Indiana University School of Medicine South Bend, South Bend, and the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
|
The Journal of Supportive Oncology
Volume 9, Issue 5, September-October 2011, Pages 188-195
doi:10.1016/j.suponc.2011.05.002 |
Olanzapine Versus Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized Phase III Trial
Received 8 April 2011; Accepted 19 May 2011. Available online 24 September 2011.
The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) and aprepitant (APR) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.
A phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin ≥70 mg/m2 or cyclophosphamide ≥500 mg/m2 and doxorubicin ≥50 mg/m2, comparing OLN to APR in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN, PAL, DEX (OPD) regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 20 mg of IV DEX prechemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN alone on days 2–4 postchemotherapy. The APR, PAL, DEX (APD) regimen was 125 mg of oral APR, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 12 mg of IV DEX, day 1, and 80 mg of oral APR, days 2 and 3, and 4 mg of DEX BID, days 2–4. Two hundred fifty-one patients consented to the protocol and were randomized. Two hundred forty-one patients were evaluable.
Complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue) was 97% for the acute period (24 hours postchemotherapy), 77% for the delayed period (days 2–5 postchemotherapy), and 77% for the overall period (0–120 hours) for 121 patients receiving the OPD regimen. CR was 87% for the acute period, 73% for the delayed period, and 73% for the overall period in 120 patients receiving the APD regimen. Patients without nausea (0, scale 0–10, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory) were OPD: 87% acute, 69% delayed, and 69% overall; APD: 87% acute, 38% delayed, and 38% overall. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. CR and control of nausea in subsequent chemotherapy cycles were equal to or greater than cycle 1 for both regimens. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Nausea was better controlled with OPD.
> more Treatment-Related Side Effects articles
The Journal of Supportive Oncology
Focused on symptom and side-effect management, communication issues, and end-of-life care for patients with cancer.
For past issues, click here »
| Jun 1 - 5 Chicago, IL | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO): Annual Meeting |
| Jun 14 - 17 Amsterdam, | European Hematology Association (EHA): Annual Congress |
| Jun 18 - 21 Lake Tahoe, NV | American Association for Cancer Research (AACR): Pancreatic Cancer: Progress and Challenges |
| Jun 20 - 22 Milan, | European Institute of Oncology (IEO): 14th Milan Breast Cancer Conference |
| Jun 25 - 26 London, | Teenage Cancer Trust (TCT): International Conference |
| Jun 27 - 30 Barcelona, | European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Conference: World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer |
| Jun 27 - 30 Boston, MA | American Association for Cancer Research (AACR): Chemical Systems Biology |
| Jun 28 - 30 New York, NY | Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/ International Society of Oral Oncology (ISOO): International Symposium |
| Jun 28 - 29 Paris, | WIN 2012 Symposium |
| Jul 7 - 10 Barcelona, | 22nd Biennial Congress of the European Association for Cancer Research |