Literature DB >> 32338316

A phase III study of transdermal granisetron versus oral ondansetron for women with gynecologic cancers receiving pelvic chemoradiation.

Shannon D Armbruster1,2, Bryan M Fellman3, Anuja Jhingran4, Patricia J Eifel4, Ann H Klopp4, Robert L Coleman5, Lois M Ramondetta5, Michael Frumovitz5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare rates of complete response (no emesis, retching, or rescue antiemetics) in the late phase (days 4-7 post-chemotherapy) of cycle 1 between transdermal granisetron and oral ondansetron in cervical, endometrial, or vaginal cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and LBJ Hospital in Houston, TX.
METHODS: In this non-blinded parallel design trial, eligible patients received a granisetron patch replaced every 7 days or 8 mg of ondansetron thrice daily continued for 72 h after chemotherapy completion. Data were collected on medication compliance, episodes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), use of rescue antiemetics, and effects of CINV on quality of life.
RESULTS: Seventy-five survivors receiving chemoradiation for cervical (n = 61), endometrial (n = 12), or vaginal (n = 2) cancer were electronically randomized to transdermal granisetron (n = 41) or oral ondansetron (n = 34). In the late phase of cycle 1, the rate of complete response was 49.8% (95% CI, 35.2-64.3%) for transdermal granisetron and 39.7% (95% CI, 24.4-56.1%) for oral ondansetron. The posterior probability that transdermal granisetron achieved a higher success rate in controlling late-onset CINV compared with oral ondansetron was 82%. During the acute phase (day 1 post-chemotherapy) of cycles 2 and 3, transdermal granisetron patients used more rescue antiemetics than oral ondansetron patients (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively). Otherwise, no between-group differences in CINV events were observed. Medication compliance and the effect of CINV on quality of life were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: Transdermal granisetron was 82% more like to control CINV than oral ondansetron in the late phase of cycle 1 and performed similarly to oral ondansetron in all other cycles. Transdermal granisetron should be considered an option as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for gynecologic cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antiemetics; Radiation; Radiation-sensitizing agents, cancer survivors, uterine cervical neoplasms, palliative care

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32338316     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-020-05484-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  17 in total

1.  Pharmacokinetics of a granisetron transdermal system for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Authors:  Julian Howell; Jean Smeets; Henk-Jan Drenth; David Gill
Journal:  J Oncol Pharm Pract       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.809

2.  Transdermal granisetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study.

Authors:  Liu-Qing Yang; Xin-Chen Sun; Shu-Kui Qin; Ying-Xia Chen; He-Long Zhang; Ying Cheng; Zhen-Dong Chen; Jian-Hua Shi; Qiong Wu; Yu-Xian Bai; Bao-Hui Han; Wei Liu; Xue-Nong Ouyang; Ji-Wei Liu; Zhi-Hui Zhang; Yong-Qiang Li; Jian-Ming Xu; Shi-Ying Yu
Journal:  Chin Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-12

3.  Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Morris; P J Eifel; J Lu; P W Grigsby; C Levenback; R E Stevens; M Rotman; D M Gershenson; D G Mutch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-04-15       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Authors:  P G Rose; B N Bundy; E B Watkins; J T Thigpen; G Deppe; M A Maiman; D L Clarke-Pearson; S Insalaco
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-04-15       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. A comparison of their pharmacology and clinical efficacy.

Authors:  R E Gregory; D S Ettinger
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  H M Keys; B N Bundy; F B Stehman; L I Muderspach; W E Chafe; C L Suggs; J L Walker; D Gersell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-04-15       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Patient-practitioner perception gap in treatment-induced nausea and vomiting.

Authors:  Cheryl Vidall; Sangeeta Sharma; Bharat Amlani
Journal:  Br J Nurs       Date:  2016-09-08

8.  Concurrent daily cisplatin and extended-field radiation therapy for carcinoma of the cervix.

Authors:  T Uno; A Mitsuhashi; K Isobe; S Yamamoto; H Kawakami; N Ueno; H Usui; S Tate; T Kawata; H Ito
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 3.437

9.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Impact and management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients: a cross-sectional multinational survey.

Authors:  Cheryl Vidall; Paz Fernández-Ortega; Diego Cortinovis; Patrick Jahn; Bharat Amlani; Florian Scotté
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.