在第一周期四药方案失败后,在第二周期加入沙利度胺预防化疗引起的恶心呕吐。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Nishil Gowda, Mirunalini Ravichandran, Jeyaselvi Indrajithu, Tamizharasan Paninathan, Biswajit Dubashi, Smita Kayal, Prasanth Ganesan
{"title":"在第一周期四药方案失败后,在第二周期加入沙利度胺预防化疗引起的恶心呕吐。","authors":"Nishil Gowda, Mirunalini Ravichandran, Jeyaselvi Indrajithu, Tamizharasan Paninathan, Biswajit Dubashi, Smita Kayal, Prasanth Ganesan","doi":"10.1007/s12032-025-02655-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Four-drug antiemetic prophylaxis achieves emesis control in 70-90% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, less than half achieve control of nausea. We added thalidomide to OAOD (ondansetron, aprepitant, dexamethasone, and olanzapine) to try and improve nausea control. Adults (> 18 years) who had failed (\"any nausea\" in 0-120 h after HEC) OAOD prophylaxis in cycle 1, were randomly assigned to thalidomide (T = 50 mg OD for 5 days) + OAOD or placebo (P) + OAOD in cycle 2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving \"no nausea\" in 0-120 h from chemotherapy in the second cycle. A sample size of 50 (including dropouts) would be able to detect 30% \"no nausea\" in the T arm (β = 80%, α = 0.05). We enrolled 105 patients in cycle 1 and randomized 49 patients (25 thalidomide/ 24 placebo; median age 45(30-60) years; all anthracycline/ cyclophosphamide for breast cancer). The addition of thalidomide did not improve the proportion with \"no nausea\" in the overall (0-120 h) [T (16%) vs. P (21%); p = 0.72)], acute (0-24 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.58), and delayed (24-72 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.46) periods. Severe nausea (VAS ≥ 7) in the delayed period was reduced (T = 4% vs. P = 30%, p = 0.02). Sedation and dizziness were not increased, but mild constipation was higher with thalidomide [T (84%) vs. P (58%), p = 0.047)]. The addition of thalidomide to standard 4-drug CINV prophylaxis in cycle 2 did not improve nausea control among patients who \"failed\" the 4-drug regimen in cycle 1.Trial Registration: The trial was registered ( www.ctri.nic.in ; CTRI/2021/08/035980).</p>","PeriodicalId":18433,"journal":{"name":"Medical Oncology","volume":"42 4","pages":"121"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addition of thalidomide for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the second cycle after the failure of four-drug regimen in the first cycle.\",\"authors\":\"Nishil Gowda, Mirunalini Ravichandran, Jeyaselvi Indrajithu, Tamizharasan Paninathan, Biswajit Dubashi, Smita Kayal, Prasanth Ganesan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12032-025-02655-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Four-drug antiemetic prophylaxis achieves emesis control in 70-90% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, less than half achieve control of nausea. We added thalidomide to OAOD (ondansetron, aprepitant, dexamethasone, and olanzapine) to try and improve nausea control. Adults (> 18 years) who had failed (\\\"any nausea\\\" in 0-120 h after HEC) OAOD prophylaxis in cycle 1, were randomly assigned to thalidomide (T = 50 mg OD for 5 days) + OAOD or placebo (P) + OAOD in cycle 2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving \\\"no nausea\\\" in 0-120 h from chemotherapy in the second cycle. A sample size of 50 (including dropouts) would be able to detect 30% \\\"no nausea\\\" in the T arm (β = 80%, α = 0.05). We enrolled 105 patients in cycle 1 and randomized 49 patients (25 thalidomide/ 24 placebo; median age 45(30-60) years; all anthracycline/ cyclophosphamide for breast cancer). The addition of thalidomide did not improve the proportion with \\\"no nausea\\\" in the overall (0-120 h) [T (16%) vs. P (21%); p = 0.72)], acute (0-24 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.58), and delayed (24-72 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.46) periods. Severe nausea (VAS ≥ 7) in the delayed period was reduced (T = 4% vs. P = 30%, p = 0.02). Sedation and dizziness were not increased, but mild constipation was higher with thalidomide [T (84%) vs. P (58%), p = 0.047)]. The addition of thalidomide to standard 4-drug CINV prophylaxis in cycle 2 did not improve nausea control among patients who \\\"failed\\\" the 4-drug regimen in cycle 1.Trial Registration: The trial was registered ( www.ctri.nic.in ; CTRI/2021/08/035980).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Oncology\",\"volume\":\"42 4\",\"pages\":\"121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-025-02655-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-025-02655-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在70-90%接受高致吐性化疗(HEC)的患者中,四药止吐预防治疗可控制呕吐。然而,只有不到一半的人能控制恶心。我们在OAOD中加入沙利度胺(昂丹司琼、阿瑞吡坦、地塞米松和奥氮平),试图改善恶心控制。在第1周期中OAOD预防失败(HEC后0-120小时出现“恶心”)的成人(bb0 - 18岁),在第2周期中随机分配到沙利度胺(T = 50 mg OD, 5天)+ OAOD或安慰剂(P) + OAOD。主要终点是在第二周期化疗后0-120小时内达到“无恶心”的患者比例。50个样本量(包括退出组)将能够检测到T组中30%的“无恶心”(β = 80%, α = 0.05)。我们在第一周期招募了105例患者,随机分配了49例患者(25例沙利度胺/ 24例安慰剂;中位年龄45岁(30-60岁);所有蒽环类/环磷酰胺用于乳腺癌)。沙利度胺的加入并没有改善总体(0-120 h)“无恶心”的比例[T(16%)对P (21%);p = 0.72),急性(0-24 h)(32%比25%,p = 0.58),和延迟(24 - 72 h)(32%比25%,p = 0.46)。延迟期严重恶心(VAS≥7)减少(T = 4% vs. P = 30%, P = 0.02)。镇静和头晕没有增加,但沙利度胺组轻度便秘发生率较高[T (84%) vs P (58%), P = 0.047]。在第2周期,在标准的4药CINV预防用药中加入沙利度胺并没有改善第1周期“失败”的4药方案患者的恶心控制。试验注册:试验已注册(www.ctri.nic.in;CTRI / 2021/08/035980)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addition of thalidomide for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the second cycle after the failure of four-drug regimen in the first cycle.

Four-drug antiemetic prophylaxis achieves emesis control in 70-90% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, less than half achieve control of nausea. We added thalidomide to OAOD (ondansetron, aprepitant, dexamethasone, and olanzapine) to try and improve nausea control. Adults (> 18 years) who had failed ("any nausea" in 0-120 h after HEC) OAOD prophylaxis in cycle 1, were randomly assigned to thalidomide (T = 50 mg OD for 5 days) + OAOD or placebo (P) + OAOD in cycle 2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving "no nausea" in 0-120 h from chemotherapy in the second cycle. A sample size of 50 (including dropouts) would be able to detect 30% "no nausea" in the T arm (β = 80%, α = 0.05). We enrolled 105 patients in cycle 1 and randomized 49 patients (25 thalidomide/ 24 placebo; median age 45(30-60) years; all anthracycline/ cyclophosphamide for breast cancer). The addition of thalidomide did not improve the proportion with "no nausea" in the overall (0-120 h) [T (16%) vs. P (21%); p = 0.72)], acute (0-24 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.58), and delayed (24-72 h) (32% vs. 25%, p = 0.46) periods. Severe nausea (VAS ≥ 7) in the delayed period was reduced (T = 4% vs. P = 30%, p = 0.02). Sedation and dizziness were not increased, but mild constipation was higher with thalidomide [T (84%) vs. P (58%), p = 0.047)]. The addition of thalidomide to standard 4-drug CINV prophylaxis in cycle 2 did not improve nausea control among patients who "failed" the 4-drug regimen in cycle 1.Trial Registration: The trial was registered ( www.ctri.nic.in ; CTRI/2021/08/035980).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Oncology
Medical Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
259
审稿时长
1.4 months
期刊介绍: Medical Oncology (MO) communicates the results of clinical and experimental research in oncology and hematology, particularly experimental therapeutics within the fields of immunotherapy and chemotherapy. It also provides state-of-the-art reviews on clinical and experimental therapies. Topics covered include immunobiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of malignant tumors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信