A Phase II study of palonosetron, aprepitant, dexamethasone and olanzapine for the prevention of cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancy

Exploring the relationship between anorexia and therapeutic efficacy in advanced lung cancer treatment: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced anorexia is a common occurrence in patients undergoing treatment for advanced lung cancer. However, the relationship between chemotherapy-induced anorexia and weight loss during platinum-based chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear. This study explored the relationship between chemotherapy-induced anorexia and therapeutic outcomes in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 106 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors between January 2019 and October 2022. The incidence of weight loss and its association with treatment efficacy was assessed in the chemotherapy-induced anorexia group. Chemotherapy-induced anorexia, nausea, and vomiting were evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 5.0. Progression-free and overall survival were used to measure treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy-induced anorexia was observed in 13.2% of patients. These patients exhibited significant weight loss at 6 and 9 weeks after treatment initiation compared to those in the non-chemotherapy-induced anorexia group. Progression-free and overall survival were shorter in the chemotherapy-induced anorexia group than in the non-chemotherapy-induced anorexia group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-induced anorexia was associated with significant weight loss and reduced treatment efficacy in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. These results highlight the importance of implementing robust supportive care for chemotherapy-induced anorexia to mitigate weight loss and uphold treatment effectiveness during platinum-based chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Integrating nutrition, physical exercise, psychosocial support and antiemetic drugs into CINV management: The road to success

Over the years, advancements in antiemetic drugs have improved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control. However, despite the antiemetics therapies, in a relevant number of adult patients (∼30 %), CINV is still persistent, leading to several complications, such as electrolyte imbalances, anorexia, and treatment discontinuation. Supportive care interventions have gained credibility in cancer care, helping to improve patients' psycho-physical condition, quality of life, and managing symptoms, including CINV. Physical exercise and tailored nutritional counseling have demonstrated benefits in reducing the severity of nausea and vomiting. Psychological intervention has been postulated as a key approach in controlling anticipatory nausea/vomiting, as well as acupuncture/acupressure has been shown to decrease nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy treatments. In the current review, we aim to provide a clinical update on current prophylactic and delayed antiemetic guidelines for CINV and an overview of the non-pharmacological interventions tested for alleviating CINV in patients with cancer.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life.

CONCLUSION

DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

UMIN000032269.

Olanzapine for the Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Review to Identify the Best Way to Administer the Drug

Common treatment methods for malignant tumors include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, etc., among which chemotherapy plays an important role. However, chemotherapy brings corresponding side effects while killing tumor cells, and nausea and vomiting are the most common adverse reactions induced by chemotherapy. It not only affects the patient's appetite, resulting in malnutrition and electrolyte disturbances, but also reduces the patient's compliance with treatment, which further aggravates the disease. Thus, it is important to quickly prevent and cure nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV). In addition, with the continuous development of medicine, more and more antiemetic drugs have been developed. At present, the most common antiemetic agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are NK-1R antagonists, 5-HT3R antagonists, and dexamethasone. Surprisingly, olanzapine, often used as a psychotropic drug, has been found to be an effective antiemetic and is similar to other regimens on the safety of medicine. However, although there are numerous studies on the antiemetic effects of olanzapine, its comprehensive application remains unclear. Therefore, this review will elaborate the antiemetic effect of olanzapine in terms of the antiemetic mechanism and the safety, economic cost, dose, administration time, and drug delivery aspects.

Study protocol for a double-blind, comparative, randomised Japanese trial of triplet standard antiemetic therapies with or without 5 mg olanzapine to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients with breast cancer treated with an anthracycline/cyclophosphamide regimen (JTOP-B)

