Is a dexamethasone-sparing strategy capable of preventing acute and delayed emesis caused by combined doxorubicin and paclitaxel for breast cancer? Analysis of a phase II Trial

3Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: The effectiveness of palonosetron without delayed dexamethasone dosing against emesis was investigated in patients scheduled to receive the corticosteroid-containing combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) for 3 cycles. Methods: Chemo-naïve women with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin (60 mg/m 2) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m 2) were eligible. Patients received palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before chemotherapy, however, all patients also received a premedication consisting of prednisone (25 mg orally the evening before therapy) and hydrocortisone (250 mg intravenously just before paclitaxel). The primary end point was complete control (CC; no vomiting, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase (days 1-5) following cycle 1. Results: Seventy-six patients were enrolled and evaluable (median age 50 years). Fifty-six patients (74%; 95% CI 62-83%) achieved overall CC. Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) CC rates were 78 and 74%, respectively. No vomiting rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases were 85, 85 and 83%, respectively. An exploratory analysis showed only a small decrease in the probability of achieving CC between cycle 1 (74%) and cycle 3 (66%). Conclusion: The dexamethasone-sparing strategy prevented emesis in more than 70% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AT chemotherapy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Damian, S., Celio, L., De Benedictis, E., Mariani, P., Agustoni, F., Ricchini, F., & De Braud, F. (2013). Is a dexamethasone-sparing strategy capable of preventing acute and delayed emesis caused by combined doxorubicin and paclitaxel for breast cancer? Analysis of a phase II Trial. Oncology (Switzerland), 84(6), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1159/000348538

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free