American Journal of Cancer

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 15–26 | Cite as

Treatment Options for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Current and Future
  • Jens M. Stieler
  • Peter Reichardt
  • Hanno Riess
  • Helmut Oettle
Review Article


Nausea and emesis are among the most important adverse effects of cytostatic therapy. They can be distinguished between anticipatory, acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The different mechanisms of action of the current antiemetic drugs, serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, dopamine antagonists and corticosteroids are reviewed and their efficacy is discussed. The potential benefits of the new antiemetic neurokinin receptor (NK1) antagonists as well as other possible ways to influence emesis and to combine antiemetic drugs are explained. The best control of anticipatory emesis is achieved by adequate control of acute and delayed emesis and nausea from the very start of chemotherapy. At present, the most effective regimen for control of acute emesis is administration of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid and an NK1 antagonist on day 1. The control of delayed nausea and emesis consists of good control of acute emesis, application of an NK1 antagonist on day 1, possibly supplemented with metoclopramide combined with a corticosteroid on the subsequent days.


Ondansetron Metoclopramide Cisapride Granisetron Tropisetron 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Griffin AM, Butow PN, Coates AS, et al. On the receiving end V: patients’ perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy in 1993. Ann Oncol 1996; 7: 189–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uyl-de Groot CA, Wait S, Buijt I. Economics and health-related quality of life in antiemetic therapy: recommendations for trial design. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36: 1522–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cubbedu LU. Serotonin mechanism in chemotherapy induced emesis in cancer patients. Oncology 1996; 53Suppl. 1: 18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bountra C, Gale JD, Gardner CJ, et al. Towards understanding the aetiology and pathophysiology of the emetic reflex: novel approaches to antiemetic drugs. Oncology 1996; 53Suppl. 1: 102–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leslie RA. Comparative aspects of the area postrema: fine structural considerations help to determine its function. Cell Mol Neurobiol 1986; 6: 95–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kilkpatrick GJ, Jones BJ, Tyers MB. Binding of the 5-HT3 ligand (3H)GR65630 to rat area postrema, vagus nerve and the brain of several species. Eur J Pharmacol 1989; 159: 157–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carpenter DO, Briggs DB, Knox AP, et al. Excitation of area postrema neurons by transmitters, peptides and cyclic nucleotides. J Neurophysiol 1988; 59(2): 358–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackshaw LA, Grundy D, Scratcherd T. Vagal afferent discharge from gastric mechanoreceptors during contraction and relaxation of the ferret corpus. J Auton Nerv Syst 1987; 18: 19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jean A, Tell F. Cellular bases for a multifunctional role of nucleus tractus solitarii neurons. In: Bianchi AL, Grelot L, Miller AD, et al., editors. Mechanisms and control of emesis. London: Colloque INSERM/John Libbey Eurotext Ltd, 1992: 85–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davison JS. Activation of vagal gastric mechanoreceptors by cholecystokinin. Proc West Pharmacol Soc 1986; 29: 363–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gershon MD, Takaki M, Tamir H, et al. The enteric neural receptor for 5-hydroxy-tryptamine. Experientia 1985; 41: 863–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borison HL, Wang SC. Physiology and pharmacology of vomiting. Pharmacol Rev 1953; 5: 193–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenberg B. Fundamental studies with cisplatin. Cancer 1985; 55: 2303–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allan SG, Smyth JF. Small intestine mucosal toxicity of cisplatin: comparison of toxicity with platinum analogues and dexamethasone. Br J Cancer 1987; 53: 355–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    du Bois A, Meerpohl HG, Siebert C, et al. Excretion patterns of 5-HIAA under platinum-based chemotherapy: the role of 5-HT in drug induced emesis [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1992; 381: 11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kellum JM, Albuquerque FC, Stoner MC, et al. Stroking human jejunal mucosa induces 5-HT release and Cl secretion via afferent neurons and 5-HT4 receptors. Am J Physiol 1999; 277 (3 Pt 1): G515–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lang IM. Noxious stimulation of emesis. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44(8 Suppl.): 58S–63SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fetting JH, Grochow LB, Folstein MF, et al. The course of nausea and vomiting after high-dose cyclophosphamide. Cancer Treat Rep 1982; 66: 1487–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cubbedu LX, Hoffmann IS, Fuenmayor NT, et al. Changes in serotonin metabolism in cancer patients: its relationship to nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapeutic drugs. Br J Cancer 1992; (66): 198–203Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hesketh PJ. Defining the emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy regimens: relevance to clinical practice. Oncologist 1999; 4: 191–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Grunberg SM, et al. Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 103–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gralla RJ, Osoba D, Kris MG, et al. Recommendations for the use of antiemetics: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(9): 2971–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Doherty KM. Closing the gap in prophylactic antiemetic therapy: patient factors in calculating the emetogenic potential of chemotherapy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 1999 Jul; 3(3): 113–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sullivan JR, Leyden MJ, Bell R. Decreased cisplatin induced nausea and vomiting with chronic alcohol ingestion [letter]. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koo WH, Ang PT. Role of maintenance of oral dexamethasone in prophylaxis of delayed emesis caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 1996; 7(1): 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ossi M, Anderson E, Freeman A. 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. Oncology 1996; 53Suppl. 1: 78–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roila F, Donati D, Tamberi S, et al. Delayed emesis: incidence, pattern, prognostic factors and optimal treatment. Support Care Cancer 2002; 10(2): 88–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morrow GR, Lindke J, Black PM. Anticipatory nausea development in cancer patients: replication and extension of a learning model. Br J Psychol 1991; 82 (Pt 1): 61–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morrow GR. Chemotherapy related nausea and vomiting: etiology and management. CA Cancer J Clin 1989; 39: 89–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yoshikawa T, Yoshida N, Hosoki K. Involvement of dopamine D3 receptors in the area postrema in R (+)-7-OH-DPAT-induced emesis in the ferret. Eur J Pharmacol 1996; 301: 143–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshikawa T, Yoshida N, Oka M. The broad-spectrum anti-emetic activity of AS-8112, a novel dopamine D2, D3 and 5-HT3 receptors antagonist. Br J Pharmacol 2001; 133(2): 153–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pero RW, Olsson A, Simanaitis M, et al. Pharmocokinetics, toxicity, side effects, receptor affinities and in vitro radiosensitizing effects of the novel metoclopramide formulations, sensamide and neu-sensamide. Pharmacol Toxicol 1997; 80(5): 231–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fozard JR, Mobarok Ali ATM. Blockade of neuronal tryptamine receptors by metoclopramide. Eur J Pharmacol 1978; 49: 109–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Tyson L, et al. Improved control of cisplatin induced emesis with high-dose metoclopramide and with combinations of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and diphenhydramine: results of consecutive trials in 255 patients. Cancer 1985; 55: 527–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hays H. Antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide. N Engl J Med 1986; 306: 485–6Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kris MG, Tyson LB, Gralla RJ, et al. Extrapyramidal reactions with high-dose metoclopramide [letter]. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 433–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Allen JC, Gralla R, Reilly L, et al. Metoclopramide: dose-related toxicity and preliminary antiemetic studies in children receiving cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3: 1136–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gebbia V, Testa A, Cannata G, et al. Treatment of cisplatin-related nausea and vomiting with a combination of ondansetron and metoclopramide: a pilot study. Anticancer Drugs 1996; 7(7): 734–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Megens AA, Awouters FH, Niemegeers CJ. General pharmacology of the four gastrointestinal motility stimulants bethanechol, metoclopramide, trimebutine and cisapride. Arzneimittel Forschung 1991; 41(6): 631–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clarke DE, Craig DA, Fozard JR. The 5-HT4 receptor: naughty, but nice. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1989; 10: 385–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Saller R, Hellenbrecht D. High doses of metoclopramide or droperidol in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1986; 22: 1199–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Valenzuela JE, Dooley CP. Dopamine antagonists in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Scand J Gastroenterol 1984; 19Suppl. 96: 127–36Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bennett JR, Stanciu C. The effect of metoclopramide on gastrointestinal reflux. Postgrad Med J 1973; 49Suppl. 