Ronald Chow1, David G Warr2, Rudolph M Navari3, May Tsao4, Marko Popovic4, Leonard Chiu4, Milica Milakovic4, Henry Lam4, Carlo DeAngelis4,5. 1. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. rchow48@uwo.ca. 2. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. University of Alabama Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. 5. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT3RAs. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT3RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT3RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT3RA of choice.
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT3RAs. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT3RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold. CONCLUSIONS:Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT3RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT3RA of choice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antiemetic; Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; Efficacy; Palonosetron; Safety
Authors: Paul J Hesketh; Mark G Kris; Ethan Basch; Kari Bohlke; Sally Y Barbour; Rebecca Anne Clark-Snow; Michael A Danso; Kristopher Dennis; L Lee Dupuis; Stacie B Dusetzina; Cathy Eng; Petra C Feyer; Karin Jordan; Kimberly Noonan; Dee Sparacio; Mark R Somerfield; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Candice M Wenzell; Michael J Berger; Marlo A Blazer; Brooke S Crawford; Niesha L Griffith; Robert Wesolowski; Maryam B Lustberg; Gary S Phillips; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Ewa Mrozek; Joseph M Flynn; Charles L Shapiro; Rachel M Layman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-06-08 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: Ronald Chow; Leonard Chiu; Rudolph Navari; Steven Passik; Nicholas Chiu; Marko Popovic; Henry Lam; Mark Pasetka; Edward Chow; Carlo DeAngelis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: M Aapro; H Rugo; G Rossi; G Rizzi; M E Borroni; I Bondarenko; T Sarosiek; C Oprean; S Cardona-Huerta; V Lorusso; M Karthaus; L Schwartzberg; S Grunberg Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ronald Chow; Crystal Valdez; Natalie Chow; Daniel Zhang; James Im; Emily Sodhi; Michael Lock Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ronald Chow; Jørn Herrstedt; Matti Aapro; Leonard Chiu; Henry Lam; Elizabeth Prsic; Michael Lock; Carlo DeAngelis; Rudolph M Navari Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.359