A pooled analysis of adding olanzapine to guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients treated with an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in prospective and retrospective studies

Author(s):  
Bo-Ya Xiao ◽  
Tong Su ◽  
Yu-Jia Huang ◽  
Guo-He Lin ◽  
Zhao-Bo Liu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Ya Xiao ◽  
Guo-He Lin ◽  
Zhao-Bo Liu ◽  
Yun-Xiang Tang ◽  
Bi-Cheng Wang

Abstract Purpose: As an antipsychotic agent that targets multiple neurotransmitter receptors, olanzapine has been added to antiemetic therapies. However, olanzapine is rarely used in the real-world antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients who suffered chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, in this study, we comprehensively reviewed the antiemetic researches related to olanzapine and pooled analyzed the results from clinical studies to confirm the efficacy of olanzapine in preventing nausea and vomiting in breast cancer.Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception through April 19, 2021. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. The primary outcomes were complete response (defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) and no nausea rate.Results: Five studies were identified in the systematic review, four of which with 466 breast cancer patients were included in the pooled analysis. In the acute period (0-24 hours), the olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of complete response (71.3% vs 48.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-5.11, p = 0.003) and no nausea (70.0% vs 43.0%, OR: 3.55, 95% CI 1.76-7.18, p = 0.04) than the placebo group. While in the delayed period, the olanzapine group was also superior to the placebo group in terms of the complete response (82.5% vs 63.3%, OR: 3.81, 95% CI 1.58-9.15, p = 0.003) and no nausea (66.3% vs 51.9%, OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.03-4.21, p = 0.04) rates. During the overall period in prospective studies, the proportions of complete response (50.0% vs 34.2%, OR: 1.93, p = 0.04) and no nausea (51.3% vs 25.3%, OR: 3.40, p = 0.0006) in the olanzapine group were higher than those in the placebo group. Conclusion: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy breast patients could benefit from olanzapine-contained antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, since the cost is low, olanzapine is worth further clinical application and promotion.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 34-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Lambertini ◽  
Marcello Ceppi ◽  
Francesco Cognetti ◽  
Giovanna Cavazzini ◽  
Michele De Laurentiis ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1065-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Hesketh ◽  
Jerry Younger ◽  
Pedro Sanz-Altamira ◽  
Melissa Hayden ◽  
Julie Bushey ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 2172-2184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinzaburo Noguchi ◽  
Hiroki Koyama ◽  
Junichi Uchino ◽  
Rikiya Abe ◽  
Shigeto Miura ◽  
...  

Purpose This article reports the results of a pooled analysis of six randomized trials conducted to study the efficacy of uracil and tegafur (UFT) in the adjuvant treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients. Patients and Methods Six randomized controlled trials on node-negative breast cancer patients were conducted from 1992 through 1995 in Japan that included the three, three-arm trials (control [no adjuvant], UFT, and tamoxifen [TAM] groups) and the three, four-arm trials (control, UFT, TAM, and UFT plus TAM groups). Pooled analysis was performed on the data obtained from these six trials (involving 2,934 patients). Results Overall survival was compared between the UFT group (including both the UFT group and the TAM plus UFT group) and the non-UFT group (control group and TAM group). A significant difference (P = .04) was observed in 5-year survival rates between the UFT (95.9%) and the non-UFT (94.0%) groups. Overall survival was also compared between the TAM group (TAM group and TAM plus UFT group) and the non-TAM group (control group plus UFT group). The 5-year survival rate (95.2%) in the TAM group was not significantly different from that (93.9%) in the non-TAM group, but the subset analysis showed a significant (P = .01) improvement in the estrogen receptor-positive subset. Conclusion Adjuvant UFT improves the overall survival of node-negative breast cancer patients. Given that UFT has milder adverse effects, it is suggested that UFT can be a useful alternative to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in the adjuvant treatment for node-negative breast cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document