Self-management of cancer treatment-related fatigue, nausea, vomiting and oral mucositis in Chinese cancer patients

Background: Treatment-related symptoms continue to place a significant burden on many cancer patients. Many side effects require patients to engage in a range of self-management actions. While some studies have explored self-management of treatment-related side effects in Western settings, very few studies were identified that described the self-management practices of cancer patients in China. Objective: The purposes of this study are to: (1) Investigate Chinese cancer patients. self-management behaviours in dealing with the fatigue, nausea/vomiting and oral mucositis that result from treatment, as well as the perceived effectiveness of these behaviours and related self-efficacy in performing them. (2) Explore factors influencing symptom self-management behaviours using the Cancer Symptom Self-management Framework based on Grey, Knafl and McCorkle.s (2006) self-management framework as a guide. Methods: This study was divided into two phases. Phase One consisted of the translation and modification of two instruments. The adaptation of these instruments to ensure applicability in the Chinese context was achieved through semi-structured interviews with six cancer patients, and content evaluation with eight experienced oncology nurses. A pilot study was conducted with nine cancer patients to trial the questionnaire set in the Chinese context. Based on the results of Phase One, Phase Two involved a cross-sectional survey of Chinese cancer patients undergoing cancer treatment using these instruments. A total of 277 chemotherapy patients with fatigue and/or nausea and vomiting, and 100 radiotherapy patients with oral mucositis were surveyed. Results: Participants in this study reported a variety of self-management behaviours to cope with fatigue, nausea, vomiting and oral mucositis. There are some consistencies as well disparities between strategies that are frequently used and those rated as effective. For fatigue self-management, participants were more likely to use strategies related to rest and sleep, while activity enhancement strategies were rated as achieving higher relief. For nausea and vomiting self-management, dietary modification and taking medication were most frequently used and rated as moderately effective. Psychological strategies were used by more than a third of participants and were rated as mildly effective. Some other infrequently used strategies, such as distraction by keeping busy and acupressure, were rated as moderately effective. For oral mucositis self-management, having soft, bland food and keeping the mouth moisturised were most frequently reported and they were rated as achieving moderate relief. A prescribed mouthwash was used by most but not all participants and brought moderate relief. In general, patients had low-to-moderate self-efficacy in nausea and vomiting self-management behaviours, moderate self-efficacy in fatigue self-management behaviours, and low-to-moderate self-efficacy in oral mucositis self-management behaviours. In terms of the factors influencing symptom self-management, different predictors were identified affecting engagement in fatigue, nausea/vomiting and oral mucositis self-management behaviours. Self-efficacy scores of different behaviours were consistently found to be a positive predictor of the relief level from corresponding behaviours, after controlling for other variables. Perceived social support from health care professionals was identified as an important factor influencing nausea and vomiting self-management behaviours, while neighbourhood support was important for fatigue self-management. In addition, symptom distress was identified as an important factor influencing nausea and vomiting self-management. Conclusion: Similar to reports from overseas, Chinese cancer patients initiate a wide range of self-management behaviours in response to treatment-related side effects. While some behaviours were reported to provide relief, many did not. Given these results, this study has a number of practical implications for health care professionals, particularly in relation to developing tailored self-management programs for fatigue, nausea, vomiting and oral mucositis. Additionally, this study suggests a number of theoretical implications and directions for future research. It is envisaged that these recommendations may pave the way for further studies understanding and promoting cancer symptom self-management in Chinese people affected by cancer.

Malnutrition and chemotherapy : implications for nursing practice

Background: Malnutrition before and during chemotherapy is associated with poor treatment outcomes. The risk of cancer-related malnutrition is exacerbated by common nutrition impact symptoms during chemotherapy, such as nausea, diarrhoea and mucositis. Aim of presentation: To describe the prevalence of malnutrition/ malnutrition risk in two samples of patients treated in a quaternary-level chemotherapy unit. Research design: Cross sectional survey. Sample 1: Patients ≥ 65 years prior to chemotherapy treatment (n=175). Instrument: Nurse-administered Malnutrition Screening Tool to screen for malnutrition risk and body mass index (BMI). Sample 2: Patients ≥ 18 years receiving chemotherapy (n=121). Instrument: Dietitian-administered Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment to assess malnutrition, malnutrition risk and BMI. Findings Sample 1: 93/175 (53%) of older patients were at risk of malnutrition prior to chemotherapy. 27 (15%) were underweight (BMI <21.9); 84 (48%) were overweight (BMI >27). Findings Sample 2: 31/121 patients (26%) were malnourished; 12 (10%) had intake-limiting nausea or vomiting; 22 (20%) reported significant weight loss; and 20 (18%) required improved nutritional symptom management during treatment. 13 participants with malnutrition/nutrition impact symptoms (35%) had no dietitian contact; the majority of these participants were overweight. Implications for nursing: Patients with, or at risk of, malnutrition before and during chemotherapy can be overlooked, particularly if they are overweight. Older patients seem particularly at risk. Nurses can easily and quickly identify risk with the regular use of the Malnutrition Screening Tool, and refer patients to expert dietetic support, to ensure optimal treatment outcomes.

