Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39196659›Full record

Observational studyJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2025

Comparison of granisetron and palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Murat Araz, Ismail Beypinar, Fatih Inci, Lokman Koral, Mehmet Zahid Kocak, Mustafa Korkmaz, Aykut Demirkiran, Melek Karakurt Eryilmaz, Mehmet Artac

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Murat ArazDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-4632-9501
Ismail BeypinarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Alanya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-0853-4096
Fatih InciDepartment of Medical Oncology, Karabuk University Faculty of Health Sciences, Karabük, Turkey.
Lokman KoralDepartment of Medical Oncology, Çanakkale 18 March University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Mehmet Zahid KocakDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-3085-7964
Mustafa KorkmazDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0926-6748
Aykut DemirkiranDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-2842-4695
Melek Karakurt EryilmazDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2597-5931
Mehmet ArtacDepartment of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2335-3354

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionWe compared the efficacy of first-generation granisetron and second-generation palonosetron in triplet anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, observational study was conducted between June 2018 and December 2021. Patients diagnosed with NSCLC who received triplet anti-emetic prophylactic treatment with aprepitant and dexamethasone plus granisetron or palonosetron before the first cycle of chemotherapy were included in the study. At the end of the first week after chemotherapy, the emesis scale was applied to the patients during the outpatient control. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) and total control (TC).ResultsOne hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. Sixty-one patients were in the granisetron group and 60 patients were in the palonosetron group. CR was higher with granisetron in the acute phase (70.5% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.16; respectively) and higher with palonosetron in the delayed phase (61.7% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.5; respectively), although not statistically significant. The TC rates were also not significantly different between the groups (54.1% vs.57.6%, p = 0.69).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between granisetron and palonosetron in both acute and delayed control of emesis in NSCLC patients receiving cisplatin-based HEC.

Indexed as

AntiemeticsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCisplatinGranisetronLung NeoplasmsNauseaPalonosetronVomitingAdultAgedAprepitantDexamethasoneFemaleHumansMaleAntiemeticsAprepitantCisplatinDexamethasoneGranisetronPalonosetrongranisetronhighly emetogenic chemotherapyNon-small cell lung cancerpalonosetrontriplet anti-emetic prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID39196659
PMCPMC12614908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.