Dataset Information

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

Study design and methods

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

Results

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

Conclusion

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

SUBMITTER: Parisi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9413268 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

Parisi Alessandro A Giampieri Riccardo R Mammarella Alex A Felicetti Cristiano C Salvatore Lisa L Bensi Maria M Maratta Maria Grazia MG Strippoli Antonia A Filippi Roberto R Satolli Maria Antonietta MA Petrillo Angelica A Daniele Bruno B De Tursi Michele M Di Marino Pietro P Giordano Guido G Landriscina Matteo M Vitale Pasquale P Zurlo Ina Valeria IV Dell'Aquila Emanuela E Tomao Silverio S Depetris Ilaria I Di Pietro Francesca Romana FR Zoratto Federica F Ciardiello Davide D Pensieri Maria Vittoria MV Garrone Ornella O Galassi Barbara B Ferri Claudio C Berardi Rossana R Ghidini Michele M

Frontiers in oncology 20220812

<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.<h4>Study design and methods</h4>Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet ...[more]

PMID: 36033477

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background High-dose myeloablative conditioning prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT) in pediatric patients is usually highly emetogenic. The antiemetic neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist fosaprepitant was safe and effective in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant during autoHSCT in children are currently not available. Methods A total of 35 consecutive pediatric patients, who received an antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 x 150 mg/kg BW) and ondansetron (24-hours continuous infusion; 8–32 mg/24h) or granisetron (2 x 40 µg/kg?d?1) during highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy before autoHSCT were retrospectively analyzed, and their results were compared with a control group comprising 35 consecutive pediatric patients, who received granisetron or ondansetron only. The antiemetic efficacy and the safety of the two prophylaxis regimens were compared with respect to three time periods after the first chemotherapy administration (0–24h, >24–120h, >120–240h). Results Clinical adverse events and clinically relevant increases/decreases of laboratory markers were similarly low and did not significantly differ between the two study groups (p>0.05). The registered number of vomiting events was significantly higher in the control group in the time periods of 0–24h (64 vs 22 events; p<0.01), >24–120h (135 vs 78 events; p<0.0001), >120–240h (268 vs 105 events; p<0.0001), and the whole observation period 0–240h (467 vs 205 events; p<0.0001). The percentage of patients experiencing vomiting was higher in the control group during the time period of >24–120h (100% vs 74.3%) but not the other analyzed time periods (p>0.05). Conclusion The fosaprepitant-based antiemetic prophylaxis was safe, well tolerated and significantly reduced vomiting in children undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy prior to autoHSCT. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results.

Project description:BackgroundFive-fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) regimen is used as the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The use of capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine pro-drug, is feasible and safe; hence, it provides an interesting alternative to 5-fluorouracil in the abovementioned regimen. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (XELOXIRI) regimen use with or without targeted drugs in Chinese patients with mCRC.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with mCRC who received XELOXIRI regimen with or without targeted drugs (bevacizumab or cetuximab) every 2 weeks between January 2017 and November 2019 at the National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and Peking Union Medical College. Treatment efficacy was assessed by investigators by evaluating the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. The adverse events were also analyzed.ResultsSixty-one consecutive patients were examined and followed up for survival. As of November 8, 2021, the median follow-up time was 35.4 months. Disease progression and death occurred in 50 (82%) and 38 (62%) patients, respectively. The median treatment duration of XELOXIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab was 10 cycles (range, 1-12 cycles). The median OS and PFS were 32.2 months (95%CI [24.8-39.6]) and 9.3 months (95% CI [8.1-10.5]), respectively. The ORR of 48 patients with measurable lesions was 70.8%, and the DCR was 89.6%. RAS/BRAF wild-type (HR 0.39; 95% CI [0.16-0.96], p = 0.04) and metastatic organs > 2 (HR 3.25; 95% CI [1.34-7.87], p = 0.009) were independent prognostic factors for OS. The incidence of any grade of adverse events (AEs) was 96.7% (59/61). Grade ≥ 3 AEs included neutropenia (19.7%), leukopenia (9.8%), diarrhea (3.3%), vomiting (3.3%), febrile neutropenia (1.6%), and thrombocytopenia (1.6%). No treatment-related death occurred.ConclusionThe use of the XELOXIRI regimen with or without a targeted drug was effective, with a manageable toxicity profile in Chinese patients with mCRC.

Dataset Information

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

Aim

Study design and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets