Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone sparing for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from Japan Society of Clinical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were "prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate)," "prevention of nausea" (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)" in the delayed phase, "prevention of blood glucose level elevation," and "prevention of osteoporosis."

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for "prevention of blood glucose level elevation" and "prevention of osteoporosis."

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron.

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Anti-Emetics in Children Receiving Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors and Leukemia: Pharmacology and Optimization of Therapy for Nausea and Vomiting

The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative emetogenicity compared to that in adults and differences in drug metabolism and the available formulations. The common four classes of anti-emetics used for the treatment and prophylaxis of CINV in children include dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), and olanzapine. The appropriate dose of dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in children is unknown, with a significant variability in dosage ranging between 6 and 32 mg/m2/day. The dose of dexamethasone is decreased by 30% when this drug is combined with (fos)aprepitant in children, in contrast to a decrease of 50% required in adults. The use of aprepitant in younger children (<12 years) is often hampered by the non-availability of oral suspension formulations in many countries; alternatively, 80 mg capsules are administered for 1-3 days in certain institutes to children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. Among the different 5HT3RAs, palonosetron is comparatively metabolized faster in children than in adults, requiring a higher dosage for similar efficacy to that achieved in adults. Olanzapine is a newer agent, used in doses between 0.1 and 0.14 mg/kg/day in children, with good anti-emetic efficacy, but has sedation and hyperglycemia as concerning adverse effects. Drug interactions between anti-emetics and between anti-emetics and chemotherapy/supportive agents (azole antifungals, cyclosporine, arsenic trioxide), especially QTc prolongation, should be considered during prescription.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential.

RESULTS

Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs.

CONCLUSION

This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

Minimal clinically important difference of the Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients with gynecological malignant tumor: A post hoc analysis of a single-arm study

AIM

This study aimed to explore the impact of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

METHOD

This post hoc analysis included patients with gynecological malignant tumors in the Department of Oncology of our hospital between October 2020 and October 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients (aged 50.05 ± 12.24 years) were included. Most of the patients were married (75.8%), lived in the city (60.4%), and had a history of motion sickness (75.8%). The degree of nausea (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) and vomiting (9.00 [0.00, 16.00] vs. 30.00 [16.00, 48.00], P < 0.001) were significantly improved after treatment. Taking the options in the scale as the subjective anchor, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 28.5 and 29 in anchor-based analysis, respectively. In the distribution-based analysis, the MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting were 2.41, 6.04, and 9.66; and 2.31, 5.78, and 9.24 in effect size of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MCID of FLIE for nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignant tumors was 28.5 and 29 in the anchor-based analysis, with higher specificity, and 6.04 and 5.78 in the distribution-based analysis, with higher sensitivity. The development of the MCID scale might be used to interpret the clinical significance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecological malignancies and help to calculate the sample size for future clinical trials.

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy.

METHODS

Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period.

CONCLUSION

Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Efficacy of one-day versus multiple-day dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategies (one-day DEX) with palonosetron as doublet antiemetic prophylaxis have previously been studied. However, DEX-sparing regimens with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃RA, APR, and DEX on day 1 of carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

Data were pooled from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study using propensity score-matched analysis to compare the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) between one- and multiple-day DEX regimens in combination with 5-HT₃RA plus APR.

RESULTS

Incidence of delayed nausea was significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group. Incidence of nausea was also significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group on days 3-5. Kaplan-Meier curves for nausea showed a significant difference between the two groups; however, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of vomiting or the Kaplan-Meier curves of time to vomiting.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of a DEX-sparing regimen by comparing one- and multiple-day DEX combined with 5-HT₃RA and APR concerning CINV incidence in lung cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens of one-day DEX result in poor control of delayed nausea; therefore, we recommend the application of the DEX-sparing strategy only after careful patient selection while considering the development of nausea.

5HT3 RA plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant for controlling delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in colorectal cancer

Delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L‐OHP)‐based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist addition to a first‐generation 5HT₃ antagonist (1st 5‐HT₃RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial to these patients remains controversial. Furthermore, whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV is unclear. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX or 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, and the risk factors for delayed CINV, in CRC patients undergoing L‐OHP–based chemotherapy. Data were pooled from two prospective observational Japanese studies and a phase III trial to compare CINV incidence between the PALO + DEX (PALO) and 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR (APR) groups by propensity score–matched analysis. CINV risk factors were identified using logistic regression models. The CINV incidence was higher in the PALO group than in the APR group. Logistic regression analysis revealed alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and the PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and the PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Compared with prophylactic PALO + DEX, 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV. Thus, CRC patients receiving L‐OHP–based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR.

