ArticleOncology and therapy2022
Exploratory Analysis Comparing Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study (CONSOLE).
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual patient data meta-analysis of NEPA versus aprepitant-based antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Granisetron transdermal delivery system versus palonosetron in the prevention of long-delayed nausea and vomiting: a phase III randomized trial.The oncologist · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Pooled Analysis of Studies Evaluating Fosnetupitant and Risk Factors for Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting During the Extended Overall Phase.Advances in therapy · 2023Trial
- Single-dose NEPA versus an aprepitant regimen for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2023Trial
- Netupitant versus aprepitant: model-predicted neurokinin-1 receptor occupancy and implications for long-delayed nausea and vomiting prevention.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Nausea and vomiting in an evolving anticancer treatment landscape: long-delayed and emetogenic antibody-drug conjugates.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of 5HT3RA, DEX, and NK1RA for the prevention of FOLFIRINOX-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Fosnetupitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Short Review and Clinical Perspective.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
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 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe describe the results of an exploratory analysis performed on the first head-to-head study (JapicCTI-194611) comparing two different intravenous (IV) neurokinin 1 (NK
methodsPatients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to fosnetupitant 235 mg or fosaprepitant 150 mg in combination with PALO 0.75 mg and DEX. Complete response rates were calculated and compared (stratified by age category and sex with a Mantel-Haenszel test) during the study's primary overall phase (0-120 h) and during additional time intervals of interest [acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), extended delayed (> 24-168 h), beyond delayed (120-168 h), and extended overall (0-168 h)].
resultsA total of 785 patients were included (fosnetupitant N = 392, fosaprepitant N = 393). Complete response rates were numerically higher for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant for all time intervals and statistically significant for the extended overall phase. Complete response rates for fosnetupitant versus fosaprepitant during the overall, acute, delayed, extended delayed, beyond delayed, and extended overall phases were 75.5% vs. 71.0% (p = 0.1530), 93.9% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.4832), 77.0% vs. 72.8% (p = 0.1682), 74.7% vs. 68.4% (p = 0.0506), 86.7% vs. 81.7% (p = 0.0523), and 73.5% vs. 66.9% (p = 0.0450), respectively.
conclusionIn this exploratory analysis, fosnetupitant appeared to be more effective than fosaprepitant in preventing CINV associated with cisplatin-based HEC during the extended 7-day period following chemotherapy. INFOGRAPHIC.
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.