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 session 12

1882P - Awareness of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting and adherence to guidelines: A multinational and multicenter survey

Date

14 Sep 2024

Session

Poster session 12

Topics

Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Tumour Site

Presenters

Ricardo Caponero

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_2): S1077-S1114. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1612

Authors

R. Caponero

Author affiliations

  • Medical Oncology, Hospital Alemao Oswaldo Cruz - Paulista, 05618-080 - São Paulo/BR

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1882P

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent condition that unquestionably demands prophylaxis. The personal practice assessment (PPA) - THRIVE (Training to Help Reduce CINV ratEs) program assessed nurses, pharmacists, and medical oncologists’ awareness of CINV and their adherence to CINV management guidelines.

Methods

46 respondents from Argentina (n=5), Canada (n=21), and Brazil (n=20) answered a survey anonymously about their own practice during a patient consultation. The questionnaire was elaborated by a group of expert’s medical oncologists.

Results

Survey results comprised 460 patients in treatment with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC; 60%) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC; 40%). Although 65% of respondents answered to use more than one guideline to establish CINV management protocols, up to 48% misclassify the emetogenic potential of HEC and MEC regimens. In addition, 54% of respondents do not discuss personal additional risk factors for CINV with patients. Regarding CINV prophylactic protocol for MEC, 56% of respondents do not include NK-1 RA in the regimen for patients on MEC with additional risk factors, which is the opposite of guidelines recommendation. The survey also indicates a significant variability in the time points for assessing CINV, with 35% of physicians relying only on patient’s spontaneous report about delayed CINV.

Conclusions

While most respondents acknowledge adhering to multiple guidelines for managing CINV, significant disparities exist between their clinical practices and guideline recommendations, mainly regarding MEC and personal additional risk factors. There is a pressing need to explore and support initiatives to implement these guidelines effectively and investigate the causes of non-adherence to improve patient’s outcomes.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

THRIVE PPA program is funded by Knight Therapeutics.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Knight Therapeutics.

Disclosure

All 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.