Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25724407›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015

Efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron compared with IV palonosetron administered with dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid tumors receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Meinolf Karthaus, Csőszi Tibor, Vito Lorusso, Rajender Singh-Arora, Alexander Filippov, Giada Rizzi, Maria Elisa Borroni, Giorgia Rossi, Steven M Grunberg

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Global inequitable distribution of seminal studies of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Meinolf KarthausDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Klinikum Neuperlach, Munich, Germany, meinolf.karthaus@klinikum-muenchen.de.
Csőszi Tibor
Vito Lorusso
Rajender Singh-Arora
Alexander Filippov
Giada Rizzi
Maria Elisa Borroni
Giorgia Rossi
Steven M Grunberg
Helsinn (Switzerland) · CHCity Clinical Hospital No. 2 · RUIstituto Tumori Bari · ITMünchen Klinik Neuperlach · DESant Gadge Baba Amravati University · INUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron with intravenous (IV) palonosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

methodsA multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolling adult chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant solid tumors scheduled to receive cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients received oral palonosetron (0.50 mg) or IV palonosetron (0.25 mg), each with oral dexamethasone. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with a complete response (CR, no emesis/no rescue medication) within the acute phase (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration).

resultsOf the 743 patients randomized, 739 received study medications and 738 were included in the full analysis set. The CR rate in the acute phase was high for both groups (oral 89.4 %; IV 86.2 %). As this difference in proportions (stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method) was 3.21 % (99 % confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 9.17 %), non-inferiority was demonstrated (since the lower limit of the 99 % CI was closer to zero than the predefined margin of 15 %). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to the study drug were rare (oral 3.2 %; IV 6.5 %). No TEAEs related to study drug leading to discontinuation were reported.

conclusionNon-inferiority of oral versus IV palonosetron was demonstrated. The CR rate in the acute phase was >86 % in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdministration, OralAntiemeticsCisplatinDexamethasoneDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIsoquinolinesMaleMiddle AgedNauseaNeoplasmsPalonosetronQuinuclidinesVomitingAntiemeticsCisplatinDexamethasoneIsoquinolinesPalonosetronQuinuclidines

Identifiers

PMID25724407
PMCPMC4552772
OpenAlexW2040793760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.