Published in:
01-05-2024 | Nausea | Research
The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS‑102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study
Authors:
Hironori Fujii, Masami Tsuchiya, Daichi Watanabe, Ryo Otsuka, Daisuke Hirate, Katsuyuki Takahashi, Makiko Go, Toshihiro Kudo, Kazuhiro Shimomura, Yosuke Ando, Shinya Tani, Takao Takahashi, Katsuhisa Hayashi, Miki Chin, Naomi Matsunami, Masaya Takahashi, Akiko Hasegawa, Takashi Uchida, Hironobu Hashimoto, Akiko Kubo, Nobuhisa Matsuhashi, Akio Suzuki, Junichi Nishimura, Naoki Inui, Hirotoshi Iihara
Published in:
Supportive Care in Cancer
|
Issue 5/2024
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001).
Methods
We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0.
Results
Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87–58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50–5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%.
Conclusions
The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.