scholarly journals The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govind Babu ◽  
Smitha Carol Saldanha ◽  
Lakshmaiah Kuntegowdanahalli Chinnagiriyappa ◽  
Linu Abraham Jacob ◽  
Suresh Babu Mallekavu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
South India ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Period ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.

A prospective multicenter, single blinded, randomized phase III trial to compare the efficacy of ramosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone with ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: KCSG PC10-21.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9633-9633
Author(s):  
Hyo Jung Kim ◽  
Eun-Kee Song ◽  
Jun Suk Kim ◽  
Jin Seok Ahn ◽  
Hwan Jung Yun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Period ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

9633 Background: Combination of aprepitant, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroid improve complete response (CR) of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). But until now, there was no information whether ramosetron is as effective as other 5-HT3receptor antagonists for the combination regimen. Therefore, we compared a ramosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone (RAD) with ondansetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone (OAD) to establish the non-inferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Methods: A total of 334 patients with malignant disease who were scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to RAD or OAD. Aprepitant (125 mg day 1; 80 mg day 2, 3) and dexamethasone (12 mg day 1; 8 mg day 2-4) were administered to both group. Intravenous ramosetron (0.3mg day 1) or ondansetron (16mg day1) was given to RAD or OAD, respectively. Patients recorded vomiting and nausea (VAS score) on the diary. The primary end point was CR (no vomiting or retching and no rescue medication) rate in the acute period (chemotherapy day 1). The non-inferiority margin was defined as -15% differences. Results: 299 patients (RAD 143, OAD 156) were eligible for the efficacy analyses of modified intention-to-treat. Median age and sex were 60 (IQR 52 – 66) and 61 (51.5 – 68, p=0.54), 90 Male/66 Female and 114 Male/29 Female (p<0.0001) in RAD and OAD, respectively. There were no significant differences between two groups on the other baseline characteristics. The CR rates of RAD vs OAD were 84.6% vs 77.6% (95% C.I. -0.4 – 14.5%) at acute period, 69.5% vs 62.6% (-2.1 – 16.0%) at delayed period (days 2-5), and 66.7% vs 58.1% (-0.6 – 17.8%) at overall period. Median nausea score at acute period were 4 (IQR 2 – 5) and 3 (2-5, p=0.14) in RAD and OAD, respectively. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: RAD regimen is as effective and tolerable as OAD antiemetic combination for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered as one of the best partners for aprepitant. Clinical trial information: NCT01536691.

A randomized pilot study comparing aprepitant to olanzapine for treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9633-9633 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. M. Shumway ◽  
S. E. Terrazzino ◽  
C. B. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Daily Diary ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Period ◽  
Grade 3

9633 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is prevalent. The NK1antagonist, aprepitant (APR), has been shown to decrease CINV and with increased use, cost of supportive care is rising. Recent studies have shown that olanzapine (OLN) is safe and effective for CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone and palonosetron. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled pilot study to evaluate the use of OLN compared to APR for prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC. Methods: Chemotherapy naïve patients receiving HEC were randomized to an APR containing arm or an OLN containing arm [see Table ] for the first 2 cycles of treatment. Patients recorded episodes of emesis and use of rescue meds using a daily diary and symptoms using the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory(MDASI). 18 patients consented to the protocol and 17/18 (OLN=8, APR=9) patients were evaluable (1 lost daily diary) with a median age 60 (range 24–71) 11/18 were females. Results: Chemo regimens for OLN group included (AC=50%, cisplatin=25%, ABVD=25%, and ifos=25%) and for APR (AC=55%, cisplatin=33%, and ABVD=11%) For both cycles (C1+C2) the complete response (CR=no emesis, no rescue) during the anticipatory period (D-2, D-1) was 87.5% in the OLN group compared to 77.8% in the APR group. Acute period (D1) CR rates were 75% in OLN vs. 44% in the APR group. Delayed (D2–4) CR rates were 62.5% in OLN vs. 55.6% in the APR group. Rates of nausea (score ≥ 1 on scale of 0–10, MDASI) were 25% OLN vs. 22.2% APR for anticipatory period, 62.5% OLN vs. 44.4% APR for acute period, and 62.5% OLN vs. 66.7% APR for delayed period. There were no grade 3 /4 toxicities. Conclusions: OLN containing antiemetic regimens were well tolerated and offered similar efficacy as APR containing regimens in preventing CINV in patients receiving HEC. Larger studies are needed to evaluate non-inferiority and potential cost savings of OLN containing regimens. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): Alliance A221301, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 176-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Rui Qin ◽  
Kathryn Jean Ruddy ◽  
Heshan Liu ◽  
Steven Francis Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Secondary Endpoint ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3

176 Background: The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin, > 70 mg/m2, or cyclophosphamide-anthracycline-based chemotherapy, comparing OLN to placebo in combination with aprepitant (APR), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3), and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 125 mg APR, a 5-HT3, and oral DEX 12 mg pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN and 8 mg DEX on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy plus 80 mg APR on days 2, 3 post-chemotherapy. The placebo (PLA) regimen was oral placebo, pre-chemotherapy, day 1, and on days 2-4 post-chemotherapy; the APR, 5-HT3, and DEX pre- and post-chemotherapy were identical to that used in the OLN regimen. Fosaprepitant (150 mg IV), day 1 was allowed for substitution for the oral aprepitant. Palonosetron, ondansetron, or granisetron were the permitted 5-HT3 options. Nausea was measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale, with 0 being “no nausea at all” and 10 being “nausea as bad as it can be”. No nausea was the primary endpoint and, complete response (no emesis and no use of rescue medications) was a secondary endpoint. Results: 401 patients (202 OLN, 199 PLA) were enrolled in the study. The proportion of patients who had no nausea was significantly greater for the OLN regimen compared to the PLA regimen for the acute period (24h post-chemotherapy) (74% vs. 45%, p < 0.0006), for the delayed period ( 24-120 h post-chemotherapy) (43% vs. 26%, p < 0.0006), and for the overall period (0-120 h) (39% vs. 22%, p < 0.0006). Complete response was significantly improved for the OLN patients compared to PLA patients for the acute (85% vs. 65%, p < 0.0001), the delayed (67% vs. 53%, p < 0.0078), and the overall periods (64% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: No nausea, the primary endpoint, and complete response, a secondary endpoint, were significantly improved with OLN, compared to PLA. Clinical trial information: NCT02116530.

Olanzapine for Prevention of Vomiting in Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (32) ◽  
pp. 3785-3793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramavath D. Naik ◽  
Sreenivas V ◽  
Vishwajeet Singh ◽  
Ashwati S. Pillai ◽  
Deepa Dhawan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Period ◽  
Open Label Trial

PURPOSE Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children. METHODS This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period. RESULTS A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported. CONCLUSION Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3558-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lingyun Zhang ◽  
Xiujuan Qu ◽  
Yuee Teng ◽  
Jing Shi ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Delayed Nausea

Purpose We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6. Results Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy. Conclusion Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.

scholarly journals Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 907-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin Hyoung Kang ◽  
Jung Hye Kwon ◽  
Yun-Gyoo Lee ◽  
Keon Uk Park ◽  
Ho Jung An ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Life ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)–induced nausea and vomiting. Materials and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by gender, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.ResultsA total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, −2.3%; 95% CI, −13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, −7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.ConclusionIn all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Hematologic Malignancy Patients Receiving Multi-Day Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (HEC)

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 2410-2410
Author(s):  
Lee S. Schwartzberg ◽  
Eric J. Roeland ◽  
Paul J.E. Miller ◽  
Mark S. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Abstract INTRODUCTION Despite recent advances in CINV prophylaxis, many questions remain unanswered including optimal treatment for hematologic malignancy (HM) patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy regimens. As preparation for stem cell transplant (SCT) and for high grade HM, highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) containing regimens are often utilized. International guidelines recommend a three-drug combination of a 5-HT3receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), an NK-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1 RA) and dexamethasone (dex) before HEC. Little is known about CINV prevention in HM multi-day regimens. METHODS We conducted a prospective observational study in U.S. research centers with expertise in HM and SCT surveying providers and adult patients receiving up to 7 consecutive days of chemotherapy including at least one HEC drug. Those receiving concurrent radiation therapy were excluded as were patients taking antiemetics or having nausea and vomiting prior to initiation of chemotherapy. Patients completed a diary and a modified Functional Living Index - Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire daily, beginning at screening, during chemotherapy, and for up to 5 days after the last day of treatment. Daily use of scheduled antiemetics and rescue medication was collected. The primary objective was to survey patterns of CINV care for multi-day chemotherapy in HM and assess efficacy of the intervention. RESULTS Seventy-six patients were enrolled at 5 centers (range 8 -25 patients per center) between May 2015 and February 2016. Of the patients, 72 underwent pre-SCT conditioning and 4 multi-day chemotherapy for HM. Forty-nine (68%) were male and 58 (81%) were Caucasian; median age was 58 (range 22-74). The most common diagnoses were NHL, 27 (36%); multiple myeloma, 19 (25%); and AML, 15 (20%). Seventy-one patients completed all surveys. All received ≥ 1 HEC drug on day 1. The most common chemotherapy regimens were BEAM, 28 (37%), high-dose melphalan, 18 (26%), melphalan, fludarabine, and campath, 8 (11%) and fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, 4 (5%). Anti-emetic therapy was highly variable, both prior to day 1 chemotherapy and throughout multi-day treatment. On day 1 the most common regimens included: a combination of 5-HT3 RA, NK-1 RA, dex in 28 (37%); 5-HT3 RA + dex in 24 (32%); 5-HT3 RA alone in 9 (12%); 5-HT3 RA and metoclopramide in 2 (3%); other 10 (13%) and none documented 3 (4%). Complete response rate (defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) was observed in 15 patients (20%); complete response by day ranged from 95% on day 1 to 46% on end of study day (p=0.041). Mean±SD nausea scores by FLIE increased from 19.9±3.1 pretreatment to 22.4±3.3 overall (p=0.0031). CONCLUSION Approaches to CINV in SCT and HM patients receiving multi-day HEC regimens are highly variable. A large majority of patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy are not achieving adequate control of nausea or vomiting. Additional clinical trials and development of evidence-based approaches to CINV prophylaxis in HM patients throughout multi-day chemotherapy are critical to improve supportive care. Disclosures Schwartzberg: Helsinn: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Tesaro: Consultancy; Heron: Consultancy. Roeland:Teva: Speakers Bureau; Insys: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Heron: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals Open-label observational study to assess the efficacy and safety of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Indian patients receiving chemotherapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

2015 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 007-010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin Hingmire ◽  
Nirmal Raut
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Complete Control

Abstract Context: Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian population with aprepitant containing regimens. Aims: The aim was to assess the Efficacy and Safety of Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) regimens. Settings and Design: Investigator initiated, multicentric, open-label, prospective, noncomparative, observational trial. Subjects and Methods: Triple drug regimen with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasaone administration was assessed for the prevention of CINV during acute, delayed, and the overall phase (OP) for HEC/MEC Regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and the key secondary endpoint was the complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue medication and no more than mild nausea) during the OP. Statistical Analysis Used: Perprotocol efficacy was analyzed for the first cycle with results represented in terms of CR/CC rates using descriptive statistics. Results: Seventy-five patients were included in the study with median age of 49.7 years and 89.7% being females. The CR rate (OP) for patients administered HEC or MEC regimens during the first cycle were 92% and 90.9%, respectively. Similarly, the CC rates (OP) were 75% and 90% for these regimens, respectively. 7 (9.2%) patients reported adverse drug reactions that were mild and transient with no reports of any serious adverse events. Conclusions: Use of aprepitant containing regimen for patients receiving HEC/MEC regimen resulted in significantly high CR and CC response rates, which further consolidate its potential role to improve patient quality of life and compliance to disease management.

scholarly journals FLOT; To Be Treated as a Highly Emetogenic Regimen or a Moderately Emetogenic One? Comparison of the Emetogenic Potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC Regimens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marziyeh Ghorbani ◽  
Mehdi Dehghani ◽  
Noushin Fahimfar ◽  
Soha Namazi ◽  
Ali Dehshahri
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Regimen ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Antiemetic Guidelines ◽  
The Difference ◽  
To Receive

Abstract PurposeThe current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (Fluorouracil+Leucovorin+Oxaliplatin+Docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.StudyPatients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (Fluorouracil+Leucovorin+ Oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic-risk), or TAC (Docetaxel+Doxorubicin+Cyclophosphamide/high-emetic-risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.ResultsA total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day five, “complete response” (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning “complete response” achievement in delayed (p=0.014) and overall (p=0.017) phases, “no emesis” in delayed (p=0.018) and overall (p=0.010) phases, also “complete protection” in acute (p=0.023), delayed (p=0.009) and overall (p=0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison to the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison to the TAC group.ConclusionAccording to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen. To better management of highly emetogenic regimens, antiemetic guidelines recommend adding olanzapine to aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen besides continuing dexamethasone and olanzapine administration on days 2-4.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document