Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24141698›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Lee Schwartzberg, Sally Y Barbour, Gary R Morrow, Gianluca Ballinari, Michael D Thorn, David Cox

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer: efficacy of NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron), the first combination antiemetic.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Getting it right the first time: recent progress in optimizing antiemetic usage.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NKSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Lee SchwartzbergWest Clinic, 100 North Humphreys Boulevard, Memphis, TN, 38120-2146, USA, lschwartzberg@westclinic.com.
Sally Y Barbour
Gary R Morrow
Gianluca Ballinari
Michael D Thorn
David Cox
Campbell Clinic · USDuke Medical Center · USEisai (United States) · USHelsinn (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT3 RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

methodsPatient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.

resultsCR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT3 RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98-1.34), 1.62 (1.40-1.88), and 1.56 (1.34-1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT3 RAs (27.5 %).

conclusionsPalonosetron is more effective than older 5HT3 RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGranisetronHumansIndolesIsoquinolinesMaleMiddle AgedNauseaNeoplasmsOndansetronPalonosetronQuinolizinesQuinuclidinesAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsdolasetronGranisetronIndolesIsoquinolinesOndansetronPalonosetronQuinolizinesQuinuclidinesSerotonin Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID24141698
PMCPMC3889920
OpenAlexW2009406712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.