada, K., Noda, Y."Survey of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in patients with urothelial carcinoma". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 15, no. 4 (2021): 219. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2384