Palonosetron or granisetron for prevention of CINV in patients with breast cancer receiving dexamethasone and fosaprepitant following anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen.

Matsumoto, Koji; Takahashi, Masato; Sato, Kazuhiko; Takano, Toshimi; Ryushima, Yasuaki; Doi, Mihoko; Aogi, Kenjiro; Fujiwara, Kimiko; Tamura, Kenji; Hosoda, Mitsuchika; Tokunaga, Shinya; Makiyama, Akitaka; Miyamoto, Kaisuke; Hozumi, Yasuo; Yanagihara, Kazuhiro; Imamura, Chiyo K.; Chiba, Yasutaka; Nakamura, Shinichiro; Sendo, Toshiaki

doi:10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.9598

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Japan, the most recommended antiemetic therapy for a highly emetogenic chemotherapy is the combination of NK-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and 5HT 3 receptor antagonist preferred one is palonosetron 19 . The CR rate in the overall phase of a randomized doubleblind comparative study on the effectiveness of this particular therapy among 326 breast cancer patients undergoing ACR in Japan was 54.9 20 , which is similar to the CR rate of this study. In contrast, another randomized double-blind comparative study 9 on the effectiveness of this combination therapy for patients receiving Japanese cisplatin treatment reported a CR rate of 65.7 , which is substantially higher than that of the previous study 20 targeting ACR and the present study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The CR rate in the overall phase of a randomized doubleblind comparative study on the effectiveness of this particular therapy among 326 breast cancer patients undergoing ACR in Japan was 54.9 20 , which is similar to the CR rate of this study. In contrast, another randomized double-blind comparative study 9 on the effectiveness of this combination therapy for patients receiving Japanese cisplatin treatment reported a CR rate of 65.7 , which is substantially higher than that of the previous study 20 targeting ACR and the present study. In addition, in an integrated analysis of randomized controlled trials 21 , the incidence of CINV with ACR was higher than that for patients receiving a cisplatin regimen.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact on Quality of Life of Highly Effective Antiemetic Therapy among Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Anthracycline Plus Cyclophosphamide-based Regimen

Tokumaru

Narui

Yamada

et al. 2018

Showa Univ J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting CINV has improved signi cantly with the development of antiemetic drugs. We conducted a prospective observational study to clarify the quality of life QOL impact of antiemetic therapy recommended by the Japanese Cancer Therapy Association JSCO guidelines for Japanese breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide regimen ACR. This was an open, single-center, prospective observational study conducted in Yokohama City University Medical Center. Antiemetic therapy recommended by the JSCO guidelines was implemented for all cases treated therein i.e., aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron. The primary endpoint was no impact on daily living NIDL rate during a 120-hour period following chemotherapy i.e., overall phase. We use the Japanese version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis FLIE to evaluate the impact of CINV on QOL. There were 118 analyzable cases. The NIDL rate during the overall phase was 44.9 , and was signi cantly lower than the complete response CR rate of 58.5 i.e., no emetic responses and no rescue medication ; P 0.037. Age 55 years P 0.008 and a history of morning sickness P 0.005 were identi ed as independent risk factors of NIDL P 0.05. Among Japanese breast cancer patients receiving ACR and a combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron, the NIDL rate was relatively low at approximately 45. A more effective antiemetic therapy should therefore be developed for patients QOL that takes NIDL risk factors into account. In addition, our results suggested that the CR rate is insuf cient for evaluating the effect of antiemetic therapy on a patient s QOL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

The Impact on Quality of Life of Highly Effective Antiemetic Therapy among Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Anthracycline Plus Cyclophosphamide-based Regimen

Tokumaru

Narui

Yamada

et al. 2018

Showa Univ J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has led to overall higher rates of CINV, particularly following HEC [1,5]. To date, no Phase III efficacy studies have demonstrated superiority in a primary end point of one 5-HT 3 RA over another in delayed-phase CINV following HEC with an NK-1 RA [9][10][11][12][13][14]. New approaches are needed to prevent delayed-phase CINV following HEC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

APF530 (Granisetron Injection Extended-Release) in a Three-Drug Regimen for Delayed CINV in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, a double-blind, randomized, Phase III trial evaluated the superiority of palonosetron compared to granisetron, both combined with the NK-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant and 3-day dexamethasone, for the prevention of CINV in breast cancer patients undergoing AC. 8 In this trial, the primary efficacy end point was the rate of CR in the delayed phase. The trial found that the proportion of patients achieving delayed CR in the palonosetron arm was comparable to that observed in the granisetron arm.…”

Section: Efficacy Of Palonosetronmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 2 Likewise, an RCT showed that a triple combination with palonosetron resulted in more effective control of delayed nausea compared to a triple combination with granisetron (absolute risk benefit of 12%) in breast cancer patients undergoing AC. 8 It is important to note that women with breast cancer receiving AC are especially vulnerable to nausea, and delayed nausea remains a significant issue. 41 To put the recent evidence into perspective, it must be pointed out that there was no difference in the acute CR rate between the palonosetron and granisetron arms in both trials.…”

Section: Place Of Palonosetron In Cinv Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Celio¹,

Niger²,

Ricchini³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms.Aims: To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV.Evidence review: A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug–drug interactions.Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician’s ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice.

show abstract

Palonosetron or granisetron for prevention of CINV in patients with breast cancer receiving dexamethasone and fosaprepitant following anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

The Impact on Quality of Life of Highly Effective Antiemetic Therapy among Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Anthracycline Plus Cyclophosphamide-based Regimen

The Impact on Quality of Life of Highly Effective Antiemetic Therapy among Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Anthracycline Plus Cyclophosphamide-based Regimen

APF530 (Granisetron Injection Extended-Release) in a Three-Drug Regimen for Delayed CINV in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About