Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session

3895 - Evaluation of Antiemetic Practices for Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): Results of a European Oncology Nurse Survey

Date

10 Sep 2017

Session

Poster display session

Topics

Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Presenters

PASCALE DIELENSEGER

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v543-v567. 10.1093/annonc/mdx388

Authors

P. DIELENSEGER1, S. Borjeson2, C. Vidall3, A. Young4, P. Jahn5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Early Drug Development, Gustave Roussy Institute of Oncology, 94800 - Villejuif/FR
  • 2 Department Of Medical And Health Sciences, Division Of Nursing Science, Linköping University, Linköping/SE
  • 3 Nursing And Governance, Alcura UK Ltd, Northampton/GB
  • 4 Cancer Research Centre, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry/GB
  • 5 Nursing Research Unit, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Halle/DE
More

Resources

Abstract 3895

Background

Preventing CINV in most patients is possible when guideline-recommended prophylactic antiemetics are utilized. Because oncology nurses play a critical role in risk assessment and management of CINV, a survey of European nurses was conducted to evaluate antiemetic practices, determine awareness of and adherence to current guideline recommendations, and explore barriers to adherence.

Methods

Between March 2016 and March 2017, 212 oncology nurses in 16 European countries completed a 20-question online survey.

Results

Respondents had 15 years (median) experience as an oncology nurse and most were able to suggest or prescribe antiemetics. Most (n = 169, 80%) worked in the public not-for-profit hospital setting, seeing both in- and outpatients (n = 107, 50%). While nurses were most familiar with ASCO (n = 97, 46%) and MASCC/ESMO (n = 84, 40%) guidelines, individual institution guidelines were used most (n = 99, 47%). Key discrepancies between antiemetic use and guideline recommendations were: i) underutilization of NK1RAs, 5-HT3RAs and a steroid on Day 1 in the HEC setting and ii) high use of 5-HT3RAs during days 2-5 when guidelines recommend a steroid (Table 1). Metoclopramide use (not guideline recommended) was also high, with ∼30% and ∼50% of nurses reporting usage for acute and delayed phases, respectively, for both HEC and MEC settings. The most common barrier to the use of guideline-recommended agents was reported as physician preference (n = 84, 40%). Product cost and formulary inclusion also played a role. The 2 most common challenges in managing CINV were “controlling nausea and vomiting in the delayed phase” (n = 135, 64%) and “reducing the impact of CINV on patients’ quality-of-life” (n = 130, 61%).rnTable:

1552P Antiemetic Utilization - European Nurse Survey

rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn
SettingAntiemetic ClassAntiemetics Utilized n (% respondents)
Acute Phase (0-24 h)Delayed Phase (25-120 h)
HEC5-HT3 RA NK1 RA NEPA Steroid (eg, DEX) Phenothiazine Benzodiazepine Antipsychotic Metoclopramide171 (81%) 130 (61%) 48 (23%) 173 (82%) 1 (0%) 35 (17%) 10 (5%) 63 (30%)105 (50%) 92 (43%) 23 (11%) 133 (63%) 12 (6%) 25 (12%) 19 (9%) 103 (49%)
MEC5-HT3 RA NK1 RA NEPA Steroid (eg, DEX) Phenothiazine Benzodiazepine Antipsychotic Metoclopramide183 (86%) 44 (21%) 17 (8%) 164 (77%) 3 (1%) 14 (7%) 5 (2%) 67 (32%)100 (47%) 38 (18%) 19 (9%) 122 (58%) 10 (5%) 15 (7%) 13 (6%) 108 (51%)
rn

HEC: highly emetogenic, MEC: moderately emetogenic, DEX: dexamethasone, NEPA: fixed combination of netupitant/palonosetron

rn

Conclusions

This survey highlights many opportunities to improve utilization of guideline-recommended antiemetics, thereby optimizing prevention of CINV and quality-of-life for patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Helsinn Healthcare SA

Funding

Helsinn Healthcare, SA

Disclosure

P. Dielenseger: Member of advisory boards of Helsinn, Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, Shire, Tesaro, Janssen, and BMS A. Young: Received honorarium from MSD (advisory board and presentations given), Helsinn (advisory boards) and Chugai (presentation given). P. Jahn: Support includes travel support: Helsinn (2014); Current consulting or advisory role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Norgine, and Clinigen; Clinical Research Fund by Chugai. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.