The antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron and palonosetron against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. Before starting the bendamustine-based chemotherapy, granisetron or palonosetron were intravenously administered with or without aprepitant and/or dexamethasone. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (during the 6 days after the start of the chemotherapy), acute (up to 2 days), and delayed (3 to 6 days) phases were assessed. CC was defined as complete response with only grade 0-1 nausea, no vomiting, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. Granisetron or palonosetron alone were administered to 9 and 19 patients, respectively. Aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were combined with granisetron and palonosetron in 28 and 5 patients, respectively. Acute CINV was completely controlled in all patients. Both granisetron monotherapy and palonosetron combination therapy could provide good control of delayed CINV, although the CC rates during the delayed and overall phases were not significantly different among mono- and combination therapy of the antiemetics. There was no significant difference in the frequencies of adverse drug events between the granisetron and palonosetron treatment groups. The present study showed that the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron-based therapy were non-inferior to those of palonosetron-based therapy. Taken together with treatment costs, granisetron monotherapy would be adequate to prevent CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be improved with guideline-consistent use of antiemetics. However, adherence to antiemetic guidelines remains often insufficient. Therefore, new strategies that improve adherence are needed.

Purpose We evaluated the noninferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2 and 3, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) compared with the 3-day use of DEX in highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods Patients who were scheduled to receive HEC (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m2 or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) were randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1 to 3 (Arm D3) or DEX on day 1 and placebo on days 2 and 3 (Arm D1) combined with NK1-RA and Palo. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the overall (0 to 120 h) phase. The noninferiority margin was set at -15.0% (Arm D1 - Arm D3). Results A total of 396 patients-196 and 200 patients in Arms D3 and D1, respectively-were evaluated. CR rates during the overall period were 46.9% for Arm D3 and 44.0% for Arm D1 (95% CI, -12.6% to 6.8%; P = .007). CR rates during the acute (0 to 24 h) phase were 63.3% and 64.5% for Arms D3 and D1, respectively (95% CI, -8.1% to 10.6%; P < .001), and they were 56.6% and 51.5%, respectively, during the delayed (24 to 120 h) phase (95% CI, -14.8% to 4.6%; P = .023). Hot flushes and tremors were observed more frequently as DEX-related adverse events on days 4 and 5 in Arm D3, whereas anorexia, depression, and fatigue were observed more frequently on days 2 and 3 in Arm D1. As an indication of quality of life, global health status was similar in both arms. Conclusion Antiemetic DEX administration on days 2 and 3 can be spared when combined with NK1-RA and Palo in HEC.