| Dosage | EP | Fosaprepitant group | Control group | p-value |
| | | N = 112 courses | N = 116 courses |
| | | n (%) | n (%) |
Agent |
Carboplatin | | 4 | 8 (7.1) | 8 (6.9) | > 0.9999 |
Cisplatin | | 4 | 5 (4.5) | 8 (6.9) | 0.5704 |
Clofarabine | | 3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | > 0.9999 |
Cyclophosphamide | ≥1 g/m2 | 4 | 2 (1.8) | 2 (1.7) | > 0.9999 |
Cyclophosphamide | < 1 g/m2 | 3 | 19 (17.0) | 18 (15.5) | 0.9072 |
Cytarabine | > 200 mg/m2 to < 3 g/ m2 | 3 | 16 (14.3) | 11 (9.5) | 0.3591 |
Dacarbazine | | 4 | 3 (2.7) | 2 (1.7) | 0.6793 |
Dactinomycin | | 4 | 9 (8.0) | 7 (6.0) | 0.6112 |
Daunorubicin | | 3 | 4 (3.6) | 10 (8.6) | 0.1669 |
Doxorubicin | | 3 | 16 (14.3) | 10 (8.6) | 0.2555 |
Epirubicin | | 3 | 2 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) | 0.2402 |
Etoposide | | 3 | 28 (25.0) | 25 (21.6) | 0.6459 |
Idarubicin | | 3 | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0.4912 |
Ifosfamide | | 3 | 17 (15.2) | 12 (10.3) | 0.3701 |
Irinotecan | | 3 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.7) | 0.498 |
Melphalan | > 50 mg/m2 | 3 | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.9) | 1.0000 |
Methotrexate | ≥250 mg to < 12 g/m2 | 3 | 20 (17.9) | 15 (12.9) | 0.3965 |
Temozolomide | | 3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | > 0.9999 |
Thiotepa | ≥300 mg/m2 | 4 | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0.4912 |
EP (CINV risk) |
3 (> 30–90%) | | 84 (75.0) | 89 (76.7) | 0.8812 |
4 (> 90%) | | 28 (25.0) | 27 (23.3) | |
- The table shows the emetogenic potential (EP) of the administered chemotherapeutic agents in the fosaprepitant and the control group. EP was defined by the emetic risk (in % frequency of emesis in absence of prophylaxis): minimal, stage 1 (< 10%) | low, stage 2 (10 - < 30%) | moderate, stage 3 (30–90%) | high, stage 4 (> 90%) [9]
- Abbreviations: CINV chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, EP emetogenic potential, N total number of administered chemotherapy courses, n sample size. The distribution of administered chemotherapeutic agents and the highest emetogenic potential of each chemotherapy course was not significantly different in both cohorts (p > 0.05; Chi-square test with Yate’s correction or Fisher’s exact test)