Time-Trend Analysis and Risk Factors for Niraparib-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study

Young Wook Jeong; Dongkyu Eugene Kim; Ji Hyun Kim; Se Ik Kim; Hyeong In Ha; Sang-Yoon Park; Myong Cheol Lim

doi:10.4143/crt.2024.899

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Cancer Assoc > Ahead-of print articles > Article

Original Article Time-Trend Analysis and Risk Factors for Niraparib-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study: Young Wook Jeong¹, Dongkyu Eugene Kim^1,2, Ji Hyun Kim¹, Se Ik Kim³, Hyeong In Ha⁴, Sang-Yoon Park¹, Myong Cheol Lim^1,; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.899
Published online: November 4, 2024

¹Center for Gynecologic Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

²Department of Biochemistry, Western University of Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

³Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea

Correspondence: Myong Cheol Lim, Center for Gynecologic Cancer, National Cancer Center; Department of Cancer Control and Population Health, National Cancer Center Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Rare and Pediatric Cancer Branch and Immuno-oncology Branch, Research Institute; Department of Cancer Control and Policy, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea
Tel: 82-31-920-1760 E-mail: mclim@ncc.re.kr

*Young Wook Jeong and Dongkyu Eugene Kim contributed equally to this work.

• Received: September 14, 2024 • Accepted: November 2, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1,350 Views
182 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Nausea and vomiting are major non-hematological adverse events associated with niraparib maintenance therapy. This study aimed to investigate the time-trend patterns of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting (NINV) and the associated risk factors in patients with ovarian cancer.
Materials and Methods
In this prospective study, we enrolled patients with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian cancer who received niraparib as frontline maintenance therapy. The clinicopathological characteristics and time-trend patterns of patients with NINV were collected through in-person surveys and electronic medical records from the National Cancer Center.
Results
Of 53 patients, 50 (94.3%) were diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. BRCA mutations and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) were identified in 23 (43.4%) and 32 (60.4%) patients, respectively. Thirty-one patients (58.5%) had NINV. Time-trend analyses revealed that the first peak intensity of NINV was reached at 3 h post-dose, and the second peak intensity was reached at 11 hour post-dose. NINV significantly decreased from week 1 to weeks 8 and 12. In multivariate analyses of risk factors for NINV, HRD-positive tumors (p < 0.001) and prior experience of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (p=0.004) were associated with the occurrence of NINV.
Conclusion
Pre-emptive treatment with antiemetics is required to manage early-phase NINV during niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with risk factors. Additional larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and to develop optimal preventive strategies for NINV.
Key words: Ovarian neoplasms, Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, Niraparib, Adverse events, Nausea and vomiting, Drug therapy, Quality of life

Introduction

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common and deadliest gynecological cancers worldwide, with 324,398 new cases and 206,839 deaths as of 2022 [1]. In Korea, ovarian cancer accounts for 2.8% and 3.9% of all new cancer diagnoses and cancer-related deaths, respectively, and ranked eighth in both cancer incidence and mortality in 2019 [2]. Due to the absence of disease-specific symptoms and effective screening tools, most patients with ovarian cancer are diagnosed at an advanced stage. The standard treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer is cytoreductive surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy [3,4]. Furthermore, the recent introduction of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors has significantly improved the survival outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer [5-7].

Frontline maintenance therapy with niraparib is recommended for patients with advanced, high-grade serous, or endometrioid ovarian cancer who achieve either a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of their homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status [8]. Niraparib is administered orally once a day, and its peak concentration occurs 4-6 hours after consumption [9]. Niraparib has been reported to significantly increase progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer [10,11]. However, nausea and vomiting are major non-hematological adverse events associated with niraparib maintenance therapy [12,13]. The incidence rates of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting (NINV) have been reported to be 57.4% and 22.3% in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, and 73.6% and 34.3% in those with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer [7,14]. Furthermore, grade 3 or higher NINV was observed in 2.0% of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and 4.9% in those with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, further highlighting the need for effective management strategies.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the time-trend patterns of NINV and its associated risk factors in patients with ovarian cancer who received frontline niraparib maintenance therapy.

Materials and Methods

1. Study design

This study was designed as a single-center prospective study at the National Cancer Center, Korea. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) age > 18 years at the time of diagnosis, (2) underwent cytoreductive surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment and showed a complete or partial response to chemotherapy, (3) had pathologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV epithelial ovarian cancer, and (4) were treated with niraparib as a frontline maintenance therapy initiated between November 2023 and June 2024. Patients with a body weight of < 77 kg or platelet count of < 150×10³/L at baseline received 200 mg niraparib once daily. The remaining patients received niraparib 300 mg. The dates and reasons for dose interruption or reduction were documented. Patients with incomplete medical records, those with incomplete survey responses, or those who withdrew from the survey were excluded from the study.

2. Outcome measures

The time-trend pattern of NINV was investigated during patient visits to the National Cancer Center, Korea, between November 2023 and August 2024. The survey forms are shown in S1 Fig. The survey consisted of a detailed hourly rate of NINV, documenting its severity over 24 hours. The intensity of NINV was based on the nausea and vomiting criteria specified in the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) ver. 5.0 [15,16]. According to CTCAE, grade 1 nausea is defined as “loss of appetite without alteration in eating habits,” grade 2 as “oral intake decreased without significant weight loss, dehydration or malnutrition,” and grade 3 as “inadequate oral caloric or fluid intake.”

Additionally, the intensity scale used in this study ranged from 0 to 10 and was categorized as follows: grade 1 NINV was assigned scores from 0 to 3, grade 2 NINV from 3 to 6, and grade 3 NINV was categorized by scores from 7 to 10, based on a previous study [17]. The survey was conducted four times at 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks after niraparib initiation.

Patient demographic, clinicopathological, and treatment data were retrieved by reviewing electronic medical records. Variables related to niraparib therapy, such as BRCA mutations, HRD status, initiation date of treatment, daily dosage schedules, doses administered, and comprehensive toxicity profiles, were documented. Additional data included records of adverse events and medical interventions employed to reduce hematological and non-hematological toxicities, including the use of antiemetics, dose adjustments, and interruptions.

3. Statistical analysis

Patients were categorized into two groups based on their NINV grades: no NINV (grade 0) and mild-to-severe NINV (grade 1-3). Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test or the chi-squared test and are summarized as the number of events and their respective proportions. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test and are summarized as medians and their respective ranges. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors that potentially affect the frequency and intensity of NINV in patients undergoing niraparib maintenance therapy. Additionally, a two-tailed t test was performed to demonstrate the change in NINV intensity during niraparib maintenance therapy. Statistical analyses were performed using Python ver. 3.11.5. Statistical significance was assessed using a two-tailed t test, with a p-value of < 0.05.

Results

1. Patient characteristics

A total of 53 patients were enrolled in this study (Fig. 1), of whom 31 (58.5%) experienced any-grade NINV. Three patients (5.7%) had grade 3 NINV, which resolved within 8 weeks (S2 Fig.).

The baseline demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1. The median age of the patients was 54 years (range, 34 to 70 years), and 50 patients (94.3%) were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Thirty-one patients (58.5%) had FIGO stage 4 ovarian cancer. Thirty-three patients (62.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Forty patients (75.5%) had no residual tumors. Twenty patients (37.7%) experienced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during previous platinum-based chemotherapy. Thirty-two patients (60.4%) tested positive for HRD.

2. Time-trend analysis

The patient-reported intensity of NINV in patients with grade 1-3 (n=31) is shown in Fig. 2. Patients were orally administered niraparib at various times between 6 PM and 12 AM: 1 patient at 6-8 PM (3.2%), 20 patients at 8-10 PM (64.5%), nine patients at 10 PM-12 AM (29.0%), and one patient at 12-2 AM (3.2%).

Over the treatment course, the intensity of NINV continuously decreased (Fig. 2). When comparing weeks 1 and 12, the intensity of NINV showed a significant decrease at 12 AM (mean difference, 2.129; p=0.022), 6 AM (1.452; p=0.023), 8 AM (1.984; p=0.003), and 10 AM (1.339; p=0.020) (S3 Table).

3. Logistic regression analysis

Table 2 presents the results of univariate and multivariate analyses. In univariate analysis, younger age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 6.101; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.816 to 13.516; p < 0.001), lower FIGO stage (OR, 3.825; 95% CI, 1.128 to 12.975; p=0.031), positive HRD status (OR, 70.320; 95% CI, 12.072 to 409.91; p < 0.001), and presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy (OR, 11.159; 95% CI, 2.458 to 50.572; p=0.002) were associated with a high frequency of NINV development (Table 2). In multivariate analysis, age at diagnosis, FIGO stage, HRD status, and history of CINV in previous chemotherapy were adjusted. After adjusting for these variables, positive HRD status (adjusted OR, 40.71; 95% CI, 5.978 to 132.89; p < 0.001) and presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy (OR, 9.534; 95% CI, 2.050 to 44.312; p=0.004) were confirmed as risk factors for NINV development.

4. Treatment-related outcomes

There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing dose reduction, drug discontinuation, or hematological and non-hematological toxicities, except for nausea and vomiting, between the two groups (Table 3).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first to demonstrate the time-trend pattern of NINV intensity in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer who received niraparib as a frontline maintenance therapy. We observed that NINV intensity peaked within 8 hours of niraparib intake, which decreased over time within the 12-week period. Furthermore, positive HRD status and a history of CINV from platinum-based chemotherapy were identified as risk factors for NINV.

In this study, 31 patients (58.5%) had any-grade NINV throughout the 12 weeks following initiation of niraparib maintenance therapy. The incidence of any-grade NINV in our study was comparable to that in previous randomized controlled trials, with 57.4% (278/484) in the PRIMA trial and 44.7% (114/255) in the PRIME trial, indicating similar baseline characteristics across studies [7,18].

The highest intensity of NINV was maintained within the first 8 hours of niraparib administration, suggesting the need for time-sensitive and appropriate medical interventions. This observation may be linked to the time required to reach the peak plasma concentration of niraparib. A maximal plasma concentration of 494 ng/mL for the tablet form of niraparib is reached after 4 hours after administration and during an 8-hour fast state [9]. The sustained high-intensity NINV between 4 and 8 hours after drug intake could be explained by the patients’ reported food intake time in the morning. High-fat meals after niraparib administration were reported to numerically increase the time to reach the maximal concentration of niraparib, from 3.5 hours in the fasted state to 8 hours in the high-fat meal state, because of its delayed effect on the gastric absorption of the drug [19,20]. This delay in initial absorption could explain the increase in NINV intensity after 4-8 hours of niraparib consumption, as most patients (93.5%, n=29/31) were administered niraparib between 8 PM and 12 AM.

In time-trend analysis, NINV intensity declined as the treatment continued. This overall decrease could be explained by the high frequency of dose modifications during niraparib maintenance therapy. This finding is consistent with that of a previous study in which 80% of patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer underwent niraparib dose modification. Patients reported significantly reduced rates of hematological toxicity without deterioration in PFS [21]. In this study, 34 patients (64.2%) underwent dose reductions from 200 mg to 100 mg daily, and 20 patients (45.3%) underwent dose interruptions ranging from 1 to 8 weeks. Active dose adjustment of niraparib is performed to manage early-phase high-intensity NINV and improve treatment adherence.

In this study, multivariate analysis demonstrated that positive HRD status was associated with a high frequency of NINV occurrence. Increased incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients with HRD might be explained as follows. PARP inhibitors primarily target PARP1, but they also have off-target effects through kinase inhibition pathways [22]. Niraparib and rucaparib exhibit broader kinase polypharmacology than olaparib, indicating that their off-target effects may contribute to a higher incidence of NINV [23]. Secondly, serotonin release and NK1 receptor activation which are well-known mediators of CINV might increase in patients with HRD because of increased DNA damage due to synthetic lethality [24]. Thirdly, high adherence to niraparib of HRD patients could be another factor of increased NINV. A study highlighted that 26% of the non-adherent patients were HRD-positive, suggesting continued usage of niraparib as a cause of increased NINV in HRD-positive patients [12]. Further research would be required to confirm the current explanations.

A previous study showed that the antitumor efficacy of PARP inhibitors was linked to the presence of early and serious adverse events and that the patient group with high hematological toxicity had higher rates of PFS (30 vs. 20 weeks, p=0.047) [25]. The PAOLA trial demonstrated that the survival benefit of PARP inhibitors was higher in the HRD-positive group (37.2 vs. 17.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.45; p < 0.001) than the HRD negative group (16.6 vs. 16.2 months; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.35; p < 0.001) [26]. Given that HRD-positive patients show a better response to PARP inhibitors and are likely to favor PARP inhibitor therapy in the future, it is crucial to proactively manage the high frequency of NINV in these patients during treatment.

Previous experiences with CINV from adjuvant platinum-based treatments were also associated with the subsequent occurrence of NINV in this study. One explanation might be related to their similar pharmacokinetics involving neurotransmitter activation. Paclitaxel and carboplatin can activate neurotransmitter receptors in the area postrema of the brain or stimulate vagal afferents near the enterochromaffin cells in the intestine [27]. Niraparib also increases neurotransmitter levels with inotropic effects, including the inhibition of neuronal dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin transporters [28]. These drugs activate similar neurotransmitter pathways, which explains why patients with prior CINV are likely to experience similar levels of nausea and vomiting when taking PARP inhibitors.

This study has certain limitations that must be addressed. The data may be prone to recall bias because hourly NINV timetables were collected from patients after a certain duration, which is inevitable in a survey study. To enhance the accuracy of data, it is advisable to conduct a study in which patients report NINV contemporaneously with the occurrence of symptoms. However, this study has definitive merit as it is the first to evaluate the pattern of nausea and vomiting after niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, on an hourly basis within a single day.

