Comparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAraz, Murat
dc.contributor.authorKaraagac, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorKorkmaz, Levent
dc.contributor.authorKoral, Lokman
dc.contributor.authorInci, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorBeypinar, Ismail
dc.contributor.authorUysal, Mukremin
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T13:43:42Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T13:43:42Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractPurposeWe aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.MethodsPatients 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 0.25mg or granisetron 3mg on day 1 as well as oral aprepitant (125mg on day 1 and 80mg on days 2 and 3).The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CR) on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), separately.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThis is the second study that compared a 0.25mg 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.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00280-019-03831-4
dc.identifier.endpage1097en_US
dc.identifier.issn0344-5704
dc.identifier.issn1432-0843
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid30963213en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85064262849en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1091en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-019-03831-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/10877
dc.identifier.volume83en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000467025300010en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofCancer Chemotherapy And Pharmacologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBreast Canceren_US
dc.subjectGranisetronen_US
dc.subjectHigh Emetogenic Chemotherapyen_US
dc.subjectPalonosetronen_US
dc.subjectTriplet Antiemeticen_US
dc.titleComparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu