Comparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridkocak, mehmet zahid/0000-0003-3085-7964
dc.authoridaraz, murat/0000-0002-4632-9501
dc.authoridBeypinar, Ismail/0000-0002-0853-4096
dc.authoridArtac, Mehmet/0000-0003-2335-3354
dc.authoridKORKMAZ, MUSTAFA/0000-0003-0926-6748
dc.contributor.authorAraz, Murat
dc.contributor.authorBeypinar, Ismail
dc.contributor.authorInci, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorKoral, Lokman
dc.contributor.authorKocak, Mehmet Zahid
dc.contributor.authorKorkmaz, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorDemirkiran, Aykut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T20:38:55Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T20:38:55Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction We compared the efficacy of first-generation granisetron and second-generation palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Methods This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, observational study was conducted between June 2018 and December 2021. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC who received triplet anti-emetic prophylactic treatment with aprepitant and dexamethasone plus granisetron or palonosetron before the first cycle of chemotherapy were included in the study. At the end of the first week after chemotherapy, the emesis scale was applied to the patients during the outpatient control. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) and total control (TC).Results One hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. Sixty-one patients were in the granisetron group and 60 patients were in the palonosetron group. CR was higher with granisetron in the acute phase (70.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.16; respectively) and higher with palonosetron in the delayed phase (61.7% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.5; respectively), although not statistically significant. The TC rates were also not significantly different between the groups (54.1% vs.57.6%, p = 0.69).Conclusions There was no significant difference between granisetron and palonosetron in both acute and delayed control of emesis in NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC.
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank all the patients who participated in the study.
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/10781552241279537
dc.identifier.issn1078-1552
dc.identifier.issn1477-092X
dc.identifier.pmid39196659
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85202696601
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/10781552241279537
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/23801
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001300198100001
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice
dc.relation.publicationcategoryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20250125
dc.subjectNon-small cell lung cancer
dc.subjectgranisetron
dc.subjectpalonosetron
dc.subjecttriplet anti-emetic prophylaxis
dc.subjecthighly emetogenic chemotherapy
dc.titleComparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu