No abstract available.
Drug Therapy* ; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute* ; Nausea* ; Vomiting*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the pattern of changes on the score of nausea/vomiting and anxiety during one cycle of chemotherapy. METHOD: A total of 53 subjects who were admitted to C University Hospital for a period of 3 days and 2 nights for chemotherapy were selected from February to April, 2003. Total scores of nausea/vomiting were measured twice a day 3 days for a total of 6 measurements. Anxiety, anorexia, and fatigue were also measured at the first and last measurement points. Data were analyzed by one-way repeated measures, ANOVA, t-test, paired t-test, & Pearson's correlation. RESULT: The score of nausea/vomiting increased over time except for the 4th measurement point but no changes were significant over time. There were the significant differences between 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd nausea/vomiting score at p < 0.05. The scores of anxiety, anorexia, and fatigue between the first and 6th points were significantly different(t=-5.69, p=.001; t=6.25, p=.0001; t=3.65, p=.0007). CONCLUSION: Further studies are needed to identify the relationship between anxiety, and anticipatory and acute nausea/vomiting respectively.
Anorexia ; Anxiety* ; Drug Therapy* ; Fatigue ; Humans ; Nausea ; Vomiting

PURPOSE: Data on the efficacy of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients receiving MEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether olanzapine can reduce the frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improve the quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for MEC-induced nausea and vomiting. The primary end point was complete response for the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy). The secondary end points were complete response for the delayed (24-120 hours) and overall phase (0-120 hours), proportion of significant nausea (visual analogue scale ≥ 25 mm), use ofrescue medications, and effect on QOL. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were randomized to the olanzapine (n=29) and placebo (n=27) groups. Complete response rates were not significantly different between the olanzapine and placebo groups in the acute (96.5% vs. 88.0%, p=0.326), delayed (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118), and overall phases (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118). However, the percentage of patients with significant nausea (17.2% vs. 44.0%, p=0.032) and the use of rescue medications (0.03±0.19 vs. 1.88±2.88, p=0.002) were lower in the olanzapine group than in the placebo. Furthermore, the olanzapine group demonstrated better QOL (p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved QOL and vomiting control among previously untreated patients receiving MEC, although the efficacy was limited to the reduction of the frequency of CINV.
Antiemetics ; Dexamethasone ; Drug Therapy* ; Humans ; Nausea* ; Quality of Life ; Vomiting*

PURPOSE: This study was performed to estimate the response rate and toxicity of a combination chemotherapy, which included infusional 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin and Docetaxel in the treatment of patients with an advanced gastric carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty two advanced gastric cancer patients, with a bidimensionally measurable or an evaluable disease, were enrolled in this study. The patients received a 5-fluorouracil 1, 000 mg/m2 intravenous (IV) 24 hour infusion (Day 1~3), leucovorin 20 mg/m2 (Day 1~3) and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (Day 2) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 45.0%. The median duration of response was 10.0 weeks (range: 4~24), the median time to response was 8 weeks (range: 8~20) the median time to progression was 30.0 weeks (95% CI: 16.3~43.2) and the median overall survival duration was 36.0 weeks (95% CI: 1.7~70.2). The median cumulative dose of 5-fluorouracil were 316.2 mg/m2/week and docetaxel was 23.9 mg/m2/week. WHO grade III, IV neutropenia, thromocytopenia and anemia occurred in 50.0%, 4.5% and 4.5% of patients, respectively. There were no occurrence of WHO grade III and IV nausea, vomiting, mucositis, conspitation, diarrhea, or neurotoxicity. CONCLUSION: This chemotherapy regimen, including infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and docetaxel was an active agent against advanced gastric cancer patients, especially for previous chemotherapy naive patients.
Anemia ; Diarrhea ; Drug Therapy ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Fluorouracil* ; Humans ; Leucovorin* ; Mucositis ; Nausea ; Neutropenia ; Stomach Neoplasms* ; Vomiting

PURPOSE: To evaluate the response and toxicity of gemcitabine and cisplatin combination chemotherapy in advanced transitional cell carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty two patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma received gemcitabine combined chemotherapy. Nineteen of them were scheduled to receive 1,000mg/m2 gemcitabine intravenously for 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 and 70mg/m2 cisplatin for 1 hour on day 1 of a 28-day cycle. In addition, 3 patients with decreased renal function were scheduled to receive 1,200mg/m2 gemcitabine on day 1, 8, and 15. The toxicity of each cycle and the response after more than 4 cycles were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 5 complete responses and 4 partial responses in the 15 assessable patients, giving an overall response rate 60%. The toxicity was primarily hematologic, with 3 out of 22 patients (14%) with grade 3 thrombocytopenia, 10 out of 22 patients (45%) with grade 1 & 2 leukopenia and 10 out of 22 patients (45%) having grade 1 & 2 anemia. The most common non-hematologic toxic response was nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine based chemotherapy for advanced transitional cell carcinoma has larger response rate compared to M-VAC. Furthermore, it has much less systemic toxicity than M-VAC combination chemotherapy.
Anemia ; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell ; Cisplatin ; Drug Therapy* ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Leukopenia ; Nausea ; Thrombocytopenia ; Vomiting

