Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34176233›Full record

ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2022

Real-world emetic risk of chemotherapy and the corresponding antiemetic therapy in Japan: A study based on a nationwide database.

Ayako Okuyama, Narikazu Boku, Takahiro Higashi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Certified nurse specialists in cancer nursing and prophylactic antiemetic prescription for chemotherapy patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ayako OkuyamaCenter for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Chuo-ku, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4732-3272
Narikazu BokuDivision of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuo-ku, Japan.
Takahiro HigashiCenter for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Chuo-ku, Japan.
National Cancer Center · US

Funding

the grants-in-aid for Young Scientists (JSPS KAKENHI Grant) 18K17479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major concern of patients with cancer, leading to suboptimal treatment.

aimThis study assessed the emetic risk associated with intravenous and oral chemotherapy and the prophylactic antiemetic drugs by cancer type in a real-world setting. METHODS AND

resultsWe used the health services utilisation data for patients with cancer diagnosed in 2016. Patients aged at least 20 years at the time of diagnosis and who started their first course of chemotherapy were included. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was determined according to the cancer type and was classified based on clinical practice guidelines. The prescription of antiemetic drugs was assessed. Overall, 172 133 patients were evaluated, of whom 121 103 (70.4%) received intravenous chemotherapy. High-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) was prescribed in 46 458 (27.0%) patients. HEC was prescribed most for patients with oesophageal cancer (80.3%), followed by malignant lymphoma (60.2%) and breast cancer (53.8%). Moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) was prescribed in 60 528 (35.2%) patients and was mostly prescribed for small cell lung cancer (59.9%). Meanwhile, more than 50% of the chemotherapy prescribed for patients with gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer was low-emetic-risk chemotherapy. HEC was accompanied by three-drug antiemetic prophylaxis in more than 90% of patients with small cell lung, non-small cell lung, breast, and oesophageal cancer, whereas only 13.5% of patients with malignant lymphoma were administered CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine sulphate, and prednisolone) with prophylaxis.

conclusionThe risk of CINV differs with cancer type. HEC was less prescribed compared with MEC. Most patients received the recommended anti-emetic prophylaxis.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsEsophageal NeoplasmsEmeticsFemaleHumansJapanNauseaVomitingAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsEmeticschemotherapynauseaneoplasmspsychological distressregistriesvomiting

Identifiers

PMID34176233
PMCPMC8955058
OpenAlexW3177009899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.