Skip to Main Content (Press Enter)

Logo UNIMORE
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Professioni
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Strutture
  • Terza Missione
  • Attività
  • Competenze

UNI-FIND
Logo UNIMORE

|

UNI-FIND

unimore.it
  • ×
  • Home
  • Corsi
  • Insegnamenti
  • Professioni
  • Persone
  • Pubblicazioni
  • Strutture
  • Terza Missione
  • Attività
  • Competenze
  1. Pubblicazioni

Is an antiemetic prophylactic treatment needed for patients submitted to consecutive days of 5-fluorouracil? An observational study

Articolo
Data di Pubblicazione:
2001
Citazione:
Is an antiemetic prophylactic treatment needed for patients submitted to consecutive days of 5-fluorouracil? An observational study / De Angelis, V; Roila, F; Tonato, M; Ballatori, E; Tumolo, S; Meneghetti, L; Negri, D; Gaspera, Sd; Presot, C; Muran, G; Lucenti, A; Ciccarese, G; Palladino, Ma; Porrozzi, S; Sabbatini, R; Depenni, Roberta; Federico, Massimo; Silingardi, Vittorio. - In: TUMORI. - ISSN 0300-8916. - STAMPA. - 87:6(2001), pp. 379-382. [10.1177/030089160108700604]
Abstract:
Aims and Background. The necessity of an antiemetic prophylaxis in patients treated with chemotherapy of low emetogenic potential, such as 5-fluorouracil +/- folinic acid fractionated over several consecutive days, is controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the therapeutic behavior of oncologists on this issue. Methods. All consecutive in and out patients who started chemotherapy in 33 Italian oncological departments from June 24 to July 6, 1996, were studied. The antiemetic prescription pattern and its effectiveness, in patients submitted to 5-fluorouracil +/- folinic acid were evaluated. Results. Of the 1956 patients submitted to cancer chemotherapy, 259 patients received 5-fluorouracil +/- folinic acid. Of these, 186 patients were treated for 5 consecutive days, 47 for 4 days, 20 for 3 days and 6 for 2 days. A total of 219 (84.5%) received an antiemetic prophylaxis: 43.4% a 5-HT3 antagonist +/- steroids, 37.5% an antidopaminergic drug, 10.9% a steroid +/- antidopaminergic drug, and 8.2% other drugs. Only 40 patients (15.5%) did not receive an antiemetic prophylaxis. Overall complete protection from vomiting/nausea was 225/259 (86.9%)/163/259 (62.9%). The complete protection from vomiting/nausea during the 5 days in the 186 patients was not significantly different among patients receiving or not an antiemetic prophylaxis (88.1%/64.9% vs 88.9%/55.6%). At unifactorial analysis, the previous experience of vomiting/nausea caused by chemotherapy was found to be a significant prognostic factor. In fact, overall complete protection from vomiting/nausea was significantly inferior in patients who had previous experience of vomiting/nausea (65.1%/35.0%) with respect to those who did not (91.2%/75.4%, P < 0.001/ > 0.001, respectively). Conclusions. The study showed that in clinical practice patients submitted to 5-fluorouracil +/- folinic acid obtained a similar high protection from vomiting and nausea regardless of whether or not antiemetic prophylaxis was given. It would be therefore reasonable not to treat patients undergoing such chemotherapy, whereas patients with previous experience of vomiting/nausea caused by chemotherapy should be given an antiemetic prophylaxis.
Tipologia CRIS:
Articolo su rivista
Keywords:
antiemetics; clinical practice; effectiveness; 5-HT3 antagonists
Elenco autori:
De Angelis, V; Roila, F; Tonato, M; Ballatori, E; Tumolo, S; Meneghetti, L; Negri, D; Gaspera, Sd; Presot, C; Muran, G; Lucenti, A; Ciccarese, G; Palladino, Ma; Porrozzi, S; Sabbatini, R; Depenni, Roberta; Federico, Massimo; Silingardi, Vittorio
Link alla scheda completa:
https://iris.unimore.it/handle/11380/6119
Pubblicato in:
TUMORI
Journal
  • Utilizzo dei cookie

Realizzato con VIVO | Designed by Cineca | 26.4.5.0