BACKGROUND: There are few therapeutic options in patients with colorectal cancer that progressed or recurred after initial 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy. Many different 5-FU-based regimens and biochemical modulations that can potentiate the cytotoxic effects of 5-FU have been investigated in these patients. We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of combination of 5-FU, leucovorin, levamisole and cisplatin(FLLP) salvage combination chemotherapy in progressive or recurrent colorectal cancer after 5-FU/leucovorin chemotherapy. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in this study from April 1995 to July 1999. Patients received cisplatin (60 mg/m2) administerd on day 1, followed by leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-FU (375 mg/m2) by rapid intravenous push for 5 consecutive days on day 1~5. Levamisole was given orally at a dose 50 mg three times a day on day 1~3 & day 15~17. Treatment courses were repeated in 4-week intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were evaluable after treatment. Objective tumor response was in 4 of 22 (18.2%). The complete response, partial response, stable disease were 4.5% (1/22), 13.7% (3/22), 31.8% (7/22) respectively. The median response duration was 5.5 months. The median time to progression was 5.8 months. The overall median survival duration was 8.7 months and response group lived significantly longer than non-response group (not yet reached vs. 7.9 month, p=0.03). WHO grade 3-4 leukopenia occurred in 14%, nausea and vomiting 9%, but there was no treatment related death. CONCLUSION: We concluded that evaluation of this regimen appears relatively safe, with modest response as a salvage chemotherapy in patients who were previously exposed to 5-FU containing regimen.
Cisplatin ; Colorectal Neoplasms* ; Drug Therapy ; Drug Therapy, Combination* ; Fluorouracil* ; Humans ; Leucovorin ; Leukopenia ; Levamisole ; Nausea ; Vomiting

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot on nausea vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHOD: Study subjects were 30 patients who had experienced nausea and vomiting when they had been hospitalized in K university hospital located in D city after receiving more than two Cisplatin combination chemotherapy treatments. Among them 15 patients were in the experimental group doing aroma oil inhalation and the other 15 patients were in the control group without aroma oil inhalation. The data were collected from February 1, 2002 to May 17, 2002. The data were analyzed with SPSS WIN 10.0 program using frequency, percentage, chi-square-test, t-test, Repeated Measures ANOVA. RESULTS: 1) The degree of nausea and vomiting in the experimental group with aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot were significantly lower than that of the control group. 2) The degree of anorexia in the experimental group with aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot were significantly lower than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: aroma oil inhalation was effective for relieving patients' nausea vomiting and anorexia receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, it is proposed that aroma oil inhalation should be applied as a supportive nursing arbitration method to relieve patients' nausea vomiting and anorexia who are receiving chemotherapy.
Anorexia* ; Cisplatin ; Drug Therapy* ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Inhalation* ; Mentha piperita ; Nausea* ; Negotiating ; Nursing ; Vomiting*

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot on nausea vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. METHOD: Study subjects were 30 patients who had experienced nausea and vomiting when they had been hospitalized in K university hospital located in D city after receiving more than two Cisplatin combination chemotherapy treatments. Among them 15 patients were in the experimental group doing aroma oil inhalation and the other 15 patients were in the control group without aroma oil inhalation. The data were collected from February 1, 2002 to May 17, 2002. The data were analyzed with SPSS WIN 10.0 program using frequency, percentage, chi-square-test, t-test, Repeated Measures ANOVA. RESULTS: 1) The degree of nausea and vomiting in the experimental group with aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot were significantly lower than that of the control group. 2) The degree of anorexia in the experimental group with aroma oil inhalation using peppermint and bergamot were significantly lower than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: aroma oil inhalation was effective for relieving patients' nausea vomiting and anorexia receiving chemotherapy. Therefore, it is proposed that aroma oil inhalation should be applied as a supportive nursing arbitration method to relieve patients' nausea vomiting and anorexia who are receiving chemotherapy.
Anorexia* ; Cisplatin ; Drug Therapy* ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Inhalation* ; Mentha piperita ; Nausea* ; Negotiating ; Nursing ; Vomiting*

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in the prevention of acute and delayed emesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From April 2002 through October 2002, a total of 112 patients receiving cisplatin- based combination chemotherapy were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 minutes before the initiation of chemotherapy. In the ondansetron group, two additional doses of ondansetron 8 mg were given at intervals of 2 to 4 hours. To prevent delayed emesis, dolasetron 200 mg p.o. daily or ondansetron 8 mg p.o. bid was administered from the 2nd days to a maximum of 5 days. The primary end point was the proportion of patients that experienced no emetic episodes and required no rescue medication (complete response, CR) during the 24 hours (acute period) and during Day 2 to Day 5 2 days (delayed period), after chemotherapy. The secondary end points included the incidence and severity of emesis. RESULTS: 105 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates during the acute period were 36.0% for a single dose of dolasetron 100 mg, and 43.6% for three doses of ondansetron 8 mg. CR rates during the delayed period were 8.0% and 10.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the efficacy between the two groups. Adverse effects were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: A single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg is as effective as three i.v. doses of ondansetron 8 mg in preventing acute and delayed emesis after cisplatin- based chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile.
Antiemetics ; Drug Therapy ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Incidence ; Mesylates* ; Nausea ; Ondansetron* ; Vomiting*

Humans ; East Asian People ; Nausea/drug therapy* ; Vomiting/drug therapy* ; Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects* ; Neoplasms/drug therapy*