Comparative Quantification of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Emesis between the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool
Comparative Quantification of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Emesis between the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool
复制标题
DOI：
10.1248/bpb.b18-00336
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Akashi, Koichi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Uchida, Mayako;Nakamura, Tsutomu;Akashi, Koichi
化疗引起的恶心和呕吐（CINV）通常根据不良事件通用术语标准（CTCAE）进行评估。跨国癌症支持治疗协会 (MASCC) 开发了 MASCC 止吐工具 (MAT)，以促进患者和肿瘤专家之间对 CINV 的认识。在本研究中，对日本血液恶性肿瘤患者的 MAT 和 CTCAE 进行了比较评估。共有 61 名患者符合本研究的资格。 CTCAE 数据是从电子病历系统收集的。患者被要求在化疗开始后的第一天和第四天在医院完成日语版的 MAT。在化疗后的前五天内，恶心完全得到控制且严重程度评分为零的患者百分比，CTCAE 为 70.5% 至 82.0%，MAT 为 59.0% 至 75.4%。 CTCAE 中无呕吐的患者比例为 93.4% 至 96.7%，MAT 中无呕吐的患者比例为 90.2% 至 98.4%。在观察期间，接受止吐治疗的患者的日常反应概况在 CTCAE 和 MAT 队列之间具有可比性，并且这两种评估工具显示出与恶心严重程度评分良好的正相关性。本研究表明，MAT 是评估血液恶性肿瘤患者 CINV 严重程度的有用工具，与 CTCAE 相当，并有助于医务人员识别不良的癌症护理条件。
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are generally evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) developed the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) to facilitate recognition for CINV between patients and oncology specialists. In the present study, MAT and CTCAE were comparatively assessed in Japanese patients with hematological malignancies. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. The CTCAE data were collected from an electronic medical record system. The patients were asked to complete the Japanese version of MAT in the hospital, on the first and fourth days after the start of chemotherapy. The percentages of patients in whom nausea was completely controlled, with severity scores of zero, ranged from 70.5 to 82.0% for CTCAE and from 59.0 to 75.4% for MAT, during the first five days after the chemotherapy. The percentages of patients who had no vomiting ranged from 93.4 to 96.7% for CTCAE and from 90.2 to 98.4% for MAT. During the observation periods, the day-to-day response profiles of patients who received antiemetic treatment were comparable between CTCAE and MAT cohorts, and these two assessment tools showed good, positive correlations for nausea severity scores. The present study shows that the MAT is a useful tool for assessing the severity of CINV in patients with hematological malignancy, is comparable to CTCAE, and facilitates the identification of poor cancer care conditions by medical staff.