Retrospective study compares efficacy of fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant in cancer patients, indicating varying effectiveness based on cancer type.
Background/Aim: Real-world comparative data on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are needed among patients receiving FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX. We aimed to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of fosnetupitant versus that of fosaprepitant in patients treated with FOLFOXIRI/FOLFIRINOX regimens for pancreatic/colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients treated from April 2018 to September 2024. Patients were matched 1:1 between treatment groups via propensity scores based on age, sex, alcohol history, prior treatment, and regimen dose, as appropriate. Antiemetic effectiveness was assessed as no vomiting/no nausea during days 1-7; safety outcomes were also evaluated. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted to validate the robustness of the results. Between-group comparisons were performed using Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and Mann–Whitney U-tests for continuous variables. Results: After matching, 43 patient pairs in the pancreatic cancer cohort and 28 pairs in the colorectal cancer cohort were analyzed; the groups had generally comparable baseline characteristics. In the pancreatic cancer cohort, fosnetupitant was associated with higher no-vomiting rates during the long-delayed phase (100% vs. 81%, p=0.006) and overall period (95% vs. 74%, p=0.014) than fosaprepitant. No significant differences in effectiveness were observed in the colorectal cancer cohort. Injection site reactions were significantly less frequent with fosnetupitant in the colorectal cancer cohort (4% vs. 29%, p=0.025). These findings remained consistent in the IPTW sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: The effectiveness of fosnetupitant may vary according to cancer type, suggesting the need to tailor antiemetic strategies for patients receiving irinotecan–oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maeda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: