Araz, MuratBeypinar, IsmailInci, FatihKoral, LokmanKocak, Mehmet ZahidKorkmaz, MustafaDemirkiran, Aykut2024-09-292024-09-2920241078-15521477-092Xhttps://doi.org/10.1177/10781552241279537https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14619/6485Introduction 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.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNon-small cell lung cancergranisetronpalonosetrontriplet anti-emetic prophylaxishighly emetogenic chemotherapyArticle10.1177/107815522412795372-s2.0-8520269660139196659Q3WOS:001300198100001N/A