Efficacy and safety of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in non–anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based moderately emetogenic therapy (MEC).

Authors

Daniel Powers

Daniel Powers

TESARO, Inc., Waltham, MA

Daniel Powers, Paul Joseph Hesketh, Lee Steven Schwartzberg, Manuel R. Modiano, Sujata Arora, Ian D. Schnadig

Organizations

TESARO, Inc., Waltham, MA, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, The West Clinic, Memphis, TN, ACRC/Arizona Clinical Research Center and Arizona Oncology, Tucson, AZ, Compass Oncology, Tualatin, OR

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Rolapitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, showed efficacy in CINV prevention in patients (pts) receiving MEC (anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) and other regimens) in a global phase 3 trial. Recent anti-emetic guidelines consider AC based regimens to be highly emetogenic. In this post hoc analysis, the efficacy and safety of rolapitant was assessed in Cycle 1 in pts receiving non-AC MEC, and in the subset of pts receiving carboplatin-based MEC. Methods: In a double-blind, active-controlled study, pts were randomized to oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo 1–2 hours before MEC. All pts received granisetron 2 mg oral on days 1-3 and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on day 1. Complete response (CR = no emesis + no use of rescue medication), no emesis, and no nausea were assessed in overall (0-120 h), acute (0-24 h), and delayed ( > 24-120 h) phases. Results: CR was significantly (P < 0.01) higher with rolapitant than active control in overall and delayed phases in the carboplatin subset and in all 3 phases in the non-AC population (Table). No emesis rates were significantly (p < 0.05) higher with rolapitant in the carboplatin subset in the overall phase. No nausea rates were significantly (P < 0.05) higher with rolapitant in the overall and delayed phases in carboplatin-based MEC. Incidences of treatment-related AEs in Cycle 1 with rolapitant vs. active control were 11.3% vs. 6.7% in the carboplatin-based subset. Most common AEs with rolapitant and active control were constipation, fatigue, and headache. Conclusions: Rolapitant was superior to active control in preventing CINV in pts receiving non-AC MEC, including in the subgroup receiving carboplatin. Rolapitant was well tolerated with low incidence of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT01500226

Complete Response Rates (%)Carboplatin
(N = 401)
Non-AC
(N = 629)
Rolapitant
(N = 192)
Active Control
(N = 209)
Rolapitant
(N = 322)
Active Control
(N = 307)
Delayed Phase (> 24–120 h)82.3%65.6%76.1%63.8%
p-valuea< 0.001< 0.001
Acute Phase (0–24 h)91.7%88.0%90.7%84.4%
p-valuea0.2310.016
Overall Phase (0–120 h)80.2%64.6%74.8%61.2%
p-valuea< 0.001< 0.001

aunstratified CMH test

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2015 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B

Track

Biologic Basis of Symptoms and Treatment Toxicities,Psycho-oncology,End-of-Life Care,Survivorship,Evaluation and Assessment of Patient Symptoms and Quality of Life,Management/Prevention of Symptoms and Treatment Toxicities,Integration and Delivery of Palliative Care in Cancer Care,Psychosocial and Spiritual Care,Communication in Advanced Cancer

Sub Track

Treatment toxicity

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT01500226

Citation

J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl 29S; abstr 209)

DOI

10.1200/jco.2015.33.29_suppl.209

Abstract #

209

Poster Bd #

F11

Abstract Disclosures