INTRODUCTION

Triple antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone has been widely recommended for high emetogenic chemotherapeutic (HEC) agents and regimens, including anthracycline combined with cyclophosphamide (AC). The addition of olanzapine (OLZ) 5 mg or 10 mg to the recommended triple antiemetic therapy has demonstrated superiority in antiemetic efficacy compared with the standard triplet therapy for a cisplatin-based HEC regimen. Although OLZ plus the triple antiemetic treatment may also be effective for patients on an AC-based HEC regimen, no study has investigated its efficacy at a lower dose of 5 mg.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To assess whether 5 mg OLZ, as compared with placebo, in combination with triple combination therapy, significantly improves nausea and vomiting, we are conducting a randomised, parallel-group controlled clinical trial with a total of 500 patients at 15 study centres in Japan. The primary outcome is the complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during 120 hours after the initiation of chemotherapy. Treatment group comparison for the primary endpoint will be done by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the institutional review board of Juntendo University Hospital and relevant approval was obtained from all participating centres. All participants will be required to provide written informed consent. The trial results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCT1031200134; protocol date: 30 July 2020, version: 1.3, approval: 25 August 2020.

The Balance Between the Effectiveness and Safety for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting of Different Doses of Olanzapine (10 mg Versus 5 mg): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) settings including (1) at 5- and 10-mg doses, and (2) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library were searched from the establishment of the database through April 18, 2021. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue), in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of complete control (CC, no nausea, and no emesis), for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of somnolence, as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random, or fixed-effect analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO.

RESULT

Nine studies reported the use of 10 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV; three studies reported the use of 5 mg olanzapine to prevent CINV. When olanzapine was administered at 10 mg for HEC patients, the six endpoints were statistically and clinically better than the control group. For MEC patients, four out of six endpoints were better than the control group. When olanzapine is administered at 5 mg for MEC patients, four endpoints have statistical and clinical advantages. The sedative effects of 10 and 5 mg olanzapine were statistically more significant than those of the control group. The sedative effect of the 10-mg olanzapine group was more significant than that of the 5-mg olanzapine group, both statistically and clinically.

CONCLUSION

5 mg olanzapine may be as effective as 10 mg olanzapine for patients with HEC and MEC, and its sedative effect is lower than 10 mg olanzapine. Fewer studies on 5 mg olanzapine have led to uncertain data. In the future, more randomized controlled trials of 5 mg olanzapine are needed to study the balance between the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine.

A phase II study of the safety of olanzapine for oxaliplatin based chemotherapy in coloraectal patients

Olanzapine has exhibited efficacy as an antiemetic agent when used with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and NK₁ receptor antagonists for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In addition, several studies have reported the efficacy or safety of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, including carboplatin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, no reports of olanzapine use have focused on patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Therefore, we analyzed the safety of antiemetic therapy using olanzapine, palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in colorectal cancer patients undergoing oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. This study was a prospective phase II single-institution study of 40 patients (median age 60 years, 23 patients were male). The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events, and the exploratory endpoints were the rate of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Almost all patients (90%) had a performance status of 0. All patients received the scheduled antiemetic therapy. The most common adverse event was somnolence (n = 7 patients, 17.5%). All adverse events were grade 1. Thirty-six patients were included in the exploratory analysis of efficacy. No patients experienced vomiting during the first 120 h after chemotherapy, and complete response and complete control were both 86.1%. The rate of total control was 55.6% during the same time period. Olanzapine use with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and NK₁ receptor antagonists was safe for colorectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC regimen, DEX sparing was not non-inferior in patients receiving cisplatin (CDDP)-based HEC regimens in subgroup analysis. Recently, the efficacy of the addition of olanzapine (OLZ) to standard triple antiemetic therapy on HEC has been demonstrated by several phase III trials. This study aims to confirm non-inferiority of DEX sparing when it is combined with NK-1RA, Palo and OLZ in patients receiving CDDP-based HEC regimens.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients who are scheduled to receive CDDP ≥50 mg/m² as initial chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1-4 or DEX on day 1 combined with NK1-RA, Palo and OLZ (5 mg). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-CDDP administration). The non-inferiority margin is set at -15.0%. We assume that CR rates would be 75% in both arms. Two hundred and sixty-two patients are required for at least 80% power to confirm non-inferiority at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. After considering the possibility of attrition, we set our final required sample size of 280.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The institutional review board approved the study protocol at each of the participating centres. The trial result will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000032269.

A randomized study of olanzapine-containing versus standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing symptoms. This randomized study evaluated the antiemetic efficacies of standard antiemetic regimen with/without olanzapine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were chemotherapy-naive Chinese breast cancer patients who were planned for (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Antiemetic regimen for all studied population included aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone; patients were randomized to Olanzapine (with olanzapine) or Standard arms (without olanzapine). Patients filled in self-reported diaries and completed visual analogue scales for nausea, as well as Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. Blood profiles including fasting glucose and lipids were monitored.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomized. In Cycle 1 doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, the Olanzapine arm had significantly higher rates of "Complete Response" than the Standard arm: 65.0% vs 38.3% in the overall period (p = 0.0035), 70.0% vs 51.7% in the acute period (p = 0.0397) and 92.9% vs 74.2% in the delayed period (p = 0.0254). Olanzapine arm also had significantly higher rates of "No significant nausea" and "No nausea" during all 3 time-frames and better QOL. Similar findings were also revealed throughout multiple cycles. Pre-study abnormalities in glucose and lipids occurred in 39.7% and 34.2% of the studied population respectively; there were no differences in these parameters between the two arms at end-of-study assessment.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine to standard aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen provides clinically meaningful improvement in controlling CINV. This was associated with a positive impact on QOL and tolerable toxicity profiles among Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Further studies on metabolic profiles of breast cancer patients are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine combined with aprepitant, granisetron and dexamethasone to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer: A multi-institution phase II study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) combined with neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) to prevent nausea and vomiting in carboplatin (CBDCA) combination therapy for patients with gynecological cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a single-arm, multi-institution, phase II study. Gynecological cancer patients scheduled to receive AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA were enrolled. All patients received 5 mg OLZ (once daily after supper on days 1-4) combined with NK₁RA, 5-HT₃RA, and DEX. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and rescue therapy) during overall phase (120 h after the start of carboplatin administration).

RESULTS

Between May 2018 and June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled from 3 institutions in Japan. A total of 57 patients who met the criteria were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. The CR rate for the overall phase was 78.9%. Acute (0-24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) were 96.5% and 80.7%, respectively. Somnolence was observed in 73.7% patients. However, somnolence of grade 2 or higher was observed in only 3.5% of cases. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with OLZ.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive use of OLZ combined with standard triplet therapy had promising activity with manageable safety, suggesting that this combination could be an effective standard treatment option for patients with AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy.

Olanzapine 5 mg plus standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (J-FORCE): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine 10 mg added to standard antiemetic therapy including aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone has been recommended for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Guidelines suggest that a dose reduction to 5 mg should be considered to prevent sedation. In several phase 2 studies, olanzapine 5 mg has shown equivalent activity to olanzapine 10 mg and a favourable safety profile in relation to somnolence. We evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg combined with standard antiemetic therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg with triplet-combination antiemetic therapy done in 26 hospitals in Japan. Key inclusion criteria were patients with a malignant tumour (excluding those with a haemopoietic malignancy) who were scheduled to be treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) for the first time, age between 20 and 75 years, and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral olanzapine 5 mg or placebo once daily on days 1-4 combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone (dosage based on the standard antiemetic therapy against highly emetogenic chemotherapy). Patients were randomly assigned to interventions by use of a web entry system and the minimisation method with a random component, with sex, dose of cisplatin, and age as factors of allocation adjustment. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and individuals handling data were all masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response, defined as absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the delayed phase (24-120 h). All randomly assigned patients who satisfied eligibility criteria received a dose of cisplatin 50 mg/m² or more, and at least one study treatment, were included in efficacy analysis. All patients who received any treatment in this study were assessed for safety. This study is registered at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000024676.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 9, 2017, and July 13, 2018, 710 patients were enrolled; 356 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 354 were assigned to receive placebo. All eligible patients were observed 120 h after cisplatin initiation. One patient in the olanzapine group and three in the placebo group did not receive treatment and were excluded from all analyses. One patient in the olanzapine group discontinued treatment on day 1 and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response was 280 (79% [95% CI 75-83] of 354 patients in the olanzapine group and 231 (66% [61-71] of 351 patients in the placebo group (p<0·0001). One patient had grade 3 constipation and one patient had grade 3 somnolence related to treatment in the olanzapine group.