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Reducing dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from Ontario, Canada

Purpose

People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis.

Methods

We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations.

Results

No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations.

Conclusion

Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT₃ antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

BACKGROUND

Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.

RESULTS

Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of - 4% (range, - 1% to - 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimen is an effective and safe alternative in overall antiemetic protection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analyisis to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance dexamethasone against acute or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetic risk chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data comparing maintenance dexamethasone with single-dose dexamethasone during the acute, delayed, and overall phase of CINV were extracted. Overall risk ratio (RR) was used to estimate the efficacy and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. In delayed phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.14), complete response (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11), complete control (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16), and total control (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23). In overall phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11), complete response (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 -1.09), complete control (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13), total control (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23), and no rescue medication (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19). Maintenance dexamethasone was only superior to single-dose dexamethasone for no rescue medication during delayed phase (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21, P = .034). The incidence of hiccup was observed higher in maintenance dexamethasone group (RR = 3.16, 95% CI, 1.12-8.92).

CONCLUSION

The single-dose dexamethasone regimen offers high and similar overall control of symptoms as the maintenance dexamethasone regimen in this population. Multiple-day dexamethasone was suitable for patients who used rescue medication during the delayed phase.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone in Combination with Palonosetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data-Based Meta-Analysis

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects associated with the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs. This article evaluates differences in complete response rates and other antiemetic outcomes in dexamethasone‐spacing regimens.

Background.

A dexamethasone‐sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta‐analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).

Materials and Methods.

We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2–3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy‐naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)‐containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5‐day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at −8.0% (d1 arm−d3 arm).

Results.

Five studies (n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate − 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −7.1 to 4.0%, I² = 0%; in complete control rate − 2.4%, 95% CI −7.7 to 2.9%, I² = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption).

Conclusion.

This IPD meta‐analysis indicates that the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC‐containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV.

Implications for Practice.

Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual‐patient‐data meta‐analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone‐related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers: a phase II study by the West Japan Gynecologic Oncology Group (WJGOG 131)

OBJECTIVE

Palonosetron is effective for the management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). While emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat gynecologic cancers, few studies have evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of palonosetron in this setting.

METHODS

A multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of palonosetron in controlling CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg/body) and dexamethasone before the infusion of carboplatin-based chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered (orally or intravenously) on days 2-3. The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated using the patient-completed Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and treatment diaries. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing complete control (CC) of vomiting, with "no rescue antiemetic medication" and "no clinically significant nausea" or "only mild nausea" in the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR: "no vomiting" and "no rescue antiemetic medication") in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases, and CC in the acute and overall phases.

RESULTS

Efficacy was assessable in 77 of 80 patients recruited. In the acute and delayed phases, the CR rates the primary endpoint, were 71.4% and 59.7% and the CC rates, the secondary endpoint, were 97.4% and 96.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While palonosetron effectively controls acute CINV, additional antiemetic management is warranted in the delayed phase after carboplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic cancer patients (Trial registry at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012806).

Effectiveness of antiemetic triplet therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for gynecologic cancer patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel: a prospective single-arm study

PURPOSE

There is no positive evidence for the efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with aprepitant (APR), palonosetron (PALO), and dexamethasone (DEX) for moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, especially for gynecologic malignancies. Thus, the present study evaluated the efficacy of this triplet therapy in patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) for gynecologic malignancy.

METHODS

Seventy patients with gynecologic cancer receiving CP were enrolled into a prospective single-arm study with APR (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2-3), PALO (0.75 mg), and DEX (20 mg) before initiating chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was delayed complete response (CR) rate, i.e., no vomiting and no rescue, at 24-120 h after chemotherapy administration.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were enrolled. The delayed CR rate was 97.1% (68/70). No serious adverse events were observed. Younger patient age (≤50 years) tended to be associated with a poor delayed CR rate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated a notable efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with APR, PALO, and DEX in female patients receiving CP. Further evaluation with a larger phase III trial is warranted.