Reducing dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis. METHODS: We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations. RESULTS: No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT3 antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.

Supportive care in cancer-a MASCC perspective.

The term 'supportive care' arose from the medical oncology literature predominantly in the context of managing the toxicities of cancer treatment but embraces all symptom management through treatment and survivorship. Supportive care should be patient-centred with good communication which includes family and carers and applies across the cancer experience from diagnosis, treatment, survivorship to end of life care. Supportive care encompasses physical and functional, psychological, social and spiritual well-being to improve the quality of life. Supportive care must be evidence-based and thus further research is essential. Supportive care requires screening for some symptoms and tools for patients to report their outcomes. Supportive care has to accommodate new physical toxicities, emotional distress as well as financial toxicity. Supportive care is often delivered by medical oncologists but any organ-related specialist, geriatrician, palliative care clinician, pain specialist, nutritionist, psycho-oncologist, social worker, physiotherapist, nurse or allied health worker who is required to relieve a patient's symptoms or side effects may be involved in a multidisciplinary way. The field is evolving to embrace technology such as eHealth and mHealth capabilities which will enhance integrated care.

Should palonosetron be a preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT3RAs. METHODS: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT3RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT3RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT3RA of choice.

Bringing it all together in the treatment of CINV: application of current knowledge into routine clinical practice.

For patients with cancer, the threat of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can greatly influence treatment decisions and overall quality of life. Clinicians now have numerous effective antiemetic therapies to offer to patients, but selecting the optimal strategy can be complicated. Integration of current CINV guidelines, emerging data from recent clinical trials, and patient-specific risk factors can greatly improve antiemetic prophylaxis. Two challenging clinical scenarios are presented and discussed to provide insight on how to best approach these types of treatment decisions and apply recent advances in CINV prevention and management to patient care.

Impact of multi-gene mutational profiling on clinical trial outcomes in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has identified recurrent genomic alterations in metastatic breast cancer (MBC); however, the clinical utility of incorporating routine sequencing to guide treatment decisions in this setting is unclear. We examine the frequency of genomic alterations in MBC patients from academic and community hospitals and correlate with clinical outcomes. METHODS: MBC patients with good performance status were prospectively recruited at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Canada. Molecular profiling on DNA extracted from FFPE archival tissues was performed on the Sequenom MassArray platform or the TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel (TSACP) on the MiSeq platform. Clinical trial outcomes by RECIST 1.1 and time on treatment were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: From January 2012 to November 2015, 483 MBC patients were enrolled and 440 were genotyped. At least one somatic mutation was identified in 46% of patients, most commonly in PIK3CA (28%) or TP53 (13%). Of 203 patients with ≥ 1 mutation(s), 15% were treated on genotype-matched and 9% on non-matched trials. There was no significant difference for median time on treatment for patients treated on matched vs. non-matched therapies (3.6 vs. 3.8 months; p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides real-world outcomes on hotspot genotyping and small targeted panel sequencing of MBC patients from academic and community settings. Few patients were matched to clinical trials with targeted therapies. More comprehensive profiling and improved access to clinical trials may increase therapeutic options for patients with actionable mutations. Further studies are needed to evaluate if this approach leads to improved clinical outcomes.

Do Correlates of Pain-Related Stoicism and Cautiousness Differ in Younger and Older People With Advanced Cancer?

Age differences are not evident in pain-related stoicism and cautiousness in people with cancer pain. Little is known about the factors associated with these pain-related attitudes or age-related patterns in these associations. The present cross-sectional study investigated the biopsychosocial correlates of the attitudes in younger and older patients with advanced cancer. Pain-related stoicism (fortitude, concealment, superiority) and cautiousness (self-doubt, reluctance) were assessed using the Pain Attitudes Questionnaire-Revised (PAQ-R). Participants, 155 younger (younger than 60 years old) and 114 older (60 years old or older) patients with advanced cancer completed the PAQ-R and measures of sociodemographic and medical characteristics, pain intensity, cognitive-affective pain-related responses, physical functioning, psychological distress and well-being, and psychosocial functioning. Backwards regression analyses identified correlates for each PAQ-R factor separately for younger and older patients. Activity engagement was a frequent correlate, but its relationship with concealment was the only association common to both age groups. Younger and older patients exhibited different avoidance-related constructs suggesting relational challenges in the former group (avoidant attachment) and intrapersonal fear in the latter (cognitive avoidance). Medical correlates also showed age differences: younger patients showed symptom-focused correlates, whereas older patients showed aging-related correlates. Findings support a biopsychosocial framework of cancer-pain adaptation incorporating a lifespan-developmental perspective. PERSPECTIVE: To our knowledge, this article is the first to identify biopsychosocial correlates of stoic and cautious attitudes toward cancer pain in younger and older patients with advanced cancer. Findings highlight possible age-related motivations for greater pain-related stoicism or cautiousness and can potentially inform interventions addressing challenges in cancer-pain adaptation in advanced cancer.

Age-Related Patterns in Cancer Pain and Its Psychosocial Impact: Investigating the Role of Variability in Physical and Mental Health Quality of Life.

Objective: Age-related patterns in cancer pain remain equivocal. Most studies ignore heterogeneity across multiple domains of well-being, and the potential role of physical (PH) and mental health (MH) quality of life (QOL) in these age-related patterns is unknown. We investigated the relationships between age and cancer pain intensity, qualities, and interference, and physical and psychosocial adaptation and the interaction between age and PH and MH QOL on pain and adaptation to cancer pain. Design: In this cross-sectional study, 244 patients with advanced cancer and pain completed measures of pain, QOL, physical function, and psychosocial well-being. Pearson's correlations and ANOVAs assessed relationships between age and demographic and clinical factors, pain, and physical and psychosocial measures. Regression models tested the role of age and its interaction with PH and MH QOL on pain and physical and psychosocial adaptation. Results: Older age was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription, greater likelihood of having comorbidities, and worse functional status. When we did not account for these factors, age was not associated with pain and most adaptation indices. When we did account for these factors and PH QOL, older age was associated with lower non-neuropathic and neuropathic pain and several indices of psychosocial adaptation. Most interestingly, older age was associated with lower non-neuropathic pain among those with high, but not low, MH QOL. Conclusions: This study addresses knowledge gaps about factors underlying age-related patterns in cancer pain. Impaired MH QOL may be a proxy for age-related patterns in cancer pain. Summary: This study investigated age-related patterns in the experience of cancer pain and the role of quality of life in resilience and vulnerability to pain and adaptation to pain. Older age is associated with lower non-neuropathic pain among those with high, but not low, mental health quality of life, suggesting that impaired mental health quality of life is an important indicator of vulnerability to multidimensional pain outcomes.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Pain Attitudes Questionnaire-Revised for People With Advanced Cancer.

Pain-related stoicism and cautiousness are theorized to be more prevalent in older than younger patients and to lead to greater pain under-reporting and consequently inadequate pain management in older patients. The Pain Attitudes Questionnaire-Revised (PAQ-R), which measures 5 pain-related stoicism (fortitude, concealment, superiority) and cautiousness (self-doubt, reluctance) factors in chronic pain, can help test this hypothesis in advanced cancer but requires validation. We conducted a psychometric evaluation of the PAQ-R in 155 younger (younger than 60 years) and 114 older (aged 60 years and older) patients with advanced cancer. Participants showed disagreement with self-doubt items and floor effects with the subscale. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed good fit of the PAQ-R's 5 factors to younger and older groups' data but collinearity between fortitude and concealment. Multisample confirmatory factor analyses supported partial scalar invariance between age groups. Few hypothesized age-related differences were observed. Younger patients reported higher superiority scores than older patients. Whereas older patients showed greater fortitude and superiority with lower average pain intensity, younger patients showed greater concealment or fortitude with greater worst and average pain intensity. Furthermore, whereas older patients displayed greater superiority with lower interference in relations with others, younger patients displayed greater concealment and superiority with greater interference in walking ability and greater concealment and self-doubt with more interference in relations with others. Cross-validation of the PAQ-R's factor structure and identification of pathways to the factors and effect on pain-related outcomes using multivariate approaches are warranted. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the psychometric properties of a measure of 2 particular pain-related attitudes. The measure can help clarify whether these attitudes adversely influence pain reporting in older patients with advanced cancer as hypothesized and, in turn, explain the inadequate pain management frequently reported with this clinical group.

The positive effect of a dedicated adolescent and young adult fertility program on the rates of documentation of therapy-associated infertility risk and fertility preservation options.

PURPOSE: Minimal data exist regarding documentation of therapy-associated infertility risk (IR) and fertility preservation (FP) options during the initial oncology consultation prior to systemic therapy. This study investigated factors affecting IR/FP documentation and assessed the effect of implementation of an Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) program on documentation rates. METHODS: A retrospective review of charts of patients receiving gonadotoxic therapy was undertaken for documentation of IR/FP pre- and post-implementation of an AYA program. Change in documentation rates was assessed using univariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 173 charts were reviewed. On univariate analysis, IR/FP documentation was less likely if patients had metastatic disease (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), by tumor type (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), received less intensive chemotherapy (P = 0.03, P = 0.06), were older (P = 0.14, P < 0.01), had more children (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), or lacked AYA program involvement (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). FP discussion was more common in males (P = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, more children (P = 0.01, P = 0.03), older age (P < 0.01, P < 0.01), tumor type (P < 0.01, P = 0.01), stage (P = 0.02, NS), relationship (P = 0.03, NS), and lack of AYA involvement (P < 0.01, P < 0.01) were associated with lower rates of IR/FP documentation. Following AYA program implementation, IR/FP rates increased from 56% (CI 46-65%) to 85% (CI 74-92%, P < 0.01) and 54% (CI 45-64%) to 86% (CI 75-93%, P < 0.01), respectively. The effect of AYA program implementation on IR/FP documentation was most noticeable in leukemia, lymphoma, and breast groups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an AYA consultation service at an adult cancer institution had a positive effect on the rates of IR/FP documentation. Specific programming can improve service delivery to AYA cancer patients, and fertility counseling should be integrated for patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This review summarizes the recommendations for the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) which includes cisplatin, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, cyclophosphamide >1500 mg/m2, carmustine, dacarbazine, and the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) administered to women with breast cancer, as agreed at the MASCC/ESMO Antiemetic Guidelines Update meeting in Copenhagen in June 2015. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Database from 2009 to June 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The NK1-receptor antagonists netupitant (300 mg given in combination with palonosetron 0.5 mg as NEPA) and rolapitant have both completed phase II and III programs and were approved by FDA (both) and EMA (NEPA) in 2014-2015. Addition of one of these agents (or of (fos)aprepitant) to a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone improved the number of patients with a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) days 1-5 after AC HEC with 8-9 % and after non-AC HEC by 8-20 %. Olanzapine has improved control of delayed nausea as compared to aprepitant in a randomized open designed study. In the prophylaxis of delayed nausea and vomiting, metoclopramide is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy and dexamethasone is an option instead of aprepitant in patients receiving AC chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Two new NK1-receptor antagonists (netupitant and rolapitant) have been included in the updated recommendations as additional options to aprepitant or fosaprepitant. Addition of one of these NK1-receptor antagonists to a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended in both non-AC HEC and AC HEC. Olanzapine is included as an option in HEC in particular if nausea is the main symptom.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Emetic risk classification and evaluation of the emetogenicity of antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Employing the same framework as in previous guideline updates, antineoplastic agents were classified into four emetic risk categories. The classification of the emetogenic level of new antineoplastic agents, especially for the oral drugs, represents an increasing challenge. Accurate reporting of emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents in the absence of preventive antiemetic treatment is rarely available. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for drugs approved after 2009 until June 2015 using EMBASE and PubMed. The search term was "drug name." The restrictions were language (English records only), date (2009 to 2015), and level of evidence ("clinical trial"). RESULTS: From January 2009 to June 2015, 42 new antineoplastic agents were identified and a systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies to help define emetic risk levels. The reported incidence of vomiting varied across studies for many agents, but there was adequate evidence to allow 41 of the 42 new antineoplastic agents to be classified according to emetogenic risk. No highly emetogenic agents were identified. Seven moderately emetogenic agents, 26 low emetogenic, agents and eight minimal emetogenic agents were identified and classified accordingly. The MASCC/ESMO update committee also recommended reclassification of the combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) as highly emetogenic. CONCLUSION: Despite several limitations, we have attempted to provide a reasonable approximation of the emetic risk associated with new antineoplastic agents through a comprehensive search of the available literature. Hopefully by the next update, more precise information on emetic risk will have been collected during new agent development process.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out. METHODS: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted. RESULTS: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included. CONCLUSIONS: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across different categories of chemotherapeutic emetogenicity. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and OVID databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized, controlled trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy end points were no emesis, no nausea, and complete response (CR) rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (N = 11,814) were identified. Based on absolute differences (AD) for no emesis (21 %), no nausea (8 %), CR (16 %), and odd ratios (OR) of 2.62, 1.43, and 2.16, respectively, NK1RA regimens provided better CINV protection versus control groups (all p < 0.00001) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based HEC, respective ADs and ORs were 14, 4, and 11 % and 1.97 (p < 0.0001), 1.17 (p = 0.04), and 1.62 (p < 0.00001). In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (3 trials), no statistically significant benefit of NK1RAs was found; however, positive trends were detected for CR and no emesis. NK1RAs were effective for CINV prevention in a small number of studies using high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning prior to stem cell transplant and cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (MDC). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of NK1RA in preventing vomiting in patients receiving HEC (including AC), with smaller effects on prevention of nausea. Efficacy is also seen with high-dose chemotherapy and cisplatin-based MDC.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with anticancer treatment that can have a significant adverse impact on patient health-related quality of life and that can potentially undermine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Traditional regimens to prevent CINV generally involved a combination of a corticosteroid plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). In the past 10 years, antiemetic treatment has greatly advanced with the availability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) aprepitant and its prodrug fosaprepitant. NK1 RAs have a different mechanism of action in CINV than corticosteroids and 5HT3 RAs, thus their use can complement traditional antiemetic drugs and can enhance control of CINV. This review examined accumulated data regarding the safety and efficacy of aprepitant and fosaprepitant over the decade since the first regulatory approval. Data from key studies of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were explored, as were recommendations in currently available guidelines for their use. In addition, their use as antiemetic therapy in special patient populations was highlighted. Future perspectives on potential uses of aprepitant and fosaprepitant for indications other than CINV are presented.

Randomised, phase II, placebo-controlled, trial of fulvestrant plus vandetanib in postmenopausal women with bone only or bone predominant, hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC): the OCOG ZAMBONEY study.

Biomarkers of bone turnover, including urine N-telopeptide (uNTx), have been used as surrogate measures of response to bone-targeted therapies. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels correlate with extent of bone metastases. We assessed whether vandetanib, an inhibitor of VEGF, epidermal growth factor receptor and RET signalling, improved uNTx response when added to fulvestrant (F) in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Postmenopausal patients with bone predominant, hormone-receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer were randomised to F (500 mg IM days 1, 15, 29, then monthly) with either vandetanib (100 mg PO OD) (FV) or placebo (FP). The primary objective was uNTx response. Secondary objectives included PFS, OS, RECIST response, pain scores and toxicity. Sixty-one patients were allocated to FV and 68 to FP. Out of 127 analyzable patients, an uNTx response occurred in 66 % for FV and 54 % for FP (p = 0.21). No difference was detected between groups for PFS; HR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.65-1.38) or OS HR = 0.69 (95 % CI 0.37-1.31). For the 62 patients with measurable disease, clinical benefit rates were 41 and 43 %, respectively (p = 0.47). Serious adverse events were similar, 3.3 % for FV versus 5.9 % for FP. Elevated baseline uNTx (>65 nM BCE/mmol Cr) was prognostic for PFS, HR = 1.55 (95 % CI 1.04-2.30) and for OS, HR = 2.32 (95 % CI 1.25-4.33). The addition of vandetanib to fulvestrant did not improve biomarker response, PFS or OS in patients with bone metastases. Baseline bone turnover was prognostic for PFS and OS.

Validation of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire-2 in younger and older people with cancer pain.

UNLABELLED: Pain is among the most common symptoms of cancer. Because cancer can occur at any age, it is imperative that pain assessment tools are valid for use across the adult lifespan. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2) is a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of the multidimensional qualities of pain in people with chronic nonmalignant pain, but its psychometric properties in people with cancer pain and in older versus younger people require investigation. This study evaluated age differences in the validity, reliability, and use of the SF-MPQ-2 in 244 people with advanced cancer and pain. We confirmed the previously reported 4-factor solution in older (≥ 60 years) and younger (<60 years) patients. Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity were similar across age groups, although the SF-MPQ-2 sensory subscales were correlated with mental health quality of life in older, but not younger, patients. Older and younger patients selected the same words with the same intensity to describe their pain. The most commonly selected words in both age groups were aching, tiring-exhausting, sharp, and dull. These results demonstrate that the SF-MPQ-2 is appropriate for use across the adult lifespan in people with cancer pain. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrated that the SF-MPQ-2 is valid for use in older and younger people with advanced cancer and pain. This measure could improve cancer pain assessment across the adult lifespan, which may lead to improved pain management.

Efficacy and safety of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT(3)RA) with a strong binding affinity and long half-life, has been used in numerous trials for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron compared to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or taking no rescue medications. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients suffering from 5-HT(3)RA-related adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were identified with 2,896 patients randomized to palonosetron and 3,187 patients randomized to other 5-HT(3)RAs. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior in CR, CC, no emesis, or no nausea and was sometimes superior in no rescue medication. Subgroup analyses demonstrated similarity in efficacy between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy cohorts. In the acute phase, statistical superiority of palonosetron was found for trials that did not allow dexamethasone; conversely, RCTs that administered dexamethasone to all patients were nonsignificant. Palonosetron was statistically significantly safer in dizziness and mean QTc interval change and similar in constipation, headache, and diarrhea. Clinical superiority of palonosetron was reached in 3 of 19 analyzed efficacy and safety endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron is safer and more efficacious than other 5-HT(3)RAs. Future antiemetic guidelines should discuss the merits of including palonosetron as a first-line treatment.