Comparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Non-small cell lung cancer granisetron highly emetogenic chemotherapy palonosetron triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis

Journal

Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners
ISSN: 1477-092X
Titre abrégé: J Oncol Pharm Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9511372

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline: 29 8 2024
pubmed: 29 8 2024
entrez: 28 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

We compared the efficacy of first-generation granisetron and second-generation palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, observational study was conducted between June 2018 and December 2021. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC who received triplet anti-emetic prophylactic treatment with aprepitant and dexamethasone plus granisetron or palonosetron before the first cycle of chemotherapy were included in the study. At the end of the first week after chemotherapy, the emesis scale was applied to the patients during the outpatient control. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) and total control (TC). One hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. Sixty-one patients were in the granisetron group and 60 patients were in the palonosetron group. CR was higher with granisetron in the acute phase (70.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.16; respectively) and higher with palonosetron in the delayed phase (61.7% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.5; respectively), although not statistically significant. The TC rates were also not significantly different between the groups (54.1% vs.57.6%, p = 0.69). There was no significant difference between granisetron and palonosetron in both acute and delayed control of emesis in NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39196659
doi: 10.1177/10781552241279537
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10781552241279537

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Auteurs

Murat Araz (M)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Ismail Beypinar (I)

Department of Medical Oncology, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Alanya, Turkey.

Fatih Inci (F)

Department of Medical Oncology, Karabuk University Faculty of Health Sciences, Karabük, Turkey.

Lokman Koral (L)

Department of Medical Oncology, Çanakkale 18 March University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale, Turkey.

Mehmet Zahid Kocak (MZ)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Mustafa Korkmaz (M)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Aykut Demirkiran (A)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Melek Karakurt Eryilmaz (MK)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Mehmet Artac (M)

Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH