Trial reportThe oncologist2026
Granisetron transdermal delivery system versus palonosetron in the prevention of long-delayed nausea and vomiting: a phase III randomized trial.
Trial report in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04912271 (Granisetron Transdermal Delivery System Versus Palonosetron in the Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Granisetron Transdermal Delivery System Versus Palonosetron in the Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: a Phase 3 Non-inferiority Randomized Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impact the patients' quality of life. Whether the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) offers better protection than palonosetron against long-delayed (120-168 hours) CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) had not been prospectively tested.
methodsA multicenter, randomized clinical study was conducted in China. Patients scheduled to receive either HEC or MEC were randomly assigned (1:1) to GTDS or palonosetron, each in combination with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate during the long-delayed phase (120-168 hours), stratified by HEC and MEC categories, to demonstrate the superiority of GTDS over palonosetron.
resultsOverall, 150 patients received either GTDS or palonosetron respectively. We found that the GTDS group demonstrated a significantly higher long-delayed CR rate (97.3%) than the palonosetron group (92%) (P = .04). This advantage was driven predominantly by the HEC subgroup (GTDS 97.5% vs palonosetron 90.8%, P = .028). No significant differences were observed between the groups for the acute (0-24 hours, 92.7% vs 90.0%; P = .412), delayed (24-120 hours, 80.0% vs 76.0%; P = .403), extended-delayed (24-168 hours, 80.7% vs 75.3%; P = .265), or overall (0-168 hours, 78.0% vs 74.0%; P = .417) phases.
conclusionA GTDS-based triple antiemetic regimen can effectively control CINV associated with HEC or MEC. It provides a convenient alternative route for delivering granisetron for up to 7 days, with superior efficacy in controlling long-delayed CINV.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04912271 (in-house ethic number: YBCSG-21-04).
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.