Observational studyInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Sustained antiemetic efficacy of fosnetupitant versus aprepitant in carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in International journal of clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hyperprogressive disease in carcinoma induced by immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarboplatin (CBDCA) is highly emetogenic when administered at an area under the curve (AUC) ≥ 4, requiring triple antiemetic therapy, including an NK
methodsThis retrospective single-center observational study included patients with cancer receiving CBDCA (AUC ≥ 4)-based regimens. Propensity score matching was performed using clinical factors. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no emesis or rescue medication) rate between 0 and 168 h. The secondary endpoints included phase-specific CR rates, time to treatment failure (TTF), and adverse events (AEs).
resultsAfter matching, 242 patients were included in each group. The overall CR rate at 0-168 h was significantly higher with F-NTP (83.5%) than with APR (69.4%) (p < 0.001). F-NTP significantly prolonged TTF (hazard ratio = 0.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.71, p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis revealed female sex, younger age, and high CBDCA dose as significant risk factors for non-CR, while F-NTP use was a protective factor. AEs did not differ significantly between the groups and were mostly Grade 1.
conclusionF-NTP demonstrated superior antiemetic efficacy to that of APR in CBDCA-based regimens, particularly maintaining higher CR rates through the acute and delayed phases. F-NTP was also well tolerated, supporting its potential as a strong prophylactic agent for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41366147What 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.