1205P - Quality of life (QoL) evaluation in Portuguese lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy-associated antiemetic prophylaxis - Santarém Study

Date 27 September 2014
Event ESMO 2014
Session Poster Display session
Topics Anti-Cancer Agents & Biologic Therapy
Supportive Care
Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, Locally Advanced
Presenter Bárbara Parente
Citation Annals of Oncology (2014) 25 (suppl_4): iv417-iv425. 10.1093/annonc/mdu348
Authors B. Parente1, M.E. Teixeira2, H. Queiroga3, A. Fernandes4, A. Araujo5, M.T.A.S. Almodovar6, J.C. Mellidez7, F. Barata8
  • 1Serviço De Pneumologia, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/ Espinho EPE, 4434-502 - Vila Nova de Gaia/PT
  • 2Serviço De Pneumologia, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte - Hospital Sta Maria (HSM-CHLN), Lisbon/PT
  • 3Pneumology, São João Hospital, 4200319 - Porto/PT
  • 4Serviço De Pneumologia, Centro Hospitalar de Vila Real/Peso da Régua, 5000-508 - Vila Real/PT
  • 5Serviço De Oncologia, Centro Hospitalar de Entre Douro e Vouga, EPE, 4520-211 - Santa Maria da Feira/PT
  • 6Pulmonology, Instituto Português de Oncologia (IPO) de Lisboa, PT-1099-023 - Lisboa/PT
  • 7Unidade De Oncologia Médica, Hospital Infante Dom Pedro, 3814-501 - Aveiro/PT
  • 8Serviço De Pneumologia, Centro Hospitalar de Coimbra, EPE, 3041-801 - Coimbra/PT

Abstract

Aim

Nausea and vomiting are some of chemotherapy's most disabling side effects. Our main objective was to compare the impact in quality of life (QoL) of different antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Secondary objectives were to evaluate antiemetics prophylactic effectiveness (percentage of patients with CINV symptoms) and safety [percentage of adverse events (AE)].

Methods

Prospective, observational study. NSCLC patients receiving chemotherapy and antiemetics were included. We used EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 for the primary objective, variance analysis to compare scales scores, and &KHgr;2 tests to assess significance of differences found.

Results

In total, 149 patients with a mean age of 61.8 ± 10.1 years were included, 71% of which were men. The four most used antiemetic schemes were analysed: ondansetron (O) (n = 243), palonosetron (P) (n = 146), aprepitant + ondansetron (AO) (n = 41) and aprepitant + palonosetron (AP) (n = 18). EORTC QLQ-C30 showed differences amongst the four regimens for Global Health Status (p = 0.015), Physical and Emotional Functioning (p = 0.047 and 0.033, respectively), Pain (p = 0.007) and Insomnia (p = 0.001). Paired comparisons showed that combined regimens were superior to P for Global Health Status (AO, p = 0.026; AP, p = 0.022), O superior to P for Physical Functioning (p = 0.023), but P superior to O for Fatigue (p = 0.024) and Pain (p = 0.038). AP was superior to P for Emotional Dimension (p = 0.020), and AO superior to P for Cognitive Dimension (p = 0.014). EORTC QLQ-LC13 showed differences for Coughing (p = 0.037), Peripheral neuropathy (p = 0.001), Alopecia (p = 0.001) and Pain in the arm or shoulder (p = 0.013). P had the lowest percentage of patients with CINV symptoms (nausea-10.1%, vomiting-5.8%). AE occurred in 43 patients (28%), 98.1% of which were treated with O.

Conclusions

Overall, combined antiemetic regimens had better results in the prophylaxis of CINV than single-drug therapies. O showed advantage over P for Physical Functioning, Fatigue and Pain dimensions. Effectiveness and safety analysis revealed that P is the most effective drug in the prevention of CINV, and AO is the safest combination.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.