The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9064-9064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Cindy K Nagy ◽  
Sarah E Gray
Keyword(s):  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Observation Period

9064 Background: Olanzapine (OLN) has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of CINV. OLN may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline directed CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A double blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) (cisplatin, >70 mg/m2, or doxorubicin, >50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, > 600mg/m2 ) comparing OLN to Metoclopramide (METO). Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post chemotherapy were randomized to receive OLN, 10 mg orally daily for three days or METO, 10 mg orally TID for three days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for the 72 hours after taking OLN or METO. Eighty patients (median age 56 yrs, range 38-79; 43 females; ECOG PS 0,1) consented to the protocol and all were evaluable. Results: During the 72 hour observation period, 30 of 42 (71%) patients receiving OLN had no emesis compared to 12 of 38 (32%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving METO (p<0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72 hour observation period was: OLN: 67% (28 of 42); METO 24% (9 of 38) (p<0.01). There were no Grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: OLN was significantly better than METO in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving HEC.

A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, active control study of fosnetupitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC): CONSOLE.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12099-12099
Author(s):  
Yoshimasa Shiraishi ◽  
Akito Hata ◽  
Naoki Inui ◽  
Morihito Okada ◽  
Masahiro Morise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Drug ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Age Category

12099 Background: Fosnetupitant (FN) is a phosphorylated pro-drug of netupitant that has high binding affinity for the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor and a long half-life of 70 h. This phase 3 study is the first head-to-head study to compare two NK-1 receptor antagonists, FN and fosaprepitant (FA), in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (JapicCTI-194611). Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) -based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive FN 235 mg or FA 150 mg, in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone (9.9 mg on day 1, 6.6 mg on days 2-4). The stratification factors were sex, age category (<55 vs. ≥55 years), and site. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no emetic events and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, during the overall phase (0-120 h) to show the non-inferiority (margin, -10%) of FN to FA. The secondary endpoints were: CR rate, complete protection rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, no emetic events rate in each period [i.e., acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall, 0-168 h and 120-168 h], time to treatment failure, and safety, including injection site reactions (ISRs). Assessment of efficacy was continued until 168 h after the initiation of cisplatin. Some eligible patients were evaluated for safety and efficacy of FN for up to four cycles. Results: Between February 2019 and March 2020, total 795 patients were enrolled in the study. The study drug was administered to 785 patients (n=392 in FN vs. n=393 in FA), and all of them were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the two groups. The adjusted overall CR rate was 75.2% in FN vs. 71.0% in FA [MH common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), thus demonstrating non-inferiority of FN to FA. Regarding the other secondary endpoints of efficacy until 168 h, FN was favorable against FA, especially the CR rate during 0-168 h (73.2% in FN vs. 66.9% in FA) (Table). The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events were 22.2% in FN vs. 25.4% in FA, whereas those of ISRs with any cause or with treatment-related were 11.0% or 0.3% in FN vs 20.6% or 3.6% in FA, respectively ( p<0.001). Conclusions: FN demonstrated non-inferiority to FA, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for ISRs. For the period beyond 120 h after initiation of chemotherapy, FN may have the potential to improve the prevention of “beyond delayed” CINV. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-194611. [Table: see text]

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.

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.

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.

Preliminary results of G versus GViElC: A phase III trial of gemcitabine associated to vindesine or gemcitabine alone in elderly or poor performance patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17083-17083
Author(s):  
A. Santo ◽  
G. Genestreti ◽  
A. Terzi ◽  
P. Azzoni ◽  
O. Caffo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

17083 Background: Monochemotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM) or vinorelbine is considered the standard treatment in elderly or poor performance (PS) patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. Many topics report a synergic enhancement of antitumor effect of GEM if associated to Vindesine (VDS). The aim of this study is to evaluate if GEM combined to VDS produces an advantage in terms of overall survival (OS) compared to GEM alone without enhancement of toxicity. Methods: Chemonaive pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, aged ≥ 70 years with PS < 2 or aged < 70 years with PS > 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive either GEM 1200 mg/m2 day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 1) or GEM 1000 mg/m2 and VDS 3 mg/m2 (max dose 5 mg) both drugs infused on day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 2). Pts of both arms received other three cycles in case of responsive or stable disease. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point, secondary end-points were time-to-progression and toxicity. First interim analysis was planned at 120 pts enrolled. Results: From May 2002 to December 2005, 107 pts from 13 Italian institutions were enrolled. Their characteristics are: 24 stage IIIB and 83 stage IV, 79 pts with ≥ 70 years (ECOG PS 0–1) and 28 pts with < 70 years (ECOG PS > 2). In arm 1 there were enrolled 55 pts while 52 pts in arm 2: both arms were well balanced with pts characteristics. Conclusions: The enrollment of this phase III trial is ongoing: we are achieving first step for an interim analysis to assess if GEM associated to VDS produces an advantage in terms of OS compared to standard treatment as GEM in monochemotherapy without toxicity enhancement. (Supported by GIVOP: Gruppo Interdisciplinare Veronese di Oncologia Polmonare). No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]

Sustainability of antiemetic responses with APF530 (sustained-release granisetron) during multiple cycles of moderately (MEC) and highly (HEC) emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: Results of a randomized phase III trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9626-9626
Author(s):  
Ralph V. Boccia ◽  
William Cooper ◽  
Erin O'Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Rescue Medication ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sustained Delivery ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Multiple Cycles ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Delayed Phase ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

9626 Background: Patients receiving MEC or HEC were administered subcutaneous (SC) APF530 500 mg, a sustained delivery formulation of granisetron (10 mg). The complete antiemetic response rates (CR; no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) were non-inferior to those of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) (Grous et al. ASCO 2009, #9627). We report on sustainability of CR with APF530 (10 mg) during multiple chemotherapy cycles in this study. Methods: 1428 patients scheduled to receive single doses of MEC or HEC were randomized to APF530 SC (5 or 10 mg granisetron) or 0.25 mg palonosetron intravenously (IV) prior to cycle 1 (C1). In C2-4, patients who received palonosetron in C1 were randomized to APF530 5 or 10 mg; those who received APF530 continued with their C1 APF530 dose. Treatment cycles were separated by 7-28 days. CR rates were compared between cycles using McNemar’s test. Results: No significant differences in within-cycle CR occurred between APF530 doses during acute and delayed phases in C2-4 for MEC and HEC, but a trend toward higher CR rates was seen in successive cycles. For the 2 doses, CR was sustained across all 4 cycles in 56.5-62.6% and 68.4-71.7% in acute phase, and 41.8-42.4% and 57.5-57.9% in delayed phase with MEC and HEC, respectively. Examination of CR rates in C2, C3, or C4 compared with the rate in C1 showed that CR rates were sustained and that the proportion of patients with no CR in C1 but CR in later cycles was consistently higher than that of patients with CR in C1 but no CR later. For illustration, the table shows C4 CR and C1 CR for patients who received APF530 10 mg in C1 and C4. Conclusions: CR rates achieved with APF530 during acute and delayed phases of CINV in MEC and HEC were maintained over multiple cycles. Clinical trial information: NCT00343460. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document