Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA Versus Fosaprepitant Plus Palonosetron for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Study

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) with an intravenous regimen of fosaprepitant (FosAPR, 150 mg) plus palonosetron (PALO, 0.25 mg) in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients with stage III–IVa NPC who received cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) from January 2020 to October 2025. Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 214 patients per group. All patients also received olanzapine and dexamethasone. Complete response (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication), nausea control, adverse events, and nutritional status changes were assessed across the acute, delayed, overall, and extended (0–168 h) phases. Results: After PSM, 214 patients were included in each group. During the first IC cycle, the oral NEPA group achieved a higher CR rate in the extended overall phase (0–168 h) than the FosAPR + PALO group (80.0% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.019). A similar difference was seen in the first CCRT cycle (74.8% vs. 64.5%, p = 0.021). The advantage persisted across subsequent cycles, with no between-group difference in the acute phase. Nausea control also favored oral NEPA: rates of no significant nausea (visual analog scale < 25 mm) during the extended overall phase were 77.1% versus 65.9% in the first IC cycle (p= 0.010) and 72.9% versus 60.3% in the first CCRT cycle (p = 0.006). Fewer patients in the NEPA group required rescue antiemetics (14.5% vs. 22.0% in the first IC cycle, p = 0.045), and the median time to first rescue was longer (58.3 vs. 51.3 h, p < 0.001). Adverse event profiles were similar between groups, with constipation being the most common. Nutritional outcomes, including weight loss ≥ 5% and severe malnutrition, did not differ significantly. Conclusions: For patients with LA-NPC receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), oral NEPA appears to offer superior and sustained chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxi with a simplified administration schedule compared with the intravenous FosAPR plus PALO regimen. These findings warrant confirmation in prospective studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancers
Published
2026-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18101533
Primary Topic
Nausea and vomiting management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA Versus Fosaprepitant Plus Palonosetron for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Study

Tongyuan Deng, Donghong Yang, Guihua Yi, Qihang Li et al.
Cancers
Nausea and vomiting management
article

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA Versus Fosaprepitant Plus Palonosetron for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Study

Tongyuan Deng, Donghong Yang, Guihua Yi, Qihang Li, Xiangyong Li, Zeng Y, Yilin Cai, Haiqing Luo
article en

Abstract

Objectives: This study compared the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) with an intravenous regimen of fosaprepitant (FosAPR, 150 mg) plus palonosetron (PALO, 0.25 mg) in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients with stage III–IVa NPC who received cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) from January 2020 to October 2025. Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 214 patients per group. All patients also received olanzapine and dexamethasone. Complete response (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication), nausea control, adverse events, and nutritional status changes were assessed across the acute, delayed, overall, and extended (0–168 h) phases. Results: After PSM, 214 patients were included in each group. During the first IC cycle, the oral NEPA group achieved a higher CR rate in the extended overall phase (0–168 h) than the FosAPR + PALO group (80.0% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.019). A similar difference was seen in the first CCRT cycle (74.8% vs. 64.5%, p = 0.021). The advantage persisted across subsequent cycles, with no between-group difference in the acute phase. Nausea control also favored oral NEPA: rates of no significant nausea (visual analog scale < 25 mm) during the extended overall phase were 77.1% versus 65.9% in the first IC cycle (p= 0.010) and 72.9% versus 60.3% in the first CCRT cycle (p = 0.006). Fewer patients in the NEPA group required rescue antiemetics (14.5% vs. 22.0% in the first IC cycle, p = 0.045), and the median time to first rescue was longer (58.3 vs. 51.3 h, p < 0.001). Adverse event profiles were similar between groups, with constipation being the most common. Nutritional outcomes, including weight loss ≥ 5% and severe malnutrition, did not differ significantly. Conclusions: For patients with LA-NPC receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), oral NEPA appears to offer superior and sustained chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxi with a simplified administration schedule compared with the intravenous FosAPR plus PALO regimen. These findings warrant confirmation in prospective studies.

CancersVol. 18(10)
Guangdong Medical College (CN), Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical College Hospital (CN)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Nausea and vomiting management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.