palonosetron and Hematologic-Neoplasms

Compared with solid tumor patients, those with hematological malignancies are at particular risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) because of their young age, exposure to highly-emetogenic induction, consolidation and salvage regimens, the high-dose conditioning regimens used before stem cell transplantation (SCT), and the heavy psychological burden of such treatments. In the absence of prophylaxis, around 75% of patients undergoing SCT experience delayed CINV. With first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, only about 20% are completely protected from nausea and vomiting, and this frequent and debilitating adverse event has not been fully addressed. In contrast to solid tumors, there are no internationally agreed guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CINV in hematological malignancies. Work on a consensus is urgently required. The second-generation 5-HT(3) antagonist palonosetron is highly effective in preventing CINV in patients with solid tumors. The extended half-life of this agent and its mechanisms of action including allosteric binding, positive cooperativity and 5-HT(3) receptor internalization, may make it particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Although controlled comparisons against first-generation 5HT(3) agents have not yet been conducted in the setting of SCT, available evidence suggests that palonosetron may prove beneficial in preventing CINV in high risk patients with hematological malignancies.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Half-Life; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Salvage Therapy; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Stem Cell Transplantation; Transplantation Conditioning; Vomiting

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the prevention of vomiting, and especially nausea, in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation.. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given to 27 patients receiving allogeneic transplantation on the first day of conditioning, and then every other day during the entire conditioning period. Dexamethasone was given daily also during conditioning. Vomiting and nausea were recorded daily according to CTCAE version 4.0 from the start of conditioning to Day 7 after transplantation. In addition, MASCC antiemetic tool (MAT) was also used in parallel to evaluate the intensity of nausea.. The treatment was well tolerated; 25.9 and 40.7 % of the patients had grade 2/3 vomiting and nausea respectively during conditioning. The incidences of grade 2/3 vomiting and nausea were even higher in the first week after transplantation (40.7 and 51.8 %, respectively). The score of MAT correlated well with the grade of CTCAE. However, the difference in the mean intensity of nausea between period of conditioning and the first week after HSCT was significant only by using MAT (0.96 ± 1.829 vs. 3.81 ± 3.386, p=0.001) but not CTCAE (1.26   ± 0.903 vs. 1.63 ±0.967, p=0.152).. Palonosetron combined with dexamethasone is effective in preventing vomiting during conditioning. However, more effort should be made to alleviate nausea during conditioning and both nausea and vomiting in the first week after transplantation. Furthermore, MAT has a higher discriminant power than CTCAE in assessing the intensity of nausea in patients receiving allogeneic transplantation.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Busulfan; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Homologous; Vidarabine; Vomiting; Young Adult

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis.. Forty-six patients treated with multiple-day chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of chemotherapy and dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered after 72 h following the first administration. The results were retrospectively compared to group of patients with similar clinical characteristics undergoing similar multiple-day chemotherapy. This group had received single-dose ondansetron as CINV prophylaxis on the first day of chemotherapy plus dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy and metoclopramide for breakthrough emesis.. One hundred eighty and 173 chemotherapy cycles were administered in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were absent in 80% of patients of the palonosetron group and 60% of the control group (p < 0.05). In the palonosetron group, 67% of patients who experienced CINV were successfully rescued by a second dose of palonosetron, while in the ondansetron group, only 22% showed a no CINV after metoclopramide treatment (p = 0.04).. The present results appear to be encouraging in terms of complete prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of multiple-day chemotherapy.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited.. This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded.. During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported.. NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzeneacetamides; Dexamethasone; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting.. Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT₃ RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle). Negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the CINV event rate on CT, specific CT cycles, and cancer diagnosis (leukemia/lymphoma)-matched groups in the follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months) was developed.. Of 971 identified patients, 211 initiated palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients comprised of more females [50.2 vs. 41.4%; p = 0.0226], Whites [74.4 vs. 70.4%, and Hispanics [7.6 vs. 6.3%; all races p = 0.0105], received more HEC treatments [89.6 vs. 84.2%; all CT types p = 0.0129], and had more lymphoma diagnosed patients [89.6 vs. 76.3%; all cancer types p = 0.0033] at baseline. After controlling for differences in several demographic and clinical variables, the regression model predicted a 20.4% decrease in CINV event rate per CT cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2 patients. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.. In this retrospective hospital study, patients with hematologic malignancies treated with HEC or MEC and initiated on antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron in the hospital outpatient setting were more likely to experience significantly lower CINV event rates (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) versus patients initiated on other 5-HT₃ RAs.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Outpatients; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; United States; Vomiting; Young Adult