Detailed Information

Cited 7 time in webofscience Cited 8 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and VomitingRamosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Other Titles
Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
Authors
Kang, JH[Kang, Jin Hyoung]Kwon, JH[Kwon, Jung Hye]Lee, YG[Lee, Yun-Gyoo]Park, KU[Park, Keon Uk]An, HJ[An, Ho Jung]Sohn, J[Sohn, Joohyuk]Seol, YM[Seol, Young Mi]Lee, H[Lee, Hyunwoo]Yun, HJ[Yun, Hwan-Jung]Ahn, JS[Ahn, Jin Seok]Yang, JH[Yang, Ji Hyun]Song, H[Song, Hunho]Koo, DH[Koo, Dong-Hoe]Kim, JY[Kim, Jin Young]Kim, GM[Kim, Gun Min]Kim, HJ[Kim, Hwa Jung]
Issue Date
Jul-2020
Publisher
KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
Keywords
Ramosetron; Palonosetron; Aprepitant; Antiemetics; Nausea; Vomiting; Neoplasms
Citation
CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, v.52, no.3, pp.907 - 916
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
KCI
Journal Title
CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume
52
Number
3
Start Page
907
End Page
916
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/skku/handle/2021.sw.skku/4023
DOI
10.4143/crt.2019.713
ISSN
1598-2998
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting. Materials and Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6. Results A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score >= 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups. Conclusion In all aspects of efficacy, safety and quality of life, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving HEC.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
Medicine > Department of Medicine > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher KOO, DONG HOE photo

KOO, DONG HOE
Medicine (Medicine)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE