***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND This retrospective review provides preliminary data regarding the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for  chemotherapy-induced vomiting ( CIV ) control in children . PROCEDURE Children < 18 years old who received olanzapine for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting ( CINV ) control from December 2010 to August 2013 at four institutions were identified . Patient characteristics , chemotherapy , antiemetic prophylaxis , olanzapine dosing , CIV control , liver function test results and adverse events were abstract ed from the health record . Toxicity was grade d using CTCAEv4.03 . RESULTS Sixty children ( median age 13.2 years ; range : 3.10 - 17.96 ) received  olanzapine  during 158 chemotherapy blocks . Olanzapine was most often ( 59 % ) initiated due to a history of poorly controlled CINV . The mean initial olanzapine dose was 0.1 mg/kg/dose ( range : 0.026 - 0.256 ) . Most children who received olanzapine beginning on the first day of the chemotherapy block experienced complete CIV control throughout the acute phase ( 83/128 ; 65 % ) . There was no association between the olanzapine dose/kg and complete CIV control ( OR 1.01 ; 95 % CI : 0.999 - 1.020 ; P = 0.091 ) . Sedation was reported in 7 % of chemotherapy blocks and was significantly associated with increasing olanzapine dose ( OR : 1.17 ; 95 % CI : 1.08 - 1.27 ; P = 0.0001 ) . Of the 25 chemotherapy blocks where ALT and /or AST were reported more than once , grade 1 - 3 elevations were observed in five . The mean weight change in 31 children who received olanzapine during more than one chemotherapy block was 0 % ( range : -22 to + 18 ) . CONCLUSION Olanzapine may be an important option to improve CIV control in children . Prospect i ve controlled evaluation of olanzapine for CINV prophylaxis in children is warranted BACKGROUND Over 40 % of children with cancer have reported that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting ( CINV ) are the two most distressing side-effects of treatment even when antiemetic drugs have been used . OBJECTIVES The purpose of this article is to report the findings from a feasibility and pilot study using auricular point acupressure point for CINV in a small group of children in Taiwan . METHODS This was a crossover r and omized design study . CINV symptoms were assessed on 10 patients just prior to and for 7 days following each of three rounds of chemotherapy drugs ( CTX ) .  They received st and ard care ( SC ) and were not entered into a test treatment group until they completed the baseline assessment , which was conducted during their first round of chemotherapy after entering the study . Just prior to receiving the second round of CTX , patients were r and omized into one of two treatment conditions : auricular acupressure intervention , in addition to st and ard care ( AAP ) or auricular acupressure using sham auricular points ( SAP ) in addition to st and ard care . For the third round of CTX , they were switched to the other treatment group . RESULTS The enrollment rate for this study was 77 % of the children invited to participate and of those , 88 % provided completed data sets for all three treatment conditions . Patients in the AAP group reported significantly lower occurrence and severity of nausea and vomiting than patients in the SC group ( p<0.05 ) . There were no significant differences of nausea and vomiting for patients between the AAP and SAP groups . All of the patients took  antiemetic medication on the day they received CTX , and 80 % of patients reported that the antiemetics did not help to treat CINV . CONCLUSIONS These preliminary findings did show evidence that AAP is acceptable to the children and their parents to prevent/treat CINV . However , there were no statistically significant differences between the AAP and SAP groups in the prevention/treatment of CINV . There were clinical trend differences between the groups , which may due to the small sample size . In a larger study , it would be important to determine whether the effects of the AAP and SAP treatment are independent of any psychologic effects , such as the research er 's increased presence in both treatment groups Background : Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting ( CINV ) is one of the most disturbing side-effects in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy . We aim ed to assess whether the addition of an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine to granisetron plus dexamethasone combination could ameliorate CINV in this study . Patients and Methods : A total of 23 children aged between 1 and 16 years to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy in our clinic were included in this study from April 2007 to April 2008 . 76 cycles in 23 patients were r and omly assigned to receive either antiemetic regimen 1 or antiemetic regimen 2 . Antiemetic regimen 1 containing granisetron 0 , 04 mg/kg plus dexamethasone 0 , 2 mg/kg were given in 45 chemotherapy cycles . In 31 cycles , an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam 0 , 04 mg/kg , diphenhyramine 2 , 5 mg/-kg in addition to granisetron plus dexamethasone was given . Number of vomiting , severity of nausea , the use of rescue therapy and adverse events were assessed between day 1 and day 5 . Results : Complete response for the acute phase was observed 38/45 ( 84 , 4 % ) cycles in regimen 1 as compared with 28/31 ( 90 , 3 % ) in regimen 2 , antiemetic cocktail regimen ( P > 0.05 ) . Complete response for delayed emesis after 24 h of the beginning of chemotherapy was observed in 29/45 ( 64 , 4 % ) in regimen 1 and 16/31 ( 51 , 6 % ) in regimen 2 . Antiemetic cocktail was not superior to the granisetron plus dexamethasone combination in controlling emesis in acute and delayed phase . Furthermore , patients receiving antiemetic regimen 2 were noted significantly more side effects . Conclusion : Our data showed that antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine was not better in controlling acute and delayed emesis . A slightly more toxicity with additional drugs was also observed A crossover clinical trial was carried out to compare the effectiveness and safety of granisetron alone ( 40 micrograms/kg ) with that from a combination of granisetron plus methylprednisolone ( MPL , 10 mg/kg ) for control of emesis and vomiting induced by anticancer drugs in children with cancer .  