Yusuke Shimura1,2, Kouji Izumi3, Shingo Itai1, Hiroaki Iwamoto4, Hiroshi Yaegashi4, Yukio Suga2, Tsutomu Shimada1, Atsushi Mizokami4, Yoshimichi Sai1. 1. Department of Hospital Pharmacy, University Hospital, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan. 2. Department of Clinical Drug Informatics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical & Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan. 3. Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan azuizu2003@yahoo.co.jp. 4. Department of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) treatment is important for maintaining treatment intensity. The effects of palonosetron and granisetron were compared in BEP chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The administration of palonosetron on days 1 and 5 (Pal method) and granisetron daily (days 1-5, Gra method) were compared in terms of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Additional rescue antiemetic agents were used in 15 of 32 and 30 of 30 cycles in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The complete response rate, defined as no vomiting and no rescue agent usage, in each cycle, was 50% and 0% in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The average cost of antiemetic agents in a cycle was 50,759 and 54,555 yen in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The Pal method may be the standard method in BEP. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) treatment is important for maintaining treatment intensity. The effects of palonosetron and granisetron were compared in BEP chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The administration of palonosetron on days 1 and 5 (Pal method) and granisetron daily (days 1-5, Gra method) were compared in terms of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Additional rescue antiemetic agents were used in 15 of 32 and 30 of 30 cycles in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The complete response rate, defined as no vomiting and no rescue agent usage, in each cycle, was 50% and 0% in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The average cost of antiemetic agents in a cycle was 50,759 and 54,555 yen in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The Pal method may be the standard method in BEP. Copyright