Young Mi Seol1, Hyo Jeong Kim1, Young Jin Choi1, Eun Mi Lee2, Yang Soo Kim2, Sung Yong Oh3, Su Jin Koh4, Jin Ho Baek4, Won Sik Lee5, Young Don Joo6, Hyun Gi Lee7, Eun Young Yun7, Joo Seop Chung8. 1. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital Medical Research Institute, 1-10 Ami-Dong, Seo-Gu, Busan, 602-739, South Korea. 2. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, South Korea. 3. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 4. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea. 5. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 6. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 7. Department of Biostatistician, Pusan National University Hospital Medical Research Institute, Busan, South Korea. 8. Division of Hemato-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital Medical Research Institute, 1-10 Ami-Dong, Seo-Gu, Busan, 602-739, South Korea. seol2100@daum.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Palonosetron is the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) that has shown better efficacy than the first-generation 5-HT3RA for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS), a novel transdermal formulation, was developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to palonosetron for the control of CINV following MEC. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 196 patients were randomized to GP or PG group. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, Phase IV study, GP group was assigned to receive transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days) in the first chemotherapy cycle, palonosetron (iv 0.25 mg/day, 1 days) in the second chemotherapy cycle before receiving MEC, and PG group was assigned to receive palonosetron in the first cycle and GTDS in the second cycle. Primary endpoint was the percentage of chemotherapy cycles achieving complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the acute phase (0-24 h in post-chemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with palonosetron). RESULTS:Total 333 cycles (165 in GTDS and 168 in palonosetron) were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS cycles showed non-inferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase: CR was achieved by 124 (75.2 %) patients in the GTDS cycles and 134 (79.8 %) patients in the palonosetron cycles (treatment difference, -4.6 %; 95 % confidence interval, -13.6-4.4). There was no significant difference in CR rate during acute phase after the end of the first and second chemotherapy cycle between GP and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), GTDS cycle were higher than those of palonosetron cycle in GP group (FLI-E score; median 1549.5 in GTDS cycle, median 1670.0 in palonosetron cycle). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe. CONCLUSION:Transdermal granisetron is a good alternative therapeutic option to palonosetron for preventing CINV after MEC.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Palonosetron is the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) that has shown better efficacy than the first-generation 5-HT3RA for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS), a novel transdermal formulation, was developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to palonosetron for the control of CINV following MEC. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 196 patients were randomized to GP or PG group. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, Phase IV study, GP group was assigned to receive transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days) in the first chemotherapy cycle, palonosetron (iv 0.25 mg/day, 1 days) in the second chemotherapy cycle before receiving MEC, and PG group was assigned to receive palonosetron in the first cycle and GTDS in the second cycle. Primary endpoint was the percentage of chemotherapy cycles achieving complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the acute phase (0-24 h in post-chemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with palonosetron). RESULTS: Total 333 cycles (165 in GTDS and 168 in palonosetron) were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS cycles showed non-inferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase: CR was achieved by 124 (75.2 %) patients in the GTDS cycles and 134 (79.8 %) patients in the palonosetron cycles (treatment difference, -4.6 %; 95 % confidence interval, -13.6-4.4). There was no significant difference in CR rate during acute phase after the end of the first and second chemotherapy cycle between GP and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), GTDS cycle were higher than those of palonosetron cycle in GP group (FLI-E score; median 1549.5 in GTDS cycle, median 1670.0 in palonosetron cycle). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe. CONCLUSION: Transdermal granisetron is a good alternative therapeutic option to palonosetron for preventing CINV after MEC.
Authors: R J Gralla; D Osoba; M G Kris; P Kirkbride; P J Hesketh; L W Chinnery; R Clark-Snow; D P Gill; S Groshen; S Grunberg; J M Koeller; G R Morrow; E A Perez; J H Silber; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Forni; S Ferrari; L Loro; T Mazzei; C Beghelli; A Biolchini; P Simoni; M Tremosini; S Strazzari; C Puggioli; G Bacci Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; Otávio Augusto C Clark; Luciana Clark; Luciano Paladini; Enéas Faleiros; Bruna Pegoretti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-05-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Gralla; M Lichinitser; S Van Der Vegt; H Sleeboom; J Mezger; C Peschel; G Tonini; R Labianca; A Macciocchi; M Aapro Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ralph V Boccia; Lucio N Gordan; Gemma Clark; Julian D Howell; Steven M Grunberg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-09-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ronald Chow; David G Warr; Rudolph M Navari; May Tsao; Marko Popovic; Leonard Chiu; Milica Milakovic; Henry Lam; Carlo DeAngelis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 3.603