Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Flot (A Chemotherapy Regimen for Gastric/Esophagogastric Junction Cancer): To Be Treated As a Highly Emetogenic Regimen or a Moderately Emetogenic One? Comparison of the Emetogenic Potential of Flot Versus Folfox and Tac Regimens Publisher Pubmed



Ghorbani M1 ; Dehghani M2 ; Fahimfar N3 ; Namazi S4 ; Dehshahri A1
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  2. 2. Hematology Research Center, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  3. 3. Osteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Research Center for Rational Use of Drugs, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran

Source: Supportive Care in Cancer Published:2022


Abstract

Purpose: The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients. Study: Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant. Results: A total of 165 chemotherapy-naive patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, “complete response” (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning “complete response” achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, “no emesis” in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also “complete protection” in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group. Conclusion: According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2–4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.