Comparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational study


Creative Commons License

Araz M., Karaagac M., Korkmaz L., KORAL L. , İNCİ F., Beypinar I., ...More

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY, vol.83, no.6, pp.1091-1097, 2019 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 83 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2019
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00280-019-03831-4
  • Title of Journal : CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
  • Page Numbers: pp.1091-1097
  • Keywords: Breast cancer, Granisetron, High emetogenic chemotherapy, Palonosetron, Triplet antiemetic, PHASE-III TRIAL, INDUCED NAUSEA, DOUBLE-BLIND, RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS, PREVENTION, EFFICACY, ONDANSETRON, METAANALYSIS, REGIMEN, SAFETY

Abstract

PURPOSE:

We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.

PurposeWe aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.MethodsPatients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who received HEC [doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC/EC)] were enrolled in the study. The prophylactic triplet antiemetic regimens were used according to the doctor's preference during the first cycle of HEC as intravenous dexamethasone and palonosetron 0.25mg or granisetron 3mg on day 1 as well as oral aprepitant (125mg on day 1 and 80mg on days 2 and 3).The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CR) on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), separately.ResultsA total of 118 female patients were included in the study. Patients received AC (83%), EC (3%), and dose-dense AC (14%) as adjuvant (88%) or neoadjuvant (12%). The majority of patients received palonosetron (59%) containing antiemetic treatment. The CR rate on acute and delayed vomiting was very high and not statistically different in both of the arms (acute 87% vs. 96%, p=0.089; delayed 90% vs. 92%, p=0.489), respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate on either acute or delayed nausea was lower than vomiting (acute 51% vs. 51%; delayed 38% vs. 29%, p=0.203; respectively).ConclusionsThis is the second study that compared a 0.25mg dose of palonosetron with first-generation setron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving HEC. We could not find meaningful statistical differences between two arms, regarding CR rate on acute and delayed CINV.