4: 65–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hardy J, Daly S, McQuade B, et al. A double-blind, randomised, parallel group, multinational, multicenter study comparing a single dose of ondansetron 24 mg p.o. with placebo and metoclopramide 10mg t.d.s. p.o. in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2002; 10: 231–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seng KT, Tiong CE, Hiang TC. Anti-emetic effect of high-dose metoclopramide vs alizapride: a randomized crossover study. Br J Pharmacol 1994; 38(3): 282–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Munstedt K, Wunderlich I, Blauth-Eckmeyer E, et al. Does dexamethasone enhance the efficacy of alizapride in cis-platinuminduced delayed vomiting and nausea? Oncol 1998; 55(4): 293–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Tyson LB, et al. Controlling delayed vomiting: double-blind, randomized trial comparing placebo, dexamethasone alone, and metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in patients receiving cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7(1): 108–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gralla RJ, Itri LM, Pisko SE, et al. Antiemetic efficacy of high-dose metoclopramide: randomized trials with placebo and prochlorphenazine in patients with chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 905–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Grunberg SM, Gala KV, Lampenfeld M, et al. Comparison of the the antiemetic effect of high-dose intravenous metoclopramide and high-dose intravenous haloperidol in a randomized double-blind crossover study. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 782–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Carr BI, Blayney DW, Goldberg DA, et al. High doses of prochlorperazine for cisplatin-induced emesis: aprospective, randomized dose-response study. Cancer 1987; 60: 2165–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brogden RN, Carmine AA, Heel RC, et al. Domperidone: a review. Drugs 1982; 24(5): 360–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Joss RA, Goldhirsch A, Brunner KW, et al. Sudden death in cancer patient on high-dose domperidone [letter]. Lancet 1982; I: 1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wood CD, Kennedy RE, Graybiel A, et al. Clinical effectiveness of anti-motion sickness drugs. JAMA 1966; 198: 1155–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ladabaum U, Hasler WL. Novel approaches in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Dig Dis 1999; 17: 125–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Clark RA, et al. Antiemetic control and prevention of side effects of anti-cancer therapy with lorazepam or diphenhydramine when used in combination with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone: a double-blind, randomised trial. Cancer 1987; 60: 2816–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Uphouse L. Multiple serotonine receptors: too many, not enough or just the right number? Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1997; 21(5): 679–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hesketh PJ. Comparative review of 5-HT3 antagonists in the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting [review]. Cancer Invest 2000; 18(2): 163–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Walton SM. Advances in the use of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2000 Jan; 1(2): 207–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fox-Geiman MP, Fisher SG, Kiley K, et al. Double-blind comparative trial of oral ondansetron versus oral granisetron versus IV granisetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic preparative regimens prior to stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2001; 7(11): 596–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    De Wit R, de Boer AC, vd Linden GH, et al. Effective cross-over to granisetron after failure to ondansetron, a randomised double-blind study in patients failing ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the first 24 hours following high emetogenic chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2001; 85(8): 1099–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tsukada H, Hiruse T, Yokoyama A, et al. Randomised comparison of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with dexamethasone alone for the control of delayed cisplatin-induced emesis. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37(18): 2398–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    McCallum RW. Cisapride: a new class of prokinetic agent. Am J Gastroenterol 1991; 86: 135–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fukui H, Yamamoto M, Sasaki S, et al. Possible involvement of peripheral 5-HT4 receptors in copper-sulfate—induced vomiting in dogs. Eur J Pharmacol 1994; 257: 47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bhandari P, Andrews PL. Preliminary evidence for the involvement of the putative 5-HT4 receptor in zacopride- and copper sulphate-induced vomiting in the ferret. Eur J Pharmacol 1991; 204: 273–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hasler WL. Serotonin receptor physiology: relation to emesis. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44(8 Suppl.): 108–13Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Minami M, Endo T, Tamakai H, et al. Antiemetic effects of N-3389, a newly synthesized 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptor antagonist, in ferrets. Eur J Pharmacol 1997; 321(3): 333–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yamakuni H, Sawai H, Maeda Y, et al. Probable involvement of the 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (4) receptor in methotrexate-induced delayed emesis in dogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2000; 292(3): 1002–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maisano R, Spadaro P, Toscano G, et al. Cisapride and dexamathasone in the prevention of delayed emesis after cisplatin administration. Support Care Cancer 2001; 9(1): 61–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pizzo BA, Pisters KM, Miller VA, et al. Oral cisapride for the control of delayed vomiting following high-dose cisplatin. Support Care Cancer 1999; 7(1): 44–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gregory RE, Ettinger DS. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: a comparison of their pharmacology and clinical efficacy. Drugs 1998; 55(2): 173–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Horikoshi K, Yokoyama T, Kishibayashi N, et al. Possible involvement of 5-HT4 receptors, in addition to 5-HAT-3 receptors, in the emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin in suncus murinus. Jpn J Pharmacol 2001; 85(1): 70–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Okada F, Torii Y, Saito H, et al. Antiemetic effects of serotonergic 5-HT1A receptor agonists in Suncus murinus. Jpn J Pharmacol 1994; 64: 109–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wolff MC, Leander JD. Effects of a 5-HT1A receptor agonist on acute and delayed cyclophosphamide-induced vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol 1997; 340(2–3): 217–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Okada F, Saito H, Matsuki N. Blockage of motion-sickness and cisplatinum-induced emesis by a 5-HT2 receptor agonist in suncus murinus. Br J Pharmacol 1995; 114: 931–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sam TS, Chan SW, Rudd JA, et al. Action of glucocorticoids to antagonise cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis in the ferret. Eur J Pahrmacol 2001; 417(3): 231–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ioannidis JP, Hesketh PJ, Lau J. Contribution of dexamethasone to control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized evidence. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(19): 3409–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Koo WH, Ang PT. Randomized controlled study to evaluate the role of oral dexamethasone in preventing of chemotherapy-induced delayed emesis [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995; 14: 531Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ohmatsu H, Eguchi K, Shinkai T, et al. A randomized cross-over study of highdose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving chemotherapy with high-dose cisplatin. Jpn J Cancer Res 1994; 85: 1151–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Roila F, De Angelis V, Contu A, et al. Ondansetron (OND) vs metoclopramide (MTC) both combined with dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of cisplatin (CDDP)-induced delayed emesis [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996; 15: 528Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Roila F, Ballatori E, de Angelis V, et al. Double-blind, dose-finding study of four intravenous doses of dexamethasone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16(9): 2937–42Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee B. Methylprednisolone as an antiemetic. N Engl J Med 1981; 304: 486–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jez E, Sulkes A, Ochayen L, et al. Methylprednisolone versus metoclopramide as an antiemetic treatment in patients receiving adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methothrexate, 5 fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy: a randomised crossover blind study. J Chemother 1989; 1: 365–8Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Peterson C, Hursti TJ, Borjeson S, et al. Single high-dose dexamethasone improves the effect of ondansetron on acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but impairs control of delayed symptoms. Support Care Cancer 1996; 4(6): 440–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schmidt PT, Holst JJ. Tachykinins in the regulation of gastric motility and secretion. Cell Mol Life Sci 2000; 57: 579–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rudd JA, Ngan MP, Wai MK. Inhibition of emesis by tacykin in NK1 receptor antagonists act in suncus murinus (house musk shrew). Eur J Pharmacol 1999; 366: 243–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ariumi H, Saito R, Nago S, et al. The role of tachykinin NK-1 receptors in the area postrema of ferrets in emesis. Neurosci Lett 2000; 286: 123–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Tattersall FD, Rycoft W, Francis B, et al. Tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists act centrally to inhibit emesis induced by the chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin in ferrets. Neuropharmacology 1996; 35: 1121–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Dixon MK, Nathan NA, Hornby PJ. Immunohistochemical distribution of neurokinin 1 receptor in rat dorsal vagal complex. Peptides 1998; 19: 913–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Krowicki ZK, Hornby PJ. Substance P in the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus evokes gastric motor inhibition via neurokinin 1 receptor in rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2000; 293: 214–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hornby PJ. Central neurocircuitry associated with emesis. Am J Med 2001; 111: 106–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Stout SC, Owens MJ, Nemeroff CB. Neurokinin(l) receptor antagonists as potential antidepressants. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001; 41: 877–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Maubach KA, Martin K, Chicchi G, et al. Chronic substance P (NK (1)) receptor antagonist and conventional antidepressant treatment increases burst firing of monoamine neurones in the locus coeruleus. Neurosci 2002; 109(3): 609–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bensaid M, Faucheux BA, Hirsch E, et al. Expression of tachykinin NK2 receptor RNA in human brain. Neurosci Lett 2001; 303: 25–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Mileusnic D, Lee JM, Magnuson DJ, et al. Neurokinin-3 receptor distribution in rat and human brain: an immunhistological study. Neuroscience 1999; 89(4): 1269–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lördal M, Navalesi G, Theodorsson E, et al. A novel tachykinin NK2 receptor antagonist prevents motility-stimulating effects of neurokin A in small intestine. Br J Pharmacol 2001; 134: 215–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lördal M, Theodorsson E, Hellstrom PM. Tachykinins influence interdigestive rhythm and contractile strength of human intestine. Dig Dis Sci 1997; 42(9): 1940–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Horgan KJ, Eldridge KN, Carides A, et al. Differential time course of cisplatin induced emesis with a 5-HT3 antagonist or an NK1 antagonist: rationale for combination therapy [abstract 1528]. 37th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2001 May 12–15; San Francisco.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Campos D, Pereira JR, Reinhardt R, et al. Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis by the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist mk869, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone or with dexamethasone alone. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1759–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cocquyt V, van Belle S, Reinhardt RR, et al. Comparison of L-758,298, aprodrug for the selective neurokinin-1 antagonist, L-754,030, with ondansetron for the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37: 835–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Hesketh PJ, Gralla RJ, Webb RT, et al. Randomised phase II study of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist CJ-11,974 in the control of cisplatin-induced emesis. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(1): 338–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Navari RM, Reinhardt RR, Gralla RJ, et al. Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective Neurokinin-1-Receptor antagonist. N Engl J Med 1999; 340(3): 190–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Reid K, Palmer JL, Wright RL, et al. Comparison of the neurokinin-1 antagonist GR205171, alone and in combination with the 5-HT3 antagonist ondansetron, hyoscine and placebo in the prevention of motion-induced nausea in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50(1): 61–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Einhorn L. Nabilone: an effective antiemetic agent in patients receiving chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev 1982; 9: 55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Herman TS, Einhorn LH, Jones SE, et al. Superiority of nabilone over prochlor-perazine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 1979; 300: 1295–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Gralla RJ, Tyson LB, Bordin LA, et al. Antiemetic therapy: a review of recent studies and a report of a random assignment trial comparing metoclopramide with delta-9-terahydrocannabinol. Cancer Treat Rep 1984; 68: 163–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Piomelli D, Giuffrida A, Calignano A, et al. The endocannabinoid system as a target for therapeutic drugs. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2000; 21: 218–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ameri A. The effects of cannabinoids on the brain. Prog Neurobiol 1999; 58(4): 315–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tramer MR, Carroll D, Campbell FA, et al. Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review. BMJ 2001; 323: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Kluin-Neleman JC, Neleman FA, Meuwissen OJ, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an antiemetic in patients treated with cancer chemotherapy: a double-blind cross-over trial against placebo. Vet Hum Toxicol 1979; 21: 338–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Voth EA, Schwartz RH. Medical applications of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and marijuana. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 791–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Harousseau JL, Zittoun R, Bonneterre J, et al. Improvement in the control of chemotherapy induced emesis with ondanstron, methylprednisolone and lorazepam combination in patients treated by a moderate emetic treatment and uncontrolled by a previous antiemetic combination [in French]. Bull Cancer 2000 Jun; 87(6): 491–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Malik IA, Khan WA, Qazilbash M, et al. Clinical efficacy of lorazepam in prophylaxis of anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting induced by high doses of cisplatin: a prospective randomized trial. Am J Clin Oncol 1995; 18(2): 170–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Buzdar AU, Esparza L, Natale R, et al. Lorazepam-enhancement of the antiemetic efficacy of dexamethasone and promethazine: a placebo-controlled study. Am J Clin Oncol 1994; 17(5): 417–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Ahn MJ, Lee JS, Lee KH, et al. A randomized double-blind trial of ondansetron alone versus in combination with dexamethasone versus in combination with dexamethasone and lorazepam in the prevention of emesis due to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 1994; 17(2): 