A Phase II single-arm trial of palonosetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant glioma patients receiving multidose irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab
Authors Affronti ML, Woodring S, Peters KB, Herndon II JE, McSherry F, Healy PN, Desjardins A, Vredenburgh JJ, Friedman HS
Received 16 September 2016
Accepted for publication 17 November 2016
Published 23 December 2016 Volume 2017:13 Pages 33—40
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Garry Walsh
Mary Lou Affronti,1–3 Sarah Woodring,1,2 Katherine B Peters,1,4 James E Herndon II,5 Frances McSherry,5 Patrick N Healy,5 Annick Desjardins,1,4 James J Vredenburgh,6 Henry S Friedman1,2
1The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center at Duke, South Hospital, Duke University Medical Center, 2Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Health System, 3Duke University School of Nursing, 4Department of Neurology, 5Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, 6Saint Francis Cancer Center, Hartford, CT, USA
Purpose: Given that the prognosis of recurrent malignant glioma (MG) remains poor, improving quality of life (QoL) through symptom management is important. Meta-analyses establishing antiemetic guidelines have demonstrated the superiority of palonosetron (PAL) over older 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention, but excluded patients with gliomas. Irinotecan plus bevacizumab is a treatment frequently used in MG, but is associated with low (55%) CINV complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue antiemetic) with commonly prescribed ondansetron. A single-arm Phase II trial was conducted in MG patients to determine the efficacy of intravenous PAL (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (DEX; 10 mg) received in conjunction with biweekly irinotecan–bevacizumab treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving acute CINV CR (no emesis or antiemetic ≤24 hours postchemotherapy). Secondary end points included delayed CINV CR (days 2–5), overall CINV CR (days 1–5), and QoL, fatigue, and toxicity.
Materials and methods: A two-stage design of 160 patients was planned to differentiate between CINV CR of 55% and 65% after each dose of PAL–DEX. Validated surveys assessed fatigue and QoL.
Results: A total of 63 patients were enrolled, after which enrollment was terminated due to slow accrual; 52 patients were evaluable for the primary outcome of acute CINV CR. Following PAL–DEX dose administrations 1–3, acute CINV CR rates were 62%, 68%, and 70%; delayed CINV CR rates were 62%, 66%, and 70%, and overall CINV CR rates were 47%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a clinically meaningful increase in fatigue during acute and overall phases, but not in the delayed phase. There were no grade ≥3 PAL–DEX treatment-related toxicities.
Conclusion: Data suggest that PAL–DEX is effective in preventing CINV in MG patients, which ultimately maintains the QoL of patients with glioma.
Keywords: chemotherapy, nausea, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, antiemetic guidelines, evidence-based practice, glioma
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]