ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To optimize recognition and management of nausea in children with cancer using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and to identify preferences of children with cancer regarding two validated tools: the Baxter Retching Faces (BARF) scale and the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). DESIGN AND METHODS: This quantitative descriptive cross-sectional study (n = 34) used bespoke questionnaires to measure feasibility and face validity of the BARF and the PeNAT. Feasibility included the items: understanding, ease of use, and communication. Face validity was studied in terms of the degree in which the faces of both PROMs corresponded with children's feelings of nausea. A descriptive and comparative analysis of the data was performed. RESULTS: Both the BARF and the PeNAT were rated by the children as feasible, and no significant differences were found. However, regarding the item communication, the PeNAT did not reach the cut-off value (≥80% of all children scored neutral, agree or totally agree on the Likert scale). Regarding face validity, only the BARF reached the cut-off value and corresponded significantly better with children's feelings of nausea than the PeNAT. CONCLUSION: According to children with cancer, only the BARF is both feasible and meets criteria for face validity. Therefore, the BARF is recommended as a PROM for reporting nausea in children with cancer. However, possible differences between age groups should be taken into account for future research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study will help health care professionals in making a patient-centered and informed choice when using a PROM for measuring nausea in children with cancer.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients' files. RESULTS: Seventeen children aged 8-18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations. CONCLUSION: In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.
