Choice of study endpoint significantly impacts the results of @entity0 trials evaluating chemotherapy-induced XXXX .

@entity1 @entity390 @entity0 @entity5948 @entity391 @entity786 @entity1209
UNASSIGNED: Multiple endpoints can be used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced @entity1209 (CINV). These endpoints reflect the various @entity391 , @entity390 and rescue antiemetic use in the acute (0-24  h), delayed (>24-120  h) and overall (0-120  h) periods after chemotherapy. As the choice of outcome measure could potentially change the interpretation of clinical trial results, we evaluated CINV rates using different endpoints on a single dataset from a prospective cohort. Data from 177 @entity0 @entity1 receiving @entity5948 and @entity786 -based chemotherapy was used to calculate CINV control rates using the 15 most commonly reported CINV endpoints. As @entity390 remains such a significant symptom, we explored the frequency at which pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical company-funded studies included measures of @entity390 in their primary study endpoint. CINV control rates ranged from 12.5  %, 95  % (CI 7.6-17.4  %) for total control (no @entity391 , no @entity390 and no rescue medication) in the overall period to 77.4  %, 95  % (CI 71.2-83.6  %) for no @entity391 in the overall period. Similar differences were found in the acute and delayed periods. Non-pharmaceutical company-funded trials were more likely to include a measure of @entity390 in the primary study outcome (9/18, 50  %) than pharmaceutical-funded trials (1/12, 8.3  %). The choice of trial endpoint has an important impact on reported CINV control rates and could significantly impact on interpretation of the results. Primary endpoints of studies, including those mandated by regulatory bodies, should account for @entity390 to reflect @entity1 experience. Reporting of endpoints should be more comprehensive to allow for cross-trial comparisons.
