Adherence to guidelines on prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the National Cancer Institute, Sudan

Objective: To evaluate the adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and assess the outcomes of the prescribed antiemetic drugs. Methods: This prospective, observational study enrolled chemotherapy-naive cancer patients who were admitted to the National Cancer Institute between May and July 2015 for intravenous chemotherapy. Patient’s demographic data, chemotherapy protocols and types of antiemetic drugs were collected by reviewing patients’ files, chemotherapy prescription forms and interviewing the patients. Results: The data revealed that 90% of pre-chemotherapy antiemetic prescriptions did not adhere to antiemetic guidelines. The trends of non-adherence included an overuse of ondansetron (14%), under-prescribing of dexamethasone (16%) and corticosteroid duplication (14%). Regarding antiemetic use for the prevention of delayed emesis, the data showed that 90% of antiemetic prescriptions were non-adherent with ASCO guidelines, with overuse of ondansetron (20%) and metoclopramide (37%) and lack of dexamethasone prescriptions (80%) on days 2 and 3 being the most frequently reported trends. The percentage of patients with complete response (no emesis or rescue therapy) over 5 days post chemotherapy was 36%. Conclusion: The study indicated an extremely low adherence rate to ASCO guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Non-adherence included a trend of both underuse and overuse of indicated antiemetic medications

The global retinoblastoma outcome study : a prospective, cluster-based analysis of 4064 patients from 149 countries

DATA SHARING : The study data will become available online once all analyses are complete.BACKGROUND : Retinoblastoma is the most common intraocular cancer worldwide. There is some evidence to suggest that major differences exist in treatment outcomes for children with retinoblastoma from different regions, but these differences have not been assessed on a global scale. We aimed to report 3-year outcomes for children with retinoblastoma globally and to investigate factors associated with survival. METHODS : We did a prospective cluster-based analysis of treatment-naive patients with retinoblastoma who were diagnosed between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2017, then treated and followed up for 3 years. Patients were recruited from 260 specialised treatment centres worldwide. Data were obtained from participating centres on primary and additional treatments, duration of follow-up, metastasis, eye globe salvage, and survival outcome. We analysed time to death and time to enucleation with Cox regression models. FINDINGS : The cohort included 4064 children from 149 countries. The median age at diagnosis was 23·2 months (IQR 11·0–36·5). Extraocular tumour spread (cT4 of the cTNMH classification) at diagnosis was reported in five (0·8%) of 636 children from high-income countries, 55 (5·4%) of 1027 children from upper-middle-income countries, 342 (19·7%) of 1738 children from lower-middle-income countries, and 196 (42·9%) of 457 children from low-income countries. Enucleation surgery was available for all children and intravenous chemotherapy was available for 4014 (98·8%) of 4064 children. The 3-year survival rate was 99·5% (95% CI 98·8–100·0) for children from high-income countries, 91·2% (89·5–93·0) for children from upper-middle-income countries, 80·3% (78·3–82·3) for children from lower-middle-income countries, and 57·3% (52·1-63·0) for children from low-income countries. On analysis, independent factors for worse survival were residence in low-income countries compared to high-income countries (hazard ratio 16·67; 95% CI 4·76–50·00), cT4 advanced tumour compared to cT1 (8·98; 4·44–18·18), and older age at diagnosis in children up to 3 years (1·38 per year; 1·23–1·56). For children aged 3–7 years, the mortality risk decreased slightly (p=0·0104 for the change in slope). INTERPRETATION : This study, estimated to include approximately half of all new retinoblastoma cases worldwide in 2017, shows profound inequity in survival of children depending on the national income level of their country of residence. In high-income countries, death from retinoblastoma is rare, whereas in low-income countries estimated 3-year survival is just over 50%. Although essential treatments are available in nearly all countries, early diagnosis and treatment in low-income countries are key to improving survival outcomes.The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust and the Wellcome Trust.https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/homeam2023Paediatrics and Child Healt

Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Comparative Study From Sudan

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing adverse effect. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)–containing regimens are the standard regimens for CINV prophylaxis in patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). NK1RA agents are expensive and were not registered in Sudan. Recently, regimens containing olanzapine, the available and affordable medication in Sudan, were introduced as another option. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing regimen with the antiemetic regimen that was currently used in our institute for CINV prophylaxis in HEC/MEC settings. Patients and Methods: The study prospectively compared an olanzapine-containing regimen (acute phase: olanzapine, ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: olanzapine, ondansetron) with an ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (acute phase: ondansetron, dexamethasone; delayed phase: ondansetron) in adult patients with cancer receiving HEC or MEC. The study outcomes were complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medications) and nausea control (no nausea), which were assessed in the acute (0 to 24 hours), delayed (24 to 120 hours), and overall (0 to 120 hours) phases. Results: The study included 131 patients (olanzapine-containing: 50 patients; ondansetron/dexamethasone: 81 patients). CR and nausea control were higher in the olanzapine-containing than in the ondansetron/dexamethasone regimen (CR: acute phase, 86% v 71.6%; P = .086; delayed phase, 72% v 30.9%; P < .001; overall phase, 66% v 25.9%; P < .001; nausea control: acute phase, 86% v 74.1%; P = .127; delayed phase, 76% v 34.6%; P < .001; overall phase, 72% v 29.6%; P < .001). The major toxicity of olanzapine was grade 1 and 2 sedation or drowsiness (25 patients). Conclusion: An olanzapine-containing regimen has better efficacy for prevention of CINV in the HEC/MEC setting. Oncologists working in a limited-resource setting should be familiar with olanzapine-containing regimens, because NK1RA agents are not affordable and not easily available