Despite advances in antiemetic therapy, chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains the most feared and expected side effect of chemotherapy [1]. Optimization of antiemetic therapy is important because CINV can lead to reduced quality of life, increased use of health care resources, and compromised treatment adherence. The combination of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide is used extensively in breast cancer patients and traditionally has been classified as being moderately emetogenic [2]. However, in 2011, the American Society of Clinical Oncology reclassified the combination of an anthracycline with cyclophosphamide as highly emetogenic, given its propensity to induce CINV, particularly nausea, in breast cancer patients [3]. Since then, local [4], national [3, 5], and international [6] antiemetic guidelines have emphasized the use of aprepitant in combination with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) antagonists and corticosteroids in this population. Not surprisingly, aprepitant-containing regimens have become the standard recommendation at many institutions, and aprepitant use has soared. Has this optimism from both patients and physicians significantly improved patient care?Despite the significant improvements in CINV reported in the aprepitant trials, control of CINV-and nausea in particular-remains suboptimal in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based regimens [7,8]. In the nontrial setting, ∼58%-71% of patients will have nausea and/or vomiting despite "optimal" antiemetic prescribing (C. Hernandez-Torres, personal communication) [9]. What is the cause of this discrepancy? It is likely a combination of factors including health care staff underestimating the incidence of CINV [10], suboptimal adherence to antiemetic guidelines [9], lack of an optimal antiemetic regimen [11], clinical trials overestimating the benefit of antiemetics [7], and, quite simply, current trial endpoints that do not fully reflect patient experience. We feel this is an opportune moment to review the evidence to illustrate how antiemetic recommendations have evolved andtoraise ongoing issues and controversies in the management of CINV, especially in the breast cancer population.As all oncologists are aware, there has been significant progress in CINV control. Historically, antiemetic regimens were developed using cisplatin (.50 mg/m 2 ) as the benchmark because it causes CINV in almost all patients not receiving antiemetic prophylaxis. Based on the proposed pathophysiology of CINV, control of emesis has also been divided into acute (0-24 hours), delayed (.24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) periods following chemotherapy [12], with antiemetic combinations being specifically chosen depending on their efficacy during these different time points. Following the results from antiemetic trials for patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy (Table 1), most current antiemetic guidelines recommend a three-drug regimen consisting of aprepitant (days 1-3), 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (day 1), and dexamethasone (d...