A randomized study of aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy
- 691 Downloads
Objectives This is a single center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study to evaluate the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant, in Chinese breast cancer patients. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of aprepitant-based antiemetic regimen and standard antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The secondary objective was to compare the patient-reported quality of life in these two groups of patients. Patients and Methods Eligible breast cancer patients were chemotherapy-naive and treated with adjuvant AC chemotherapy (i.e. doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2). Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant-based regimen (day 1, aprepitant 125 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, aprepitant 80 qd) or a control arm which consisted of standard regimen (day 1, ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and ondansetron 8 mg 8 h later; days 2 through 3, ondansetron 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary, patients quality of life were assessed by self-administered Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Results Of 127 patients randomized, 124 were assessable. For CINV in Cycle 1 AC, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with reported complete response, complete protection, total control, ‘no vomiting’, ‘no significant nausea’ and ‘no nausea’. The requirement of rescue medication appears to be lesser in patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen compared to those with the standard regimen (11% vs. 20%; P = 0.06). Assessment of FLIE revealed that while there was no difference in the nausea domain and the total score between the two groups; however, patients receiving standard antiemetic regimen had significantly worse quality of life in the vomiting domain (mean score [SD] = 23.99 [30.79]) when compared with those who received the aprepitant-based regimen (mean score [SD] = 3.40 [13.18]) (P = 0.0002). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Patients treated with the aprepitant-based regimen had a significantly lower incidence of neutropenia (53.2% vs. 35.5%, P = 0.0468), grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (21.0% vs. 45.2, P = 0.0042) and delay in subsequent cycle of chemotherapy (8.1% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.0048). Conclusion The aprepitant regimen appears to reduce the requirement of rescue medication when compared with the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide, and is associated with a better quality of life during adjuvant AC chemotherapy.
KeywordsChinese Antiemetic Aprepitant Chemotherapy
This study has been supported by an educational grant from Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Asia) Ltd. We thank Miss Angel Lee for the assistance in data collection.
- 4.Schmoll HJ, Aapro MS, Poli-Bigelli S, Kim HK, Park K, Jordan K, von Pawel J, Giezek H, Ahmed T, Chan CY (2006) Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment. Ann Oncol 17(6):1000–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.de Wit R, Herrstedt J, Rapoport B, Carides AD, Carides G, Elmer M, Schmidt C, Evans JK, Horgan KJ (2003) Addition of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetics providesprotection against nausea and vomiting during multiple cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 21:4105–4111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Warr DG, Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ, Muss HB, Herrstedt J, Eisenberg PD, Raftopoulos H, Grunberg SM, Gabriel M, Rodgers A, Bohidar N, Klinger G, Hustad CM, Horgan KJ, Skobieranda F (2005) Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for theprevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting inpatients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23(12):2822–2830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Martin AR, Pearson JD, Cai B, Elmer M, Horgan K, Lindley C (2003) Assessing the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients’ daily lives: a modified version of the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) with 5-day recall. Support Care Cancer 11(8):522–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Gralla RJ, Osoba D, Kris MG, Kirkbride P, Hesketh PJ, Chinnery LW, Clark-Snow R, Gill DP, Groshen S, Grunberg S, Koeller JM, Morrow GR, Perez EA, Silber JH, Pfister DG (1999) Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 17(9):2971–2994PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Ihbe-Heffinger A, Ehlken B, Bernard R, Berger K, Peschel C, Eichler HG, Deuson R, Thodtmann J, Lordick F (2004) The impact of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on patients, health resource utilization and costs in German cancer centers. Ann Oncol 15(3):526–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Annemans L, Strens D, Lox E, Petit C, Malonne H (2007) Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Belgium. Support Care Cancer Oct 27 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
- 16.Hesketh PJ, Grunberg SM, Gralla RJ et al (2003) The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin—The Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 21:4112–4119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Poli-Bigelli S, Rodrigues-Pereira J, Carides AD et al (2003) Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America. Cancer 97:3090–3098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar