Comparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational study
- 30 Downloads
We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.
Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who received HEC [doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC/EC)] were enrolled in the study. The prophylactic triplet antiemetic regimens were used according to the doctor’s preference during the first cycle of HEC as intravenous dexamethasone and palonosetron 0.25 mg or granisetron 3 mg on day 1 as well as oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3).The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CR) on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), separately.
A total of 118 female patients were included in the study. Patients received AC (83%), EC (3%), and dose-dense AC (14%) as adjuvant (88%) or neoadjuvant (12%). The majority of patients received palonosetron (59%) containing antiemetic treatment. The CR rate on acute and delayed vomiting was very high and not statistically different in both of the arms (acute 87% vs. 96%, p = 0.089; delayed 90% vs. 92%, p = 0.489), respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate on either acute or delayed nausea was lower than vomiting (acute 51% vs. 51%; delayed 38% vs. 29%, p = 0.203; respectively).
This is the second study that compared a 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron with first-generation setron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving HEC. We could not find meaningful statistical differences between two arms, regarding CR rate on acute and delayed CINV.
KeywordsBreast cancer Granisetron High emetogenic chemotherapy Palonosetron Triplet antiemetic
We thank all patients for participating in the study. Any financial resource was not used for this work to be carried out.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All of the authors declare that no any potential conflict of interest related to this manuscript. Any financial resource was not used for this work to be carried out.
- 9.Wenzell CM, Berger MJ, Blazer MA, Crawford BS, Griffith NL, Wesolowski R et al (2013) Pilot study on the efficacy of an ondansetron-versus palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen prior to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 21(10):2845–2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1865-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Tsuneizumi M, Saito M, Ogata H, Kawai Y, Hoosoya K, Sugisaki K, Katsumata N, Yonemoto NMJ (2016) > Posters. Available from: https://simul-europe.com/2016/mascc/posters. Accessed 23–25 June 2016
- 11.Suzuki K, Yamanaka T, Hashimoto H, Shimada Y, Arata K, Matsui R et al (2016) Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of palonosetron versus granisetron in the triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy: TRIPLE study. Ann Oncol 27(8):1601–1606. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Saito M, Aogi K, Sekine I, Yoshizawa H, Yanagita Y, Sakai H et al (2009) Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 10(2):115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70313-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kubota K, Saito M, Aogi K, Sekine I, Yoshizawa H, Yanagita Y et al (2016) Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin-or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Support Care Cancer 24(9):4025–4033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3203-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Gralla R, Lichinitser M, Van Der Vegt S, Sleeboom H, Mezger J, Peschel C et al (2003) Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double-blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron. Ann Oncol 14(10):1570–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Aapro MS, Grunberg SM, Manikhas GM, Olivares G, Suarez T, Tjulandin SA et al (2006) A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 17(9):1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Jin Y, Sun W, Gu D, Yang J, Xu Z, Chen J (2013) Comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron with the first 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Care 22(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2012.01353.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Popovic M, Warr DG, DeAngelis C, Tsao M, Chan KKW, Poon M et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer 22(6):1685–1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2175-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Schwartzberg L, Barbour SY, Morrow GR, Ballinari G, Thorn MD, Cox D (2014) Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Support Care Cancer 22(2):469–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1999-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar