GOALS OF WORK: A number of prognostic factors have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post-hoc analysis addressed whether: (1) these prognostic factors can identify a low-risk group for whom ondansetron plus dexamethasone alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis); (2) the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improves antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancer patients in a phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to antiemetic regimens including ondansetron and dexamethasone, or aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis (but not nausea) of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0-4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Treatment with aprepitant (P < 0.0001), older age (P = 0.006), ethanol use (P = 0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (P = 0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis. The proportion of patients with one, two, or three risk factors who remained emesis free was significantly higher with the aprepitant-containing regimen than with the active control (70.2-82.8% vs. 38.6-66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Aprepitant markedly improved control of emesis in patients with one or more risk factors. This analysis did not support using risk factors for modifying the antiemetic approach. A low-risk group with zero risk factors for whom aprepitant provided little benefit was of questionable clinical utility, since they comprised less than 3% of patients.
RCT Entities:
GOALS OF WORK: A number of prognostic factors have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post-hoc analysis addressed whether: (1) these prognostic factors can identify a low-risk group for whom ondansetron plus dexamethasone alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis); (2) the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improves antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast cancerpatients in a phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were randomized to antiemetic regimens including ondansetron and dexamethasone, or aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis (but not nausea) of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0-4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Treatment with aprepitant (P < 0.0001), older age (P = 0.006), ethanol use (P = 0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (P = 0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis. The proportion of patients with one, two, or three risk factors who remained emesis free was significantly higher with the aprepitant-containing regimen than with the active control (70.2-82.8% vs. 38.6-66.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant markedly improved control of emesis in patients with one or more risk factors. This analysis did not support using risk factors for modifying the antiemetic approach. A low-risk group with zero risk factors for whom aprepitant provided little benefit was of questionable clinical utility, since they comprised less than 3% of patients.
Authors: Milly E de Jonge; Alwin D R Huitema; Marjo J Holtkamp; Selma M van Dam; Jos H Beijnen; Sjoerd Rodenhuis Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Mark G Kris; Paul J Hesketh; Mark R Somerfield; Petra Feyer; Rebecca Clark-Snow; James M Koeller; Gary R Morrow; Lawrence W Chinnery; Maurice J Chesney; Richard J Gralla; Steven M Grunberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul J Hesketh; Steven M Grunberg; Richard J Gralla; David G Warr; Fausto Roila; Ronald de Wit; Sant P Chawla; Alexandra D Carides; Juliana Ianus; Mary E Elmer; Judith K Evans; Klaus Beck; Scott Reines; Kevin J Horgan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christopher M Booth; Mark Clemons; George Dranitsaris; Anil Joy; Scott Young; Walter Callaghan; Maureen Trudeau; Teresa Petrella Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007-09
Authors: Juan Bayo; Paula J Fonseca; Susana Hernando; S Servitja; A Calvo; S Falagan; Estefanía García; Iria González; María José de Miguel; Quionia Pérez; Ana Milena; Antonio Ruiz; Agustí Barnadas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Hoon-Kyo Kim; RueyKuen Hsieh; Alexandre Chan; Shiying Yu; Baohui Han; Yunong Gao; Ana Baños; Xiaoyan Ying; Thomas A Burke; Dorothy M K Keefe Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Komal P Singh; Anand A Dhruva; Elena Flowers; Kord M Kober; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Ian Olver; Christina H Ruhlmann; Franziska Jahn; Lee Schwartzberg; Bernardo Rapoport; Cynthia N Rittenberg; Rebecca Clark-Snow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.603