Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35038031›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens.

Marziyeh Ghorbani, Mehdi Dehghani, Noushin Fahimfar, Soha Namazi, Ali Dehshahri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marziyeh GhorbaniDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mehdi DehghaniHematology Research Center, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Noushin FahimfarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Soha NamaziResearch Center for Rational Use of Drugs, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Ali DehshahriDepartment of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. A.Dehshahri@gmail.com.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 97-01-05-18056Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 98-01-05-19879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients. STUDY: Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.

resultsA total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group.

conclusionAccording to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsStomach NeoplasmsVomitingAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEmeticsEsophagogastric JunctionHumansAntiemeticsAntineoplastic AgentsEmeticsChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingFLOTGastric cancerNauseaVomiting

Identifiers

PMID35038031
OpenAlexW4205758849

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.