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.

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.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Granisetron in the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting among Paediatric Oncology Patients Receiving Moderate to Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Single-Blinded, Non-Inferiority Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1707-1714
Author(s):  
Sie Chong Doris Lau ◽  
Khai Soh Cheng ◽  
C-Khai Loh ◽  
Syed Zulkifli Syed Zakaria ◽  
Hamidah Alias
Keyword(s):  
Bone Tumour ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Paediatric Oncology ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Delayed Cinv ◽  
Acute Cinv ◽  
To Receive

This single-blinded, non-inferiority trial was conducted over an 8-month period to examine the efficacy of intravenous granisetron at two differing doses in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)among paediatric patients receiving moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Seventeen patients (9 males and 8 females) were recruited and randomly assigned to receive alternating granisetron dosages of 0.01 mg/kg and 0.04 mg/kg during each chemotherapy cycle. The severity of CINV during and three days post-completion of chemotherapy, as well as common side effects of granisetron were recorded. A total of 78 cycles of chemotherapy (38 cycles of 0.01 mg/kg and 40 cycles of 0.04 mg/kg) were evaluated. The median age of the study population was 5.2 years (interquartile range 25th, 3.8; 75th, 8.7). Patients’ diagnoses comprised of haematological malignancy, bone tumour and cerebral neoplasm. From this study, we demonstrated that intravenous (IV) granisetron 0.01 mg/kg was non-inferior to 0.04 mg/kg in terms of achieving a complete response for acute CINV. However, a similar observation was not seen in the post-treatment period analysis (delayed CINV). In conclusion, IV granisetron at 0.04 mg/kg/dose provides effective protection and prophylaxis of both acute and delayed CINV. Further study with a larger sample size may be required before a definite conclusion can be made with regards to efficacy of 0.01 mg/kg dose.

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 retrospective study of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy of preventing acute and delayed emesis caused by CapeOx regimen with aprepitant for colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 632-632
Author(s):  
Miho Nakatsuka ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Yasushi Murachi ◽  
Naohiro Nishida ◽  
Toshihiro Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Delayed Emesis ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Acute Emesis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Relationship

632 Background: CapeOx therapy which is combination with oxaliplatin (L-OHP) and capecitabine is one of the standard treatments for first line chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal cancer, or for postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. L-OHP-based regimen is classified as moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In the SENRI trial which we previously conducted as phase III trial, aprepitant, an NK-1 antagonist, showed the efficacy for prevention of emesis against L-OHP. On the other hand, even when in highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it is reported that dexamethasone after day 2 could be spared. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed chemo-naive 94 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent CapeOx therapy at our institution from April 2012 to March 2017. We assessed the relationship between emesis during the first cycle of CapeOx (day1-5) and the use of dexamethasone on day 2-3. Results: 10 patients underwent CapeOx plus bevacizumab, and 84 underwent CapeOx. All patients received 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron: 87, granisetron: 7). 50 patients received aprepitant on days 1-3 and dexamethasone on day 1 (APR+D1 group). 22 patients received aprepitant on days 1-3 and dexamethasone on days 1-3 (APR+D3 group). 15 were dexamethasone on days 1-3 without aprepitant (D3 group), and 7 were dexamethasone only on day 1 without aprepitant (D1 group). Acute complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) rates were 100% in any groups. Delayed CR rate was 56% in APR+D1 group, 86% in APR+D3 group, 53% in D3 group, and 29% in D1 group, respectively. In multivariate linear regression with aprepitant, there was a significant difference in presence of dexamethasone (p = 0.028). Conclusions: Acute emesis could be prevented by even only 1-day administration of dexamethasone when combined with the triplet prophylactics. However, in order to sufficiently prevent delayed emesis induced by L-OHP, it was suggested that addition of DEX on days 2 and 3 might be better.

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 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]

scholarly journals Comparison of chemotherapy with immunotherapy for maintenance of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and adults

Blood ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 606-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
PA Stryckmans ◽  
J Otten ◽  
MJ Delbeke ◽  
S Suciu ◽  
D Fiere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽  
Consolidation Chemotherapy ◽  
Disease Free Interval ◽  
Free Interval ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Disease Free ◽  
Leukemia In Children

Abstract Two hundred and seventeen patients, 1–50 yr old, with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in complete remission were randomized to receive a 1-yr consolidation chemotherapy of either type P, comprising 7 different drugs, or type M, consisting of methotrexate interspersed with prednisone and vincristine. Thereafter, they were randomized a second time to receive a 4-yr maintenance of either chemotherapy or immunotherapy, comprised of allogeneic blasts and bacillus Calmette- Guerin (BCG). Consolidation P caused more toxicity than consolidation M. However, comparison between the consolidation therapies P and M showed no significant difference, neither for disease-free interval nor for duration of survival. Chemotherapy showed more lethal toxicity in adults than in children. Comparison between chemotherapy (C) and immunotherapy (I) as maintenance treatment showed a significant (p = 0.016) superiority of C for disease-free interval (DFI). The difference was even more pronounced (p = 0.009) in the group with less than 8 g/dl of hemoglobin (Hb) at diagnosis before therapy. On the other hand, for patients with more than 8 g/dl Hb at diagnosis, presumably those with T- ALL, no difference in DFI was seen. No difference has been seen so far between maintenance therapies I and C concerning the duration of survival. The patients who were receiving maintenance I when they relapsed and who were consequently retreated by chemotherapy, survived longer from relapse than those patients retreated for relapse while receiving maintenance C.

Vinblastine fails to improve response of renal cancer to interferon alfa-n1: high response rate in patients with pulmonary metastases.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 832-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Neidhart ◽  
S A Anderson ◽  
J E Harris ◽  
J J Rinehart ◽  
J Laszlo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
High Response Rate ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
Research Triangle ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Better Than

One hundred sixty-five patients were randomized to receive either interferon alfa-n1 (Wellferon; Burroughs Wellcome Co, Research Triangle Park, NC) alone or with vinblastine. An initial six-cycle induction treatment consisted of interferon given at daily doses of 3, 5, 20, 20, and 20 x 10(6) U/m2 every 2 weeks. Vinblastine at a dose of 10 mg/m2 (later decreased to 5 mg/m2) was given on day 1 of alternate cycles. Toxicities were generally well tolerated. The overall response rate was 10% with no significant difference between treatment arms. Survival was also not significantly different for the arms. A small subset of patients (16) with metastases only to the lungs had a high complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) rate of 44%. Responses were durable, and overall survival of this group was much better than that of the other patients.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomized crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Roila ◽  
M Tonato ◽  
F Cognetti ◽  
E Cortesi ◽  
G Favalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Crossover Study ◽  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
Treatment Preference ◽  
Complete Protection ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Antiemetic Activity ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Randomized Crossover Study

Ondansetron (OND) is a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist that give complete protection from emesis/nausea in approximately 50% of cisplatin (CDDP)-treated patients. To evaluate if dexamethasone (DEX) added to OND increases antiemetic efficacy, we carried out a double-blind randomized crossover study to compare the antiemetic activity of OND with OND plus DEX. One hundred two chemotherapy-naive patients (44 women and 58 men) scheduled to receive CDDP chemotherapy at doses greater than or equal to 50 mg/m2 entered the study. Eighty-nine patients completed both cycles with the following results: complete protection from emesis/nausea was obtained in 57/59 patients (64.0%/66.3%) with OND and in 81/79 (91.0%/88.8%) with OND plus DEX (P = .0005/P = .0021). At the end of the study, 53% of the patients expressed a treatment preference, and of these, 74% chose OND plus DEX compared with 26% who preferred OND alone, a statistically significant difference (P less than .003). Side effects were very mild and not significantly different between the two treatments. We conclude that OND plus DEX is more efficacious than OND in protecting patients from CDDP-induced emesis and nausea.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document