A phase III trial of docetaxel/carboplatin versus mitomycin C/ifosfamide/ cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin C/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer : a randomised multicentre trial of the British Thoracic Oncology Group (BTOG1)

Background: Phase III studies suggest that non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cisplatin-docetaxel may have higher response rates and better survival compared with other platinum-based regimens. We report the final results of a randomised phase III study of docetaxel and carboplatin versus MIC or MVP in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and methods: Patients with biopsy proven stage III-IV NSCLC not suitable for curative surgery or radiotherapy were randomised to receive four cycles of either DCb (docetaxel 75 mg/m 2, carboplatin AUC 6), or MIC/MVP (mitomycin 6 mg/m 2, ifosfamide 3 g/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 or mitomycin 6 mg/ m 2, vinblastine 6 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m 2, respectively), 3 weekly. The primary end point was survival, secondary end points included response rates, toxicity and quality of life. Results: The median follow-up was 17.4 months. Overall response rate was 32% for both arms (partial response = 31%, complete response = 1%); 32% of MIC/MVP and 26% of DCb patients had stable disease. One-year survival was 39% and 35% for DCb and MIC/MVP, respectively. Two-year survival was 13% with both arms. Grade 3/4 neutropenia (74% versus 43%, P < 0.005), infection (18% versus 9%, P = 0.01) and mucositis (5% versus 1%, P = 0.02) were more common with DCb than MIC/MVP. The MIC/MVP arm had significant worsening in overall EORTC score and global health status whereas the DCb arm showed no significant change. Conclusions: The combination of DCb had similar efficacy to MIC/MVP but quality of life was better maintained. © 2006 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Weekly cisplatin concurrently with radiotherapy in head and neck squamous cell cancer : a retrospective analysis of a tertiary institute experience

Radiotherapy combined with three weekly 100 mg/m2 of cisplatin is the accepted standard of care in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, this regimen is associated with severe toxicities with devastating effects on patients. Alternative protocols like weekly 40 mg/m2 have been used in an attempt to reduce toxicities. The main objective of the present study is to identify the dose intensities and toxicities of weekly cisplatin in patients treated in a tertiary centre over a 12 month period. Included patients had squamous cell carcinoma arising in the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, or hypopharynx. Patients were excluded if they had nasopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, distant metastasis or if they had prior treatment for head and neck cancer excluding neck dissection. During the study period, 52 patients met the inclusion criteria and their data were retrospectively obtained from the patients' database of St James hospital, Dublin. The median age of the study cohort was 54 years (range 33-73). Of the patients, 40 (76.9 %) were male and 12 (20.1 %) were female. The primary tumour sites were as follows: oral cavity and oropharynx in 38 (73 %), larynx in 10 (19 %), and hypopharynx in 4 (8 %). In total, 33 (63.5 %) patients had stage IV disease, while 19 (36.5 %) had stage III disease. Treatment was definitive in 35 (67 %) patients and adjuvant in 17 (35 %). Full-dose radiotherapy was achieved in 50 (96 %) patients. Only 22 (42.3 %) patients completed the intended six cycles of chemotherapy. Cumulative dose of 200 mg/m2 or more was reached in 37 (71 %) patients. The acute adverse effects included grades 3 and 4 mucositis, which occurred in 22 (43.3 %) and 6 patients (12 %), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia occurred in six (11.5 %) and three (5.7 %) patients, respectively. The only other haematological toxicity was grade 3 anaemia in 20 (38.4 %) patients. There was no grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity among the study cohort, although grade 2 was observed in six (11.5 %) patients. Death occurred in one patient due to neutropenic septicaemia. In conclusion, weekly cisplatin is associated with moderate to severe toxicities and might lead to suboptimal chemotherapy delivery. More prospective clinical studies are required to determine the optimal chemoradiation regimen in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Pooled subset analyses from two randomized trials

Background: The irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in NSCLC patients with activating EGFR mutations, but it is unknown if they are superior to the reversible inhibitors. Dacomitinib is an oral, small-molecule irreversible inhibitor of all enzymatically active HER family tyrosine kinases. Methods: The ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067) studies randomized patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC following progression with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens to dacomitinib or erlotinib. EGFR mutation testing was performed centrally on archived tumor samples. We pooled patients with exon 19 deletion and L858R EGFR mutations from both studies to compare the efficacy of dacomitinib to erlotinib. Results: One hundred twenty-one patients with any EGFR mutation were enrolled; 101 had activating mutations in exon 19 or 21. For patients with exon19/21 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 14.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.0–18.2] with dacomitinib and 9.6 months (95% CI 7.4–12.7) with erlotinib [unstratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.717 (95% CI 0.458–1.124), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.146]. The median survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 21.6–41.5) with dacomitinib versus 23.2 months (95% CI 16.0–31.8) with erlotinib [unstratified HR 0.737 (95% CI 0.431–1.259), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.265]. Dacomitinib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and mucositis in both studies compared with erlotinib. Conclusions: Dacomitinib is an active agent with comparable efficacy to erlotinib in the EGFR mutated patients. The subgroup with exon 19 deletion had favorable outcomes with dacomitinib. An ongoing phase III study will compare dacomitinib to gefitinib in first-line therapy of patients with NSCLC harboring common activating EGFR mutations (ARCHER 1050; NCT01774721). Clinical trials number: ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067).