Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1759-x
Title: International radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting
Authors: Dennis, K.
Zhang, L.
Lutz, S.
Van Der Linden, Y.
Van Baardwijk, A.
Holt, T.
Lagrange, J.-L.
Foro-Arnalot, P.
Wong, L.-C. 
Maranzano, E.
Wong, K.-H.
Liu, R.
Vassiliou, V.
Corn, B.W.
De Angelis, C.
Holden, L.
Wong, C.S.
Chow, E.
Keywords: Anti-emetic
Emesis
Nausea
Radiotherapy
Trainee
Vomiting
Issue Date: Jul-2013
Citation: Dennis, K., Zhang, L., Lutz, S., Van Der Linden, Y., Van Baardwijk, A., Holt, T., Lagrange, J.-L., Foro-Arnalot, P., Wong, L.-C., Maranzano, E., Wong, K.-H., Liu, R., Vassiliou, V., Corn, B.W., De Angelis, C., Holden, L., Wong, C.S., Chow, E. (2013-07). International radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Supportive Care in Cancer 21 (7) : 2041-2048. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1759-x
Abstract: Purpose: This study explored international radiation oncology trainee decision making in the management of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). Methods: Radiation oncology trainees who were members of the national radiation oncology associations of the USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain and Singapore completed a Web-based survey. Respondents estimated the risks of nausea and vomiting associated with six standardised radiotherapy-only clinical case vignettes modelled after international anti-emetic guidelines and then committed to prophylactic, rescue or no therapy as an initial management approach for each case. Results: One hundred and seventy-six trainees from 11 countries responded. Only 28 % were aware of any anti-emetic guideline. In general, risk estimates and management approaches for the high-risk and minimal risk cases varied less and were more in line with guideline standards than were estimates and approaches for the moderate- and low-risk cases. Prophylactic therapy was the most common approach for the high-risk and a moderate-risk case (83 and 71 % of respondents respectively), while rescue therapy was the most common approach for a second moderate-risk case (69 %), two low-risk cases (69 and 76 %) and a minimal risk case (68 %). A serotonin receptor antagonist was the most commonly recommended prophylactic agent. On multivariate analysis, a higher estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending prophylactic therapy, and a lower estimated risk of nausea predicted for recommending rescue therapy. Conclusions: Radiation oncology trainee risk estimates and recommended management approaches for RINV clinical case vignettes varied and matched guideline standards more often for high-risk and minimal risk cases than for moderate- and low-risk cases. Risk estimates of nausea specifically were strong predictors of management decisions. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Source Title: Supportive Care in Cancer
URI: http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/126826
ISSN: 09414355
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1759-x
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

8
checked on Oct 3, 2022

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

5
checked on Oct 3, 2022

Page view(s)

88
checked on Sep 22, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.