15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antiemetic Effectiveness and Cost-Saving of Aprepitant plus Granisetron Is Superior to Palonosetron in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients Who Received Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose The therapeutic benefit of a three-drug combination of antiemetics has not been established in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The aim of this study was to compare the antiemetic effectiveness and cost-saving of palonosetron plus dexamethasone (control group) with aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (study group) in cancer patients who received MEC.

          Methods We switched the standard antiemetic treatment from the control group to the study group in gastrointestinal cancer patients who received MEC after October 2015. The antiemetics in both groups were modified using salvage antiemetic therapy at the clinicians' discretion, according to the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records from patients, before and after switching groups, from between April 2014 and March 2016.

          Results We evaluated 443 treatment courses in 83 patients. The proportion of courses that included salvage antiemetic therapy in the control group and the study group was 34.8 % (116/333) and 8.2 % (9/110), respectively, and was statistically significant ( p < 0.001). The mean integrated costs of antiemetics per course in the control group and the study group were 193 ± 55 USD and 143 ± 38 USD, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the study group was significantly associated with a reduced risk of requiring salvage antiemetic therapy ( p = 0.038).

          Conclusions These results suggest that the antiemetic effectiveness and cost-saving of a three-drug combination of aprepitant, generic granisetron, and dexamethasone was superior to a two-drug combination of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in gastrointestinal cancer patients who received MEC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Phase III study comparing oxaliplatin plus S-1 with cisplatin plus S-1 in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced gastric cancer.

          We evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) as an alternative to cisplatin plus S-1 (CS) in first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

            To evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 x 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival. The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 x 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4-containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4. XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing irinotecan with paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer without severe peritoneal metastasis after failure of prior combination chemotherapy using fluoropyrimidine plus platinum: WJOG 4007 trial.

              This phase III study compared treatment with weekly paclitaxel and biweekly irinotecan in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to treatment with fluoropyrimidine plus platinum.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Cancer
                J Cancer
                jca
                Journal of Cancer
                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                1837-9664
                2017
                12 May 2017
                : 8
                : 8
                : 1371-1377
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pharmacy, Ehime University Hospital, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime 791-0295, Japan;
                [2 ]Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime 791-0295, Japan;
                [3 ]Endoscopy Center, Ehime University Hospital, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime 791-0295, Japan;
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Metabology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan;
                [5 ]Cancer Center, Ehime University Hospital, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime 791-0295, Japan.
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding author: Hitoshi Kawazoe, Division of Pharmacy, Ehime University Hospital, Shitsukawa, Toon, Ehime 791-0295, Japan. Phone: +81-89-960-5738; Fax: +81-89-960-5745; E-mail: hitoshik@ 123456m.ehime-u.ac.jp

                * These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.

                Article
                jcav08p1371
                10.7150/jca.17102
                5479242
                56d2154d-3c02-4b7f-9c71-1e835440e813
                © Ivyspring International Publisher

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.

                History
                : 4 August 2016
                : 8 April 2017
                Categories
                Research Paper

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                aprepitant,palonosetron,moderately emetogenic chemotherapy,gastrointestinal cancer,cost-saving.

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content412

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors210