User login
Objective To evaluate the impact of aprepitant on emesis control, DI, and RFS.
Methods HNC patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate RFS in aprepitant users. To control for selection bias, a propensity score analysis was conducted.
Results A total of 192 HNC patients were included: 141 received aprepitant prophylaxis. The aprepitant-treated and untreated groups were comparable in mean age (56.3 vs 58.1 years), male gender (82.3% vs 86.3%), tumor location, and number of metastatic sites. However, more patients in the aprepitant group than in the untreated group had surgically resectable disease (31.2% vs 15.7%, respectively) and better performance status (ECOG 0/1, 87.9% vs 76.4%). Less emesis was reported in the aprepitant group (21.3% vs 28.0%). Patients in the treated group were also more likely to complete 3 cycles of high-dose cisplatin (OR, 2.3; P = .03). The propensity score adjusted Cox regression analysis suggested a reduced risk of disease recurrence in patients who received aprepitant (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.17- 1.28).
Limitations Potential confounders such as other diseases or treatments that may have influenced the presence of nausea/emesis symptoms.
Conclusion Aprepitant contributed to improved emesis control, enhanced DI, and better adherence to cisplatin chemotherapy.
Funding/sponsorship The British Columbia Cancer Foundation and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Objective To evaluate the impact of aprepitant on emesis control, DI, and RFS.
Methods HNC patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate RFS in aprepitant users. To control for selection bias, a propensity score analysis was conducted.
Results A total of 192 HNC patients were included: 141 received aprepitant prophylaxis. The aprepitant-treated and untreated groups were comparable in mean age (56.3 vs 58.1 years), male gender (82.3% vs 86.3%), tumor location, and number of metastatic sites. However, more patients in the aprepitant group than in the untreated group had surgically resectable disease (31.2% vs 15.7%, respectively) and better performance status (ECOG 0/1, 87.9% vs 76.4%). Less emesis was reported in the aprepitant group (21.3% vs 28.0%). Patients in the treated group were also more likely to complete 3 cycles of high-dose cisplatin (OR, 2.3; P = .03). The propensity score adjusted Cox regression analysis suggested a reduced risk of disease recurrence in patients who received aprepitant (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.17- 1.28).
Limitations Potential confounders such as other diseases or treatments that may have influenced the presence of nausea/emesis symptoms.
Conclusion Aprepitant contributed to improved emesis control, enhanced DI, and better adherence to cisplatin chemotherapy.
Funding/sponsorship The British Columbia Cancer Foundation and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Objective To evaluate the impact of aprepitant on emesis control, DI, and RFS.
Methods HNC patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate RFS in aprepitant users. To control for selection bias, a propensity score analysis was conducted.
Results A total of 192 HNC patients were included: 141 received aprepitant prophylaxis. The aprepitant-treated and untreated groups were comparable in mean age (56.3 vs 58.1 years), male gender (82.3% vs 86.3%), tumor location, and number of metastatic sites. However, more patients in the aprepitant group than in the untreated group had surgically resectable disease (31.2% vs 15.7%, respectively) and better performance status (ECOG 0/1, 87.9% vs 76.4%). Less emesis was reported in the aprepitant group (21.3% vs 28.0%). Patients in the treated group were also more likely to complete 3 cycles of high-dose cisplatin (OR, 2.3; P = .03). The propensity score adjusted Cox regression analysis suggested a reduced risk of disease recurrence in patients who received aprepitant (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.17- 1.28).
Limitations Potential confounders such as other diseases or treatments that may have influenced the presence of nausea/emesis symptoms.
Conclusion Aprepitant contributed to improved emesis control, enhanced DI, and better adherence to cisplatin chemotherapy.
Funding/sponsorship The British Columbia Cancer Foundation and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.