Misselijkheid en braken na chemotherapie

Despite advances in the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), these side effects remain among the most distressing for patients. We discuss the systematic review and meta-analysis by Patel et al (2022) evaluating effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase CINV in adult and pediatric patients. With the advent of newer antiemetics during the last few decades, the incidence of CINV has improved especially for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Control of nausea remains an unmet need. Data on antiemetic safety are lacking. Future research should focus on patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, but also on patients treated with low or minimally emetogenic chemotherapy. The identification of patients at high risk for CINV based on key patient-related risk factors prior to the initiation of a chemotherapy regimen is imperative, but in our view, these factors are not adequately taken into account

Aiming for a better understanding and management of cancer-related fatigue

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a serious symptom of patients with cancer and deteriorates their daily quality of life. Whereas fatigue is a common problem in the general population, with a prevalence of about 30%, up to 99% of patients with cancer have fatigue of more intense severity. CRF is directly related to the biology of cancer, but it can also be caused by anticancer treatment. We reviewed current evidence about the potential pathophysiological mechanisms causing CRF. Clinical methods to determine the presence and severity of CRF and potential treatment options to reduce CRF will be discussed. After reading this review, the reader will have knowledge of the current understanding of CRF and will be able to give evidence-based advice to patients with CR

Patients' preferences for participation in treatment decision-making at the end of life: qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Patients are often encouraged to participate in treatment decision-making. Most studies on this subject focus on choosing between different curative treatment types. In the last phase of life treatment decisions differ as they often put more emphasis on weighing quantity against quality of life, such as whether or not to start treatment aimed at life prolongation but with the possibility of side effects. This study aimed to obtain insight into cancer patients' preferences and the reasons for patients' preferred role in treatment decision-making at the end of life. METHODS: 28 advanced cancer patients were included at the start of their first line treatment. In-depth interviews were held prior to upcoming treatment decisions whether or not to start a life prolonging treatment. The Control Preference Scale was used to start discussing the extent and type of influence patients wanted to have concerning upcoming treatment decision-making. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed. RESULTS: All patients wanted their physician to participate in the treatment decision-making process. The extent to which patients themselves preferred to participate seemed to depend on how patients saw their own role or assessed their own capabilities for participating in treatment decision-making. Patients foresaw a shift in the preferred level of participation to a more active role depending in the later phase of illness when life prolongation would become more limited and quality of life would become more important. CONCLUSION: Patients vary in how much involvement they would like to have in upcoming treatment decision-making. Individual patients' preferences may change in the course of the illness, with a shift to more active participation in the later phases. Communication about patients' expectations, wishes and preferences for participation in upcoming treatment decisions is of great importance. An approach in which these topics are openly discussed would be beneficial

Experiences and perspectives of patients with advanced cancer regarding work resumption and work retention: a qualitative interview study

Purpose: Being able to work improves the quality of life of patients with cancer. Much is known about the return to work process of cancer survivors. Yet, studies focusing on the experiences of patients with advanced cancer who want to return to work or stay employed are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to explore the perceptions of patients with advanced cancer regarding work resumption and work retention and the barriers and facilitators they may experience. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Patients were included if they: (1) were diagnosed with advanced cancer, (2) worked in paid employment at time of diagnosis, and (3) were currently back in paid employment or had the intention to return to paid employment. Participants were recruited through clinicians and patient organizations. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed using ATLAS.ti. Results: Fifteen patients (87% female, mean age 52 (SD 4; range 41–64)) were individually interviewed. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) holding on to normalcy, (2) high understanding and divergent expectations, (3) social discomfort calls for patient-initiated alignment, and (4) laws and regulations require patient empowerment. Conclusion: Paid employment can contribute to the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. The findings of this study might correct erroneous preconceptions about the work ability and work intention of patients with advanced cancer. Tools already developed for employers to support reintegration of patients with cancer should be further explored and translated to patients with advanced cancer

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND: For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects. RESULTS: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC

Control Preference Scale

<p>Control Preference Scale</p

Quality of integrated female oncofertility care is suboptimal: A patient-reported measurement

Background: Clinical practice guidelines recommend to inform female cancer patients about their infertility risks due to cancer treatment. Unfortunately, it seems that guideline adherence is suboptimal. In order to improve quality of integrated female oncofertility care, a systematic assessment of current practice is necessary. Methods: A multicenter cross-sectional survey study in which a set of systematically developed quality indicators was processed, was conducted among female cancer patients (diagnosed in 2016/2017). These indicators represented all domains in oncofertility care; risk communication, referral, counseling, and decision-making. Indicator scores were calculated, and determinants were assessed by multilevel multivariate analyses. Results: One hundred twenty-one out of 344 female cancer patients participated. Eight out of 11 indicators scored below 90% adherence. Of all patients, 72.7% was informed about their infertility, 51.2% was offered a referral, with 18.8% all aspects were discussed in counseling, and 35.5% received written and/or digital information. Patient's age, strength of wish to conceive, time before cancer treatment, and type of healthcare provider significantly influenced the scores of three indicators. Conclusions: Current quality of female oncofertility care is far from optimal. Therefore, improvement is needed. To achieve this, improvement strategies that are tailored to the identified determinants and to guideline-specific barriers should be developed