Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28144884›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical oncology2017

Aprepitant for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Takako Inoue, Madoka Kimura, Junji Uchida, Kazumi Nishino, Toru Kumagai, Junko Taniguchi, Fumio Imamura

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Perioperative Administration of EmendClinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2019
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Takako InoueDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan. okuyama-ta@mc.pref.osaka.jp.
Madoka KimuraDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Junji UchidaDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Kazumi NishinoDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Toru KumagaiDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Junko TaniguchiNursing Department, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Fumio ImamuraDepartment of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease, Osaka, Japan.
Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur aim was to evaluate the efficacy of oral aprepitant in rescue treatment after the primary rescue for breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

methodsThis was a single-institutional phase 2 study. Patients who had received MEC regimens and developed breakthrough CINV despite antiemetic prophylaxis without aprepitant were treated with primary rescue antiemetic treatments chosen by physicians. When the primary rescue (1st rescue) failed, patients received oral aprepitant as the second rescue (2nd rescue). The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients requiring aprepitant as the 2nd rescue and experiencing successful rescue (SR). SR was defined as no vomiting and no need for additional rescue therapy, with nausea up to grade 1 on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and a Visual Analog Scale score of 25 mm, for 48 h after initiation of aprepitant.

resultsEighty patients were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-eight (47.5%) developed breakthrough emesis and received 1st rescue. The 1st rescue was ineffective in 29 (76.3%) patients, and they received the 2nd rescue with aprepitant. Thirteen of these 29 patients (16.3% of the total patients) satisfied the criteria for SR. The primary endpoint, SR rate, in patients treated with aprepitant, was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4-64.4).

conclusionSince the lower end of the 95% confidence interval of SR is 26.4%, the SR in our study did not meet the predefined primary endpoint threshold. However, aprepitant was estimated to be useful in suppressing breakthrough CINV in 16% of the patients treated with MEC.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAdultAntiemeticsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAprepitantFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMorpholinesNauseaTreatment OutcomeVomitingAntiemeticsAprepitantMorpholinesAprepitantBreakthrough emesisLung cancerModerately emetogenic chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID28144884
OpenAlexW2583478145

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.