150–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Tonini M, Candura SM, Messori E, et al. Therapeutic potential of drugs with mixed 5-HT4 agonist/5-HT3 antagonist action in the control of emesis. Pharmacol Res 1995; 31(5): 257–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Latreille J, Stewart D, Laberge F, et al. Dexamethasone improves the efficacy of granisetron in the first 24 hrs following high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. Support Care Cancer 1995; 3(5): 307–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Heron JF, Goedhals L, Jordaan JP, et al. Oral granisetron alone and in combination with dexamethasone: a double-blind randomised comparison against high-dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group. Ann Oncol 1994; 5(7): 579–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Roila F, Tonato M, Cognetti F, et al. Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis: a double-blind multicenter randomised crossover study comparing ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9(4): 675–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Drechsler S, Bruntsch U, Eggert J, et al. Comparison of three tropisetron-containing antiemetic regimens in the prophylaxis of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced emesis and nausea. Support Care Cancer 1997; 5(5): 387–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kris MG, Baltzer L, Pisters KM, et al. Enhancing the effectiveness of the specific serotonin antagonists: combination antiemetic therapy with dexamethasone. Cancer 1993; 72(11 Suppl.): 3436–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Eberhard LH, Morin AM, Bothner U, et al. Droperidol and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, alone or in combination, for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44(10): 1252–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Hesketh PJ, Gandara DR, Hesketh AM, et al. Improved control of high-dose cisplatin-induced acute emesis with the addition of prochlorperazine to granisetron/dexamethasone. Cancer J Sci Am 1997; 3(3): 180–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Diaz-Rubio E, Martin M, Rosell R, et al. The antiemetic effect of thiethylperazine and methylprednisolone versus triethylperazine and placebo in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide): a randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial. Acta Oncol 1991; 30(3): 339–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Grunberg SM, Akerley WL, Krailo MD, et al. Comparison of metoclopramide and metoclopramide plus dexamethasone for complete protection from cisplatinum-induced emesis. Cancer Invest 1986; 4(5): 379–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Stephens SH, Silvey VL, Wheeler RH. A randomised, double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effect of metoclopramide and lorazepam with or without dexamethasone in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Cancer 1995; 66(3): 443–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Mori K, Saito Y, Tominaga K. Antiemetic efficacy of alprazolam in the combination of metoclopramide plus methylprednisolone: double-blind randomised crossover study in patients with cisplatin-induced emesis. Am J Clin Oncol 1993; 16(4): 338–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Morrow GR, Rosenthal SN. Models, mechanisms and management of anticipatory nausea and emesis. Oncology 1996; 53Suppl. 1: 4–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Redd WH, Montgomery GH, DuHamel KN. Behavioral intervention for cancer treatment side effects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93(11): 810–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Jantunen IT, Kataja VV, Muhonen TT. An overview of randomised studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists to conventional anti-emetics in the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33(1): 66–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Hainsworth JD. The use of ondansetron in patients receiving multiple day cisplatin regimens. Semin Oncol 1992; 19: 48–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    The Italian Group for Antiemetic Research. Ondansetron versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, in the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(1): 124–30Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Jones AL, Lee GJ, Bosanquet N. The budgetary impact of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Eur J Cancer 1992; 29A(1): 51–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Roila F, Borschetti E, Tonato M. Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone: a randomised single-blind study. Am J Clin Oncol 1991; 14: 238–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Hesketh PJ, Carides A, Horgan KJ. Differential time course of cisplatin induced emesis with a 5HT3 antagonist or an NK1 antagonist: rationale for combination therapy [abstract 1476]. 38th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2002 May 18–21; Orlando (FL).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens M. Stieler
    • 1
  • Peter Reichardt
    • 1
  • Hanno Riess
    • 1
  • Helmut Oettle
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department for Hematology and OncologyCharité Campus Virchow KlinikumBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Medizin Klinik, mit Schwerpunkt Hämatologie/OnkologieCharité Campus Virchow KlinikumBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations