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.authoridArtac, Mehmet/0000-0003-2335-3354
dc.authoridBeypinar, Ismail/0000-0002-0853-4096
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.accessioned2024-09-29T16:05:03Z
dc.date.available2024-09-29T16:05:03Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentKarabük Üniversitesien_US
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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank all the patients who participated in the study.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/10781552241279537
dc.identifier.issn1078-1552
dc.identifier.issn1477-092X
dc.identifier.pmid39196659en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85202696601en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/10781552241279537
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14619/6485
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001300198100001en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/Aen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oncology Pharmacy Practiceen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectNon-small cell lung canceren_US
dc.subjectgranisetronen_US
dc.subjectpalonosetronen_US
dc.subjecttriplet anti-emetic prophylaxisen_US
dc.subjecthighly emetogenic chemotherapyen_US
dc.titleComparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

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