INTERPRETATION

Olanzapine 5 mg combined with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone could be a new standard antiemetic therapy for patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

FUNDING

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development.

Clinical trial protocol of doublet therapy and olanzapine for carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer: a multicentre phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (DEX) improved carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with thoracic cancer. NK₁RAs with high-drug cost are raising medical expenses. Olanzapine (OLZ) is less expensive and can be expected to have an excellent effect on CINV. This phase II trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of 5 mg OLZ plus granisetron (GRN) and DEX in CBDCA combination therapy with area under curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL/min for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA-based therapies (AUC ≥5) and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive a combination of GRN, DEX and OLZ. The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as the absence of emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication for 120 hours after the initiation of CBDCA. Forty-eight patients are required based on our hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 65% (null hypothesis) to 80% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and a power of 0.8. We set the target sample size at 50 considering dropouts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031267.

Low-dose of olanzapine has ameliorating effects on cancer-related anorexia

Background

Olanzapine (OLZ) has become well-known for its antiemetic effects on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, it remains unclear whether OLZ also has efficacy for treating cancer-related anorexia. This study, therefore, retrospectively examined whether or not OLZ administration affects the food intake in anorexic cancer patients who exhibit neither nausea nor vomiting.

Methods

Eighty patients prescribed OLZ were extracted from 951 inpatients who consulted with our palliative care team at Chiba University Hospital from April 2008 to March 2016. Their food intake described on a nursing record was compared before and after OLZ administration. The observation period was 3 days before and after the start of OLZ treatment, because most inpatients whose food intake increased were discharged in 3 days.

Results

In those 80 patients, the average dose of OLZ for 3 days was 2.28±0.87 (mean±SD) mg/day. First, the food intake in 80 patients was significantly higher after than before starting OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 149% on average (P<0.0001, Student’s paired t-test). Second, OLZ increased the food intake even in 40 out of 80 patients without nausea or vomiting, and the relative change in food intake was 143% on average (P<0.001, Student’s paired t-test). Third, the average food intake increased in 13 out of 40 patients who were prescribed 1.5 mg/day of OLZ, and the relative change in food intake was 124% on average (P<0.01, Student’s paired t-test). There was no significant difference in food intake between a dose of 1.5 mg/day and a dose of >1.5 mg/day of OLZ (P=0.18, Welch’s unpaired t-test).

Conclusion

We have herein reported OLZ’s ameliorating efficacy in cancer-related anorexia at the low dose of 1.5 mg/day. Although our study has many limitations, low-dose OLZ can be a promising treatment for cancer-related anorexia.

Study protocol for an open-label, single-arm, multicentre phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined triplet therapy and olanzapine for prevention of carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in gynaecological cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Carboplatin (CBDCA) administered at a dosage of 4 mg/mL/min or more area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) is considered to be ranked as the highest chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk of the moderately emetogenic chemotherapy agents. The complete response (CR) rate for preventing overall CINV, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication, for standard triplet antiemetic therapy (5-HT3RA, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist; NK1RA, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist; DEX, dexamethasone) was approximately 60% in gynaecological cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based therapy. Further improvement in antiemetic treatment is needed to optimise care. This trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using 5 mg olanzapine (OLZ) plus standard triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV after AUC ≥4 mg/mL/min CBDCA combination therapy in gynaecological cancer patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA (AUC ≥4)-based therapy and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive OLZ (5 mg oral administration on days 1-4, after supper) in combination with 5-HT3RA, NK1RA and DEX. The primary endpoint is the CR rate during the overall period (0-120 hours). Testing the hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 60% (null hypothesis) to 75% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and power of 0.8 will require 53 patients. Considering the dropout rate, the target sample size is set at 60.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031646.