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.

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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