Complete control of emesis and vomiting were achieved in 95 % ( 19/20 cases ) of patients receiving the combination compared to 85 % ( 17/20 cases ) of patients receiving granisetron alone . There were no clinical toxicities or side effects in either treatment group . These data indicated that the combination of granisetron plus MPL was superior for control of emesis and vomiting in children receiving cytostatic anticancer drugs BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting ( CINV ) in children is a major side effect despite the use of combination antiemetic drugs . OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety profile of palonosetron , a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 ( 5-HT3 ) receptor antagonist , with ondansetron in the prevention of CINV in children . METHODS A prospect i ve , r and omized , crossover study was conducted in patients aged 2 - 18 years . 160 chemotherapy cycles , consisting of chemotherapy drugs with moderate- and high-emetogenic potential , were studied . The study group received a single dose of intravenous ( IV ) palonosetron 5 mcg/kg , and the st and ard group received IV ondansetron 5 mg/m2 every 8 hours while receiving chemotherapy . The patients were observed for vomiting , use of rescue antiemetic medications , and nausea from Day 1 0 - 72 hours after completion of each chemotherapy cycle . All adverse events during the study period were recorded . RESULTS The overall percentage of patients with complete response ( CR ) in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups were 60 % and 56.2 % , respectively ( 𝑃 = .631 ) . The CR rates in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups were 75 % and 70 % , respectively , in the acute phase ( 𝑃 = .479 ) , and 68.8 % and 65 % , respectively , in the delayed phase ( 𝑃 = .614 ) . There was no statistically significant difference in the CR rates cross both groups . CONCLUSION A single dose of palonosetron is noninferior to ondansetron in the prevention of CINV in children and can be considered as an alternative antiemetic drug . There was no significant difference in adverse effects between the palonosetron and ondansetron group PURPOSE Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting ( CINV ) are major adverse effects of chemotherapy . Ginger has been used in postoperative and pregnancy-induced nausea and vomiting . Data on its utility in reducing CINV in children and young adults are lacking . PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty chemotherapy cycles of  cisplatin/doxorubicin in bone sarcoma patients were r and omized to ginger root powder capsules or placebo capsules as an additional antiemetic to ondensetron and dexamethasone in a double-blind design . Acute CINV was defined as nausea and vomiting occurring within 24 hr of start of chemotherapy ( days 1 - 4 ) and delayed CINV as that occurring after 24 hr of completion of chemotherapy ( days 5 - 10 ) . CINV was evaluated as per Edmonton 's Symptom Assessment Scale and National Cancer Institute criteria respectively . RESULTS Acute moderate to severe nausea was observed in 28/30 ( 93.3 % ) cycles in control group as compared to 15/27 ( 55.6 % ) cycles in experimental group ( P = 0.003 ) . Acute moderate to severe vomiting was significantly more in the control group compared to the experimental group [ 23/30 ( 76.7 % ) vs. 9/27 ( 33.33 % ) respectively ( P= 0.002 ) ] . Delayed moderate to severe nausea was observed in 22/30 ( 73.3 % ) cycles in the control group as compared to 7/27 ( 25.9 % ) in the experimental group ( P < 0.001 ) . Delayed moderate to severe vomiting was significantly more in the control group compared to the experimental group [ 14/30 ( 46.67 % ) vs. 4/27 ( 14.81 % ) ( P = 0.022 ) ] . CONCLUSION Ginger root powder was effective in reducing severity of acute and delayed CINV as additional therapy to ondensetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy ( Clinical Trials.gov identifier : NCT00940368 ) This prospect i ve , double-blind , r and omized study compares the antiemetic efficacy of an equivalent dose of ondansetron administered as a single high dose or as multiple st and ard doses in pediatric oncology patients . Thirty-one chemotherapy-naive patients were r and omized at diagnosis to receive either single high-dose ondansetron ( 0.6 mg/kg , maximum dose 32 mg ) or multiple st and ard-dose ondansetron ( 0.15 mg/kg , maximum dose 8 mg , every 4 hr for four doses ) . Antiemetic efficacy was assessed by an emesis scale described as follows : 1 , no nausea or emesis ; 2 , nauseous but able to eat ; 3 , nauseous and unable to eat ; and 4 , emesis . Sixteen patients received high-dose and 15 received st and ard-dose ondansetron .  Patients receiving moderately or severely emetogenic chemotherapy were evenly distributed between the two treatment groups . Eighty-one percent of patients receiving high-dose and 80 % receiving st and ard-dose ondansetron rated 1 or 2 on the emesis scale ( p = 0.93 ) . No patient experienced any clinical or laboratory toxicity . Our study suggests that single high-dose ondansetron is as efficacious as the multiple st and ard-dose regimen and is well tolerated . Its use will facilitate the administration of ondansetron in pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy Orally disintegrating tablet ( ODT ) of ondansetron is a new formulation , which instantaneously disintegrates and disperses in the saliva without need for ingestion a liquid . This makes the formulation suitable for administration in children . The objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and cost of ODT and intravenous ( IV ) formulation of ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in children receiving chemotherapy regimens without cisplatin . This prospect i ve r and omized trial was performed in a single institution to compare ODT and IV formulation of ondansetron for the prevention of acute emesis in a 
    Output:
    
Prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist ( granisetron or ondansetron or palonosetron or tropisetron ) ± dexamethasone ± aprepitant is recommended for children receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy .