palonosetron has been researched along with Lymphoma--Non-Hodgkin* in 7 studies
4 trial(s) available for palonosetron and Lymphoma--Non-Hodgkin
Article | Year |
---|---|
Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation.
Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK. This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated.. Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported.. NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT. Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Nausea; Palonosetron; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting | 2022 |
Multicenter phase IV study of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas undergoing repeated cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) generally includes a serotonin-type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). The efficacy and safety of the second-generation 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron, in patients with NHL receiving MEC was assessed. Patients received a single iv bolus injection of 0.25 mg palonosetron and chemotherapy on day 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, and up to three further consecutive cycles. Eighty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy in each cycle), increased from 68.2% (cycle 1) to 80.5% (cycle 2), remaining high for the following cycles, and > 90% patients were emesis-free without using aprepitant during therapy. Across all cycles, 78.4% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but only 8% related to study drug, confirming palonosetron's good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2008-007827-14). Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chemoprevention; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting | 2014 |
Single-dose palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing steroids: results of a phase II study from the Gruppo Italiano p
The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids.. Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0-120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint.. Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%.. This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids. Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult | 2011 |
A triple-drug combination to prevent nausea and vomiting following BEAM chemotherapy before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
We performed a clinical study of a triple-drug combination to evaluate its efficacy to prevent both acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy with BEAM (BCNU [carmustine]+etoposide+ARA-C [cytarabine]+melphalan) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by comparison with a historical control group of patients treated with dexamethasone (dex) and ondansetron or palonosetron.. We evaluated 96 patients non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (n=54), and Hodgkin's disease (n=42). Evaluated patients received: aprepitant+palonosetron and dex. The observation period started with the initiation of chemotherapy (0 hours) and continued for 24 hours after the completion of the chemotherapy for the acute phase, and during 5 days after finishing chemotherapy for the delayed phase. The response rate to study drugs was evaluated using a four-grade scale based on the degree of control of nausea and vomiting: high, modrate, slightly effective, or not effective.. Patients treated with the three-drug combination showed a significantly higher response rate than those receiving palonosetron or ondasetron (+dex) during the both the acute and the delayed phases: highly effective early+late phases, 82% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective early phase, 94% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective late phase, 85% versus 85% versus 50%; highly+moderately effective early phase, 97% versus 70% versus 40%; highly+moderately effective late phase, 97% versus 90% versus 60%, for triple combination, palonosctron with dexamethasone and ondasetron+dex, respectively. All antiemetic regimens were well tolerated. The three-drug combination showed a similar safety profile; adverse events were generally mild and transient.. The triple-drug combination was more effective than ondansetron or palonosetron (+dex) treatments to prevent acute (especially) and delayed nausea and vomiting following BEAM before HSCT. Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carmustine; Cytarabine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Melphalan; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting | 2011 |
3 other study(ies) available for palonosetron and Lymphoma--Non-Hodgkin
Article | Year |
---|---|
Efficacy of palonosetron to prevent delayed nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing repeated cycles of the CHOP regimen.
Few studies have investigated the effect of palonosetron on delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lymphoma patients receiving the CHOP regimen. We conducted a prospective clinical trial to assess the efficacy of palonosetron in patients receiving the CHOP regimen.. Complete control (CC: emesis-free and mild nausea) during delayed phase (24-120 h) was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was complete response (CR: emesis-free) during acute (0-24 h), delayed, and overall phases (0-120 h), and CC during acute and overall phases. Palonosetron (0.75 mg) was administered before chemotherapy on day 1 of both the first and second CHOP cycles.. The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing emesis was evaluated in 40 patients. Across two cycles, over 85% of patients achieved CR. As the primary endpoint, the proportion of patients achieving CC in the delayed phase increased from 70% (cycle 1) to 85% (cycle 2). CR rate in the delayed phase increased from 85% (cycle 1) to 95% (cycle 2).. These results suggest that the antiemetic effects during the delayed phase were inferior to those in the acute phase during the first cycle. However, even at the same dose of palonosetron, CR and CC rates increased in the second cycle. Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisone; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult | 2018 |
Comparison of antiemetic effects of granisetron and palonosetron in patients receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy.
The antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron and palonosetron against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. Before starting the bendamustine-based chemotherapy, granisetron or palonosetron were intravenously administered with or without aprepitant and/or dexamethasone. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (during the 6 days after the start of the chemotherapy), acute (up to 2 days), and delayed (3 to 6 days) phases were assessed. CC was defined as complete response with only grade 0-1 nausea, no vomiting, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. Granisetron or palonosetron alone were administered to 9 and 19 patients, respectively. Aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were combined with granisetron and palonosetron in 28 and 5 patients, respectively. Acute CINV was completely controlled in all patients. Both granisetron monotherapy and palonosetron combination therapy could provide good control of delayed CINV, although the CC rates during the delayed and overall phases were not significantly different among mono- and combination therapy of the antiemetics. There was no significant difference in the frequencies of adverse drug events between the granisetron and palonosetron treatment groups. The present study showed that the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron-based therapy were non-inferior to those of palonosetron-based therapy. Taken together with treatment costs, granisetron monotherapy would be adequate to prevent CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Bendamustine Hydrochloride; Dexamethasone; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting | 2018 |
Comparison between Antiemetic Effects of Palonosetron and Granisetron on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Japanese Patients Treated with R-CHOP.
In the present study, the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, not combined with dexamethasone and aprepitant, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was evaluated in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving first-line rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy, and was compared to that of granisetron. A total of 74 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this study (April 2007 to December 2015). Palonosetron (0.75 mg) or granisetron (3 mg) was intravenously administered before R-CHOP therapy. The proportions of patients with complete response (CR) during the overall (0-120 h after the start of R-CHOP therapy), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases were evaluated. CR was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. A total of 32 and 42 patients were treated with palonosetron and granisetron, respectively. The CR rate in the palonosetron group was significantly higher than that in the granisetron group during the delayed phase (90.6 and 61.9%, respectively; p=0.007). Logistic regression analysis showed that use of palonosetron improved the CR rate during the delayed phase, compared to use of granisetron. Female sex, age less than 60 years, no habitual alcohol intake, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of 1 were significant risk factors associated with non-CR. The findings of this study suggested the superiority of palonosetron to granisetron, without accompanying dexamethasone and aprepitant, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with malignant lymphoma. Topics: Adult; Aged; Aging; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Asian People; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisone; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Rituximab; Sex Characteristics; Treatment Outcome; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult | 2017 |