Sandeep Jain1, Gauri Kapoor2, Sahitya Koneru1, Gayatri Vishwakarma3. 1. Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector 5, Rohini, New Delhi, 110085, India. 2. Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Sector 5, Rohini, New Delhi, 110085, India. kapoor.gauri@rgcirc.org. 3. Research Department, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Chemotherapy-induced vomiting is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment. We assessed the non-inferiority of palonosetron versus ondansetron in prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children with cancer in 2-18 years of age. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized study, children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy were assigned to get either ondansetron or palonosetron in addition to other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of children with complete response during the acute phase of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle. Non-inferiority was assessed by demonstration of lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for differences in complete response rates in palonosetron arm to be superior by - 15%. Risk factors for suboptimal response and the cost of administration of two drugs were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 108 children were analyzed and various factors likely to influence response were equally distributed in two arms. These 108 patients received 412 blocks ofchemotherapy. During the acute phase, complete responses were recorded in 72.2% (39/54) and 83.3% (45/54) receiving ondansetron and palonosetron, respectively (ΔCR + 11.1%). The lower limit of 97.5% confidence interval (- 6.95-28.39) for this difference was greater than - 15% in palonosetron arm. Only statistically significant risk factor that predisposed response was use of dexamethasone (p value < 0.01). The cost associated with ondansetron administration was significantly higher compared to palonosetron. CONCLUSION:Palonosetron is non-inferior and cost-effective compared to ondansetron for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) in children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced vomiting is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment. We assessed the non-inferiority of palonosetron versus ondansetron in prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children with cancer in 2-18 years of age. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized study, children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy were assigned to get either ondansetron or palonosetron in addition to other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of children with complete response during the acute phase of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle. Non-inferiority was assessed by demonstration of lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for differences in complete response rates in palonosetron arm to be superior by - 15%. Risk factors for suboptimal response and the cost of administration of two drugs were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 108 children were analyzed and various factors likely to influence response were equally distributed in two arms. These 108 patients received 412 blocks of chemotherapy. During the acute phase, complete responses were recorded in 72.2% (39/54) and 83.3% (45/54) receiving ondansetron and palonosetron, respectively (ΔCR + 11.1%). The lower limit of 97.5% confidence interval (- 6.95-28.39) for this difference was greater than - 15% in palonosetron arm. Only statistically significant risk factor that predisposed response was use of dexamethasone (p value < 0.01). The cost associated with ondansetron administration was significantly higher compared to palonosetron. CONCLUSION:Palonosetron is non-inferior and cost-effective compared to ondansetron for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) in children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy.
Authors: Priya Patel; Paula D Robinson; Jennifer Thackray; Jacqueline Flank; Mark T Holdsworth; Paul Gibson; Andrea Orsey; Carol Portwine; Jason Freedman; Jennifer R Madden; Robert Phillips; Lillian Sung; L Lee Dupuis Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: C S Straathof; M J van den Bent; J Ma; P I Schmitz; J M Kros; G Stoter; C J Vecht; J H Schellens Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Ana Carolina Sepúlveda-Vildósola; Yadira Betanzos-Cabrera; Graciela Gascón Lastiri; Hugo Rivera-Márquez; Miguel Angel Villasis-Keever; Volkmar Wanzke Del Angel; Fernando Cerecedo Díaz; Enrique López-Aguilar Journal: Arch Med Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 2.235
Authors: L Lee Dupuis; Lillian Sung; Alexander Molassiotis; Andrea D Orsey; Wim Tissing; Marianne van de Wetering Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: L Lee Dupuis; Sabrina Boodhan; Mark Holdsworth; Paula D Robinson; Richard Hain; Carol Portwine; Erin O'Shaughnessy; Lillian Sung Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 3.167