A multicenter, single-arm evaluation of palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who have experienced CINV during the previous cycle of low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19587-e19587
Author(s):  
A. W. Komorowski ◽  
G. R. Morrow ◽  
R. Ahmed ◽  
D. Cox ◽  
P. J. Hesketh
Keyword(s):  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Previous Cycle ◽  
Low Emetogenic Chemotherapy

scholarly journals Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: Do We Need to Revisit Guidelines?

2020 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. 245-249
Author(s):  
Akhil Kapoor ◽  
Ashutosh Jain ◽  
Abhishek Sharma ◽  
Minit Shah ◽  
Shravan Chinthala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Antiemetic Prophylaxis ◽  
Gi Cancers ◽  
Low Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Abstract Purpose The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after receiving chemotherapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, despite receiving antiemetic prophylaxis (AEP) as per the standard guidelines. Patients and Methods Between April 2019 and March 2020, all patients planned for chemotherapy were eligible for enrolment in the study. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of complete response (CR) rates. Results Overall, 1,276 consecutive patients were screened for this study, while 738 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. A total of 23.2% of the whole cohort failed to achieve CR. Also, 28.2, 16.9, and 16.6% of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC), and high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), respectively, failed to achieve CR. The differences in failure to achieve CR was statistically significant between MEC and HEC (p < 0.001) groups. Among MEC group, there was no difference between those who received oxaliplatin (27.8%) versus nonoxaliplatin regimens (25.8%) in terms of failure rates (p = 0.613). Conclusion Approximately one-fourth of patients failed to achieve a complete response from CINV in GI cancers despite using guideline-based AEP. Patients receiving MEC had the highest failure rates suggesting a need to improve AEP in these patients.

Persistence of efficacy of three antiemetic regimens and prognostic factors in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 2417-2426 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Diary Card ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Chemotherapy Administration ◽  
Previous Cycle

PURPOSE To evaluate antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of granisetron, dexamethasone, and their combination over repeated courses of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and the influence of the prognostic factors on occurrence of nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred twenty-eight consecutive cancer patients were entered onto a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study to compare granisetron 3 mg intravenously, dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously, and 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses, or the combination of dexamethasone plus granisetron at the same doses, administered for three consecutive cycles. Occurrence of nausea, retching, and vomiting was monitored for 24 hours after chemotherapy administration by a diary card. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-eight patients were assessable for clinical efficacy at the first cycle, 354 were assessable at the second cycle, and 322 were assessable at the third cycle of chemotherapy. Dexamethasone plus granisetron induced significantly greater complete protection from vomiting, nausea, and both nausea and vomiting than granisetron alone in all three cycles. With respect to dexamethasone alone, complete protection from vomiting was significantly greater at the first and second cycle, and complete protection from nausea and from both nausea and vomiting only at the first cycle. Complete protection did not differ significantly among the three cycles in patients receiving dexamethasone plus granisetron or dexamethasone alone, whereas it decreased significantly, at least for vomiting, in patients receiving granisetron alone. Protection obtained in the previous cycle of chemotherapy was the most important prognostic factor in the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION The combination of dexamethasone plus granisetron offers the best antiemetic protection because of its greater efficacy with respect to the other two regimens at first cycle, and because its activity is maintained in the subsequent cycles of chemotherapy.

scholarly journals Can Granisetron Injection Used as Primary Prophylaxis Improve the Control of Nausea and Vomiting with Low-Emetogenic Chemotherapy?

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 469-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chan Huan Keat ◽  
Gillian Phua ◽  
Mohd Shainol Abdul Kassim ◽  
Wong Kar Poh ◽  
Malathi Sriraman
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Low Emetogenic Chemotherapy

The impact of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on quality of life after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Rusthoven ◽  
David Osoba ◽  
Charles A. Butts ◽  
Louise Yelle ◽  
Helen Findlay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Management of chemotherapy induced emesis

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-176
Author(s):  
Fausto Roila
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Delayed Emesis ◽  
Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Antiemetic Drug ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Antiemetic Prophylaxis ◽  
Minimal Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Low Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Important Progress

Important progress has been achieved in the last few years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting thanks to the introduction in clinical practice first of the 5-HT3 antagonists and of the NK1 antagonists more recently. To prevent acute emesis induced by cisplatin, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a combination of aprepitant plus a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone is now the most efficacious regimen. For the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a combination of dexamethasone plus aprepitant or metoclopramide or a 5- HT3 antagonist / dexamethasone or a 5-HT3 antagonist are the preferred antiemetic regimens. For the prevention of acute emesis induced by low emetogenic chemotherapy a prophylaxis with a single antiemetic drug such as dexamethasone is suggested while no antiemetic prophylaxis should be administered to prevent acute emesis induced by minimal emetogenic chemotherapy or to prevent delayed emesis induced by low or minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. In this last case a rescue therapy should be administered in patients presenting acute or delayed emesis.

scholarly journals AN EXTENSIVE REVIEW ON CHEMOTHERAPY INDUCED NAUSEA AND VOMITING

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5-s) ◽  
pp. 79-81
Author(s):  
P Bhulakshmi ◽  
GV Nagaraju ◽  
K Srilaya
Keyword(s):  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Nk1 Receptor Antagonist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Dose Combination ◽  
Delayed Cinv

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting is the among most feared and debilitating adverse events experienced by the cancer patients. Left unaddressed, CINV symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but may also affect patients’ willingness to continue chemotherapy treatment. However, adherence to guideline recommendations continues to be suboptimal therapy, and many patients still suffer unnecessarily from CINV. In addition, breakthrough/refractory CINV continues to present particular challenges. The development of effective CINV treatments with diverse mechanisms of action has expanded the options available for preventing symptoms. The US Food and Drug Administration have recently approved several new therapies for the management of CINV. NEPA is a fixed-dose combination of Netupitant (300 mg) plus Palonosetron (0.5 mg). In combination with Dexamethasone, NEPA has demonstrated superior efficacy to Palonosetron alone in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Rolapitant is a nextgeneration neurokinin-1receptor antagonist. Both palonosetron and rolapitant have proven particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Regimens that combine a serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine–3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and a corticosteroid now represent the standard of care for managing both acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Keywords: CINV, Seratonin, Dopamine, Neurokinin, Antiemetics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document