MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415295431 · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.10.017

Personalised antiemetic prophylaxis with NEPA for patients at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results from the randomised, multinational MyRisk trial

2025· article· en· W4415295431 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Molassiotis, Karin Jordan, M. Karthaus, George Dranitsaris, E.J. Roeland, Lee S. Schwartzberg, V. Stimamiglio, A. Alonzi, Silvia Olivari Tilola, E. Bonizzoni, E Vazquez, Tomáš Büchler, Ying Cheng, Daniel C. Christoph, Pilar Alfonso, Xun‐Xi Lu, M. Majem, D. Mavroudis, K. Syrigos, E. Tomlins, Zhe Zhou, Martina Zimovjanová, Matti Aapro

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsAugmentium Pharma Consulting (Canada)
FundersHelsinn
KeywordsAntiemeticNauseaVomitingRegimenChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are commonly prescribed a 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist (RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) as standard of care (SOC) antiemetic prophylaxis. However, in patients with an elevated risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to individual risk factors, prophylaxis with an NK 1 RA-containing regimen may optimise their antiemetic prevention. To address this unmet need for a more personalised antiemetic strategy, the MyRisk trial incorporated a predictive risk factor algorithm to select patients at increased risk of CINV who may benefit from enhanced antiemetic prophylaxis. Patients and Methods MyRisk was a phase IV, randomised, open-label, multicentre, multinational trial. Adult patients scheduled to receive 3 cycles of MEC with a high-risk CINV score were randomised to NEPA (a fixed combination of an NK 1 RA, netupitant, and 5-HT 3 RA, palonosetron) + DEX or SOC. The CINV risk score was calculated based on an algorithm that considered 7 risk factors. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120h) across 3 consecutive cycles. Results Of 401 randomised patients, 388 were included in the efficacy analysis. The most common cancers were colorectal and lung; oxaliplatin and carboplatin were the most common MEC. Patients randomised to NEPA were significantly more likely to experience a CR compared to SOC (OR=1.67, 95%CI: 1.12 to 2.49; p=0.012). The NEPA group had a significantly higher probability of CR, no nausea, no emesis, and complete protection (81.0%, 63.7%, 95.4%, 71.8%, respectively) compared to the SOC arm (71.8%, 54.9%, 86.7%, 62.4, respectively) across 3 cycles of chemotherapy. Conclusions When individual risk factors are considered prior to MEC, a 3-drug regimen including NEPA provides superior CINV prevention across multiple cycles compared to the standard 2-drug approach. These findings underscore the value of personalised risk-adapted antiemetic strategies and have practice-changing potential for optimizing antiemetic control.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207