Anvari Kazem, Seilanian-Toussi Mehdi, Hosseinzad-Ashkiki Hossein, Shahidsales Soodabeh
Cancer Research Center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Dept. of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
Iran J Cancer Prev. 2015 Mar-Apr;8(2):84-8.
Chemotherapy- induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occur frequently causing problems with an unacceptably high incidence that significantly affect patients' daily functioning and health-related quality of life. The present study was aimed to compare acute CINV for granisetron as 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and metoclopramide in the patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens including cyclophosphamide and adriamycin. An attempt is made to examine whether it is possible to successfully replace granisetron with metoclopramide in control of acute CINV.
A total of 137 patients with breast cancer (78.8%) and lymphoma (17.5%) from two oncology departments in the first course of chemotherapy were enrolled. They received granisetron 3mg/IV and dexamethasone 8mg for the first referring and in the second referring metoclopramid 30mg/IV and dexamethasone 8mg/IV thirty minutes before chemotherapy and metoclopramide 20mg/IV during chemotherapy. The patients recorded the incidence of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and other side effects including headache, extra pyramidal manifestations and delayed nausea.
Median age of studied patients was 49±15 year. The patients who received granisetron and dexamethasone had less acute nausea (during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy) than those who received metoclopramide. Also our study showed that controlled CINV episodes in patients who received CMF regimen were better than the regimen including adriamycin (CAF, CHOP) into both granisetron (p=0.06) and metoclopramid (p=0.04). The most common adverse event related to these drugs was extra pyramidal manifestations for 16 and 10 patients who had received granisetron and metoclopramide respectively. While the number of the patients who had sever delayed CINV (2-7 days after chemotherapy) episodes with granisetron (7 cases) was lower than those who took metoclopramide drug (14 cases). The number of patients who experienced extrapyramidal manifestations in metoclopramide group was lower than granisetron group.
There were not any significant clinically serious adverse events in any patients undergoing chemotherapy due to cancer. Thus, the safety profiles of granisetron and metoclopramide were comparable in this study. The patients who were treated with cyclophosphamide, and adriamycin, the efficacy of dexamethasone and metoclopramide in controlling acute nausea and vomiting nearly equaled to those of granisetron. Thus the present study supports the use of metoclopramide due to its lower cost and nearly the same efficacy and safety compared to granisetron in CMF regimen.
化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)频繁发生,其发生率高得令人难以接受,严重影响患者的日常功能和健康相关生活质量。本研究旨在比较5-羟色胺3(5-HT3)受体拮抗剂格拉司琼和胃复安在接受包括环磷酰胺和阿霉素的化疗方案的患者中对急性CINV的疗效。本研究试图探讨在控制急性CINV方面用胃复安成功替代格拉司琼是否可行。
来自两个肿瘤科室的137例处于化疗第一疗程的乳腺癌患者(78.8%)和淋巴瘤患者(17.5%)参与了研究。他们在首次化疗时接受3mg静脉注射格拉司琼和8mg地塞米松,在第二次化疗时,在化疗前30分钟接受30mg静脉注射胃复安和8mg静脉注射地塞米松,并在化疗期间接受20mg静脉注射胃复安。患者记录化疗引起的恶心和呕吐(CINV)的发生率以及其他副作用,包括头痛、锥体外系表现和延迟性恶心。
研究患者的中位年龄为49±15岁。接受格拉司琼和地塞米松的患者比接受胃复安的患者急性恶心(化疗后24小时内)更少。此外,我们的研究表明,接受CMF方案的患者的CINV控制情况优于接受包括阿霉素(CAF、CHOP)方案的患者,无论是使用格拉司琼(p=0.06)还是胃复安(p=0.04)。与这些药物相关的最常见不良事件是锥体外系表现,接受格拉司琼和胃复安的患者分别有16例和10例出现该症状。接受格拉司琼的患者发生严重延迟性CINV(化疗后2 - 7天)的例数(7例)低于接受胃复安的患者(14例)。胃复安组出现锥体外系表现的患者数量低于格拉司琼组。
接受癌症化疗的患者均未出现任何严重的临床不良事件。因此,在本研究中格拉司琼和胃复安的安全性相当。对于接受环磷酰胺和阿霉素治疗的患者,地塞米松和胃复安在控制急性恶心和呕吐方面的疗效与格拉司琼相近。因此,本研究支持使用胃复安,因为在CMF方案中,与格拉司琼相比,它成本更低,疗效和安全性相近。