Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016
Transdermal granisetron versus palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, and phase IV study.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Should palonosetron be a preferred 5-HTSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Granisetron transdermal delivery system versus palonosetron in the prevention of long-delayed nausea and vomiting: a phase III randomized trial.The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of the granisetron transdermal system for the control of nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2023Trial
- 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 · 2026Review
- Review
- [Prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after medical cancer treatment : Guidelines on supportive treatment-Part II].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HTCancer management and research · 2018Review
- Newest Drugs for Chronic Unexplained Nausea and Vomiting.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPalonosetron is the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) that has shown better efficacy than the first-generation 5-HT3RA for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS), a novel transdermal formulation, was developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to palonosetron for the control of CINV following MEC. MATERIAL AND
methodA total of 196 patients were randomized to GP or PG group. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, Phase IV study, GP group was assigned to receive transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days) in the first chemotherapy cycle, palonosetron (iv 0.25 mg/day, 1 days) in the second chemotherapy cycle before receiving MEC, and PG group was assigned to receive palonosetron in the first cycle and GTDS in the second cycle. Primary endpoint was the percentage of chemotherapy cycles achieving complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the acute phase (0-24 h in post-chemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with palonosetron).
resultsTotal 333 cycles (165 in GTDS and 168 in palonosetron) were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS cycles showed non-inferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase: CR was achieved by 124 (75.2 %) patients in the GTDS cycles and 134 (79.8 %) patients in the palonosetron cycles (treatment difference, -4.6 %; 95 % confidence interval, -13.6-4.4). There was no significant difference in CR rate during acute phase after the end of the first and second chemotherapy cycle between GP and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), GTDS cycle were higher than those of palonosetron cycle in GP group (FLI-E score; median 1549.5 in GTDS cycle, median 1670.0 in palonosetron cycle). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe.
conclusionTransdermal granisetron is a good alternative therapeutic option to palonosetron for preventing CINV after MEC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.