The oncologist · 2026
Granisetron transdermal delivery system versus palonosetron in the prevention of long-delayed nausea and vomiting: a phase III randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование III фазыМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Xiaojun, Meng Yanchun, Du Yiqun, Mu Yuxin, Li Gang, Li Hengyu, Guan Xiaoxiang, Zhang Jian
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impact the patients' quality of life. Whether the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) offers better protection than palonosetron against long-delayed (120-168 hours) CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) had not been prospectively tested.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized clinical study was conducted in China. Patients scheduled to receive either HEC or MEC were randomly assigned (1:1) to GTDS or palonosetron, each in combination with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate during the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours), stratified by HEC and MEC categories, to demonstrate the superiority of GTDS over palonosetron.
RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients received either GTDS or palonosetron respectively. We found that the GTDS group demonstrated a significantly higher long-delayed CR rate (97.3%) than the palonosetron group (92%) (P = .04). This advantage was driven predominantly by the HEC subgroup (GTDS 97.5% vs palonosetron 90.8%, P = .028). No significant differences were observed between the groups for the acute (0-24 hours, 92.7% vs 90.0%; P = .412), delayed (24-120 hours, 80.0% vs 76.0%; P = .403), extended-delayed (24-168 hours, 80.7% vs 75.3%; P = .265), or overall (0-168 hours, 78.0% vs 74.0%; P = .417) phases.
CONCLUSION: A GTDS-based triple antiemetic regimen can effectively control CINV associated with HEC or MEC. It provides a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days, with superior efficacy in controlling long-delayed CINV.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04912271 (in-house ethic number: YBCSG-21-04).
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized clinical study was conducted in China. Patients scheduled to receive either HEC or MEC were randomly assigned (1:1) to GTDS or palonosetron, each in combination with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate during the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours), stratified by HEC and MEC categories, to demonstrate the superiority of GTDS over palonosetron.
RESULTS: Overall, 150 patients received either GTDS or palonosetron respectively. We found that the GTDS group demonstrated a significantly higher long-delayed CR rate (97.3%) than the palonosetron group (92%) (P = .04). This advantage was driven predominantly by the HEC subgroup (GTDS 97.5% vs palonosetron 90.8%, P = .028). No significant differences were observed between the groups for the acute (0-24 hours, 92.7% vs 90.0%; P = .412), delayed (24-120 hours, 80.0% vs 76.0%; P = .403), extended-delayed (24-168 hours, 80.7% vs 75.3%; P = .265), or overall (0-168 hours, 78.0% vs 74.0%; P = .417) phases.
CONCLUSION: A GTDS-based triple antiemetic regimen can effectively control CINV associated with HEC or MEC. It provides a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days, with superior efficacy in controlling long-delayed CINV.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04912271 (in-house ethic number: YBCSG-21-04).