2022
DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.01315
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: CONSOLE

Abstract: PURPOSE We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the primary analysis of the primary endpoint in this study [18], differences in the overall 0-120 h complete response rate were analyzed by comparing the complete response rates of fosnetupitant with that of fosaprepitant stratified by age category and sex and calculated on the basis of the Mantel-Haenszel method in the full analysis set (FAS; which includes only patients who received the study drug, PALO, DEX, and cisplatin on day 1). A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also calculated using Newcombe's method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…For the primary analysis of the primary endpoint in this study [18], differences in the overall 0-120 h complete response rate were analyzed by comparing the complete response rates of fosnetupitant with that of fosaprepitant stratified by age category and sex and calculated on the basis of the Mantel-Haenszel method in the full analysis set (FAS; which includes only patients who received the study drug, PALO, DEX, and cisplatin on day 1). A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also calculated using Newcombe's method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to this LOCF approach, the original analysis on the FAS considered any patient who did not complete the study as a treatment failure. In addition, the purpose of the original analysis [18] was to test for both non-inferiority and superiority between the two arms, whereas the null hypothesis in this analysis was that there was no difference in the proportion of patients with complete response between the two arms. So, in addition to differences in the approach to handling missing values, the null hypotheses between the original study analysis and this one were also different.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations