Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jul 3;6(7):e2326127.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26127.

Fosaprepitant Weekly vs Every 3 Weeks for the Prevention of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Fosaprepitant Weekly vs Every 3 Weeks for the Prevention of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

Qi Yang et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Unlike substantial evidence in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), research in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is currently lacking.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant weekly vs every 3 weeks for the prevention of nausea and emesis caused by CCRT among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Design, setting, and participants: This pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single cancer center from November 24, 2020, to July 26, 2021, among patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who had achieved CINV control after 2 to 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy. Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed on November 4, 2022.

Interventions: Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive fosaprepitant either weekly or every 3 weeks.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained complete response (defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy) during CCRT. Secondary end points were sustained no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, mean time to first emetic episode, quality of life, and 1-year progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [10.9] years; 83 [83.0%] male) who had achieved CINV control after induction chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant weekly (50 patients) or every 3 weeks (50 patients). There was no significantly significant difference in cumulative risk of emesis or rescue therapy in the group that received weekly fosaprepitant compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks (subhazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.43-1.02]; P = .06). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis (38% vs 14%; P = .003) or no significant nausea (92% vs 72%; P = .002) was significantly higher in the group that received fosaprepitant weekly vs those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks. Treatments were well tolerated. Patients in the weekly group had improved scores for multiple quality-of-life measures. There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between groups (91.8% vs 93.7%; P = .99). In the mean brainstem dose subgroups, a possible treatment interaction effect was observed in sustained complete response (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: hazard ratio [HR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.69]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.55-1.63]) and sustained no emesis (mean brainstem dose ≥36 Gy: HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.08-0.53]; mean brainstem dose <36 Gy: HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.41-1.28]).

Conclusions and relevance: In this pilot randomized clinical trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the complete response primary end point, but patients receiving weekly fosaprepitant were less likely to experience emesis compared with those who received fosaprepitant every 3 weeks, especially in the subgroup with a mean brainstem dose of 36 Gy or more. Weekly fosaprepitant was well tolerated and improved quality of life of patients without compromising survival.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04636632.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Proportion of Patients With Nausea, Emesis, or Rescue Therapy
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Forest Plots for Complete Response, No Emesis, and No Rescue Therapy
BS indicates brainstem; HR, hazard ratio; V40, percentage volume receiving ≥40 Gy; VB, vestibule.

Similar articles

References

    1. Ruhlmann CH, Christensen TB, Dohn LH, et al. . Efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and emesis during 5 weeks of chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer (the GAND-emesis study): a multinational, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(4):509-518. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00615-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy . Radiation-induced emesis: a prospective observational multicenter Italian trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44(3):619-625. doi:10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00055-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maranzano E, De Angelis V, Pergolizzi S, et al. ; Italian Group for Antiemetic Research in Radiotherapy—IGARR . A prospective observational trial on emesis in radiotherapy: analysis of 1020 patients recruited in 45 Italian radiation oncology centres. Radiother Oncol. 2010;94(1):36-41. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.11.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paiar F, Cristaudo A, Gonnelli A, et al. . Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer: Is it something worth considering in the intensity modulated radiotherapy era: a narrative review. Head Neck. 2020;42(1):131-137. doi:10.1002/hed.25982 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fowler JF, Lindstrom MJ. Loss of local control with prolongation in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(2):457-467. doi:10.1016/0360-3016(92)90768-D - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data