Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

3156 - Ramosetron Versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting


22 Oct 2018


Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care


Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Tumour Site


Jung Hye Kwon


Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii603-viii640. 10.1093/annonc/mdy300


J.H. Kwon1, J. Kang2, Y. Lee3, K.U. Park4, H.J. An5, J. Sohn6, Y.M. Seol7, H. Lee8, H. Yun9, J.S. Ahn10, H.J. Kim11

Author affiliations

  • 1 Division Of Hemato-oncology, Department Of Internal Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital,. Hallym University College of. Medicine, 134-701 - Seoul/KR
  • 2 Oncology, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul ST. Mary’s Hospital, 06591 - Seoul/KR
  • 3 Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul/KR
  • 4 Internal Medicine, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu/KR
  • 5 Department Of Medical Oncology, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Suwon/KR
  • 6 Division Of Medical Oncology, Department Of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul/KR
  • 7 Internal Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan/KR
  • 8 Hematology-oncology, Ajou University Hospital, Ajou UniversitySchool of Medicine, Suwon/KR
  • 9 School Of Medicine Chungnam National University And Chungnam National University Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine, Daejeon/KR
  • 10 Hematology & Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, 06351 - Seoul/KR
  • 11 Clinical Epidemiology And Biostatistics, ASAN Medical Center, Seoul/KR


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 3156


The combination of palonosetron (PAL), aprepitant (APR) and dexamethasone (DEX) is the standard regimen in controlling highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (HEC CINV) in cancer patients. We previously demonstrated that ramosetron (RAM), 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is superior to ondansetron. This prospective, multicenter, single blind, randomized and phase IV study compares RAM, APR and DEX (RAD) with PAL, APR and DEX (PAD) to prove the non-inferiority of RAD in controlling HEC CINV.


Patients were randomly assigned at 1:1 ratio to receive either RAD or PAD regimen: RAM(0.3mg IV) or PAL(0.25mg IV), D1 in combination with APR(125mg PO, D1 and 80mg PO, D2-3) and DEX(12 mg PO or IV, D1 and 8 mg PO, D2-4). They were stratified by gender, chemotherapy (cisplatin vs non-cisplatin) and administration schedule (single vs multi-day). The primary endpoint, overall complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen within 5 days of HEC. The secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP: CR + nausea score<25mm) and total control (TC: CR + nausea score<5mm). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by Functional Living Index–Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.


A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n = 137) or PAD (n = 142) were evaluated for the efficacy and safety. The overall CR rates of RAD vs PAD were 72.3% vs 74.6% (relative difference [RD] -2.4%, 95% CI: -12.8 to 8.0), respectively. The overall CP and TC rates in RAD vs PAD were 52.6% vs 57.0%(RD -4.5%, 95% CI: -16.2 to 7.2) and 45.3% vs 43.0%(RD 2.3%, 95% CI: -9.4 to 14.0%), respectively. FLIE score≥108 (no impact of daily life) was comparable between RAD (n = 134) and PAD (n = 139) (73.9% vs 73.4%, p = 1.00 respectively). Each nausea and vomiting domain (FLIE score≥ 54) was 67.2% vs 64.0 %(p = 0.61) and 91.8% vs 90.6 %(p = 0.83), respectively. The adverse events were similar between the two groups.


In all aspects of the efficacy, safety and QOL, our data suggested RAD was comparable to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Clinical trial identification


Legal entity responsible for the study

Jin-Hyoung Kang, Ph.D, The Catholic University of Korea.


Astellas Pharma Korea. Inc.

Editorial Acknowledgement


J.S. Ahn: Honoraria: Eiasi, Jassen, Menarini, Roche; Advisory role: Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.