Adding G-CSF to antibiotic therapy shortens the duration of neutropenia, reduces the duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and decreases hospital costs in patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia.

PurposeThis study aims to determine the incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), under medical practice conditions and the accuracy with which physicians perceive CINV.MethodsChemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC between April 2012 and May 2013 were included. Patients completed a diary of the intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. Complete response and complete protection were assessed as secondary endpoints.ResultsOf 261 patients included, 240 were evaluated. Median age was 64 years, 44.2 % were female and 11.2 % were aged less than 50 years; 95.3 % of patients received a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) antagonist + corticosteroid as antiemetic treatment. Vomiting within 5 days of chemotherapy administration occurred in 20.8 %, nausea in 42 % and significant nausea in 23.8 % of patients. An increase in the percentage of patients with significant nausea (from 9.4 to 21.7 %) and vomiting (from 9.2 to 16.5 %) was observed from the acute to the delayed phase. Complete response was 84.2 % in the acute phase, 77 % in the late phase and 68.9 % in overall period. Complete protection was 79.5 % in the acute phase, 68.8 % in the late phase and 62.4 % throughout the study period. Physicians estimated prophylaxis would be effective for 75 % of patients receiving MEC, compared with 54.1 % obtained from patients’ diary.ConclusionDespite receiving prophylactic treatment, 31 % of patients did not achieve a complete response and 38 % complete protection. In general, nausea was worse controlled than vomiting. The results also showed the late phase was worse controlled than the acute phase in all variables. Healthcare providers overestimated the effectiveness of antiemetic prophylaxis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2809-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND To date, the clinical features and outcomes of patients with initially metastatic breast carcinoma (IMBC) have not been compared with the corresponding characteristics in patients with recurrent metastatic breast carcinoma (RBC). This issue may be particularly relevant to clinical research, as it may shed light on a potential bias with respect to the selection of patients for clinical trials. METHODS A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 1350 patients with breast carcinoma was performed. Outcome variables included overall survival, response rate, and progression‐free survival. RESULTS One hundred nineteen of 370 patients with metastatic breast carcinoma had IMBC, whereas the remaining 251 had RBC. The median follow‐up duration was 39.4 months, and the median overall survival duration was 24 months. With regard to clinical characteristics, patients with IMBC were older than patients with RBC (61.7 years vs. 58.1 years; P < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of lobular carcinoma (15.9% vs. 7.7%; P = 0.018), a greater proportion of T3–4 tumors (58.8% vs. 27.9%; P < 0.001), a higher incidence of bone as the dominant metastatic site (41.2% vs. 21.5%; P < 0.001), a lower incidence of soft tissue as the dominant metastatic site (10.1% vs. 26.7%; P < 0.001), and a similar incidence of the viscera as the dominant metastatic site (48.7% vs. 51.8%; P = 0.78). Median overall survival duration was similar for patients with IMBC (25.1 months) and patients with RBC (23.3 months; P = 0.81). Statistical analyses also revealed nonsignificant differences between patients with IMBC and patients with RBC in terms of response rate (40.7% vs. 35.2%, respectively; P = 0.35) and median progression‐free survival duration (10.2 months vs. 9.0 months, respectively; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS Although patients with IMBC and patients with RBC exhibit distinct histologic and clinical characteristics, similar treatment efficacy results and survival outcomes are observed in these two groups. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.