In conclusion, this study showed that NINV reached a peak intensity within 8 hours of niraparib intake. The study also observed an overall decreasing pattern in NINV intensity over 12 weeks. A positive HRD status and the presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy regimens were related to a higher occurrence of NINV. Based on these results, a preemptive antiemetic strategy during niraparib maintenance therapy could improve patient treatment adherence.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2024-899_S1_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-899_S2_Fig.pdf

crt-2024-899_S3_Table.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study involved in-person surveys and medical data collection approved by the participants and the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center, Korea. Number: NCC2023-0344. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Jeong YW, Kim DE, Lim MC.

Collected the data: Jeong YW, Kim DE.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Jeong YW, Kim DE, Kim JH, Lim MC.

Performed the analysis: Jeong YW, Kim DE.

Wrote the paper: Jeong YW, Kim DE, Kim JH, Kim SI, Ha HI, Lim MC.

Others (Review & Approval): Jeong YW, Kim DE, Kim SI, Ha HI, Park SY, Lim MC.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Korean Cancer Survivors Healthcare R&D Project through the National Cancer Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: RS-2023-CC140196).

Fig. 1.

Flow diagram. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Fig. 2.

Hourly pattern of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting (NINV) intensity over 12 weeks in patients with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-3 nausea and vomiting and a swimmer plot of the patient drug administration schedule. LPV, likely pathologic variant; PV, pathologic variant.

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics categorized by grade of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

	Total (n=53)	CTCAE grade of NV		p-value
	Total (n=53)	Grade 0 (n=22)	Grade 1-3 (n=31)	p-value
Age at diagnosis (yr)	54 (34-70)	55.5 (42-70)	50 (34-68)	0.042
Occupation
Unemployed or retired	40 (75.5)	19 (47.5)	21 (52.5)	0.407
Employed	13 (24.5)	3 (23.1)	10 (76.9)
Histology
High-grade serous	50 (94.3)	21 (42.0)	29 (58.0)	0.243
Others	3 (5.7)	1 (33.3)	2 (66.6)
FIGO stage
III	22 (41.5)	5 (22.7)	17 (77.3)	0.040
IV	31 (58.5)	17 (54.8)	14 (45.2)
Timing of surgery
Upfront	20 (37.7)	9 (45.0)	11 (55.0)	0.909
Interval	33 (62.3)	13 (39.4)	20 (60.6)
Postoperative residual disease
No gross residual tumor	40 (75.5)	19 (47.5)	21 (52.5)	0.219
< 1cm	13 (24.5)	3 (23.1)	10 (76.9)
No. of previous chemotherapy cycles	6 (3-11)	6 (6-9)	6 (3-11)	0.177
Interval between niraparib and chemotherapy	48 (1-98)	48.5 (21-88)	44 (1-98)	0.257
Presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy
Yes	20 (37.7)	2 (10.0)	18 (90.0)	< 0.001
No	33 (62.2)	20 (60.1)	13 (39.9)
BRCA1/2 status
Wild-type/VUS	30 (56.6)	13 (43.3)	17 (56.7)	0.927
BRCA1 PV/LPV	16 (30.2)	6 (37.5)	10 (62.5)
BRCA2 PV/LPV	7 (13.2)	3 (42.9)	4 (57.1)
HRD status
Positive	32 (60.4)	3 (9.4)	29 (90.6)	< 0.001
Negative	20 (37.7)	18 (90.0)	2 (10.0)
Unknown	1 (1.9)	1 (100)	0
CA125 level (U/mL)
At diagnosis	1,135 (37-20,636)	1,596.5 (102-20,636)	690 (37-7,864)	0.051
At PARPi initiation	13 (4-604)	12.5 (4-84)	13 (5-604)	0.205

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). CA125, cancer antigen 125; CINV, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0; FIGO, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 2014; HRD, homologous repair deficiency; LPV, likely pathologic variant; NV, nausea and vomiting; PARPi, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor; PV, pathologic variant; VUS, variant of unknown significance.

Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of baseline and treatment-related factors for niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

	Univariate		Multivariate
	OR (95% CI)	p-value	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age at diagnosis (yr)
≥ 54	1.000	< 0.001	1.000	0.228
< 54^a)	6.101 (2.816-13.516)		0.455 (0.126-1.639)
FIGO stage
IV	1.000	0.031	1.000	0.122
III	3.825 (1.128-12.975)		4.930 (1.532-37.313)
CA125 level at diagnosis (U/mL)
≥ 1,135^a)	1.000	0.099	-	-
< 1,135	2.581 (1.194-7.948)		-
No. of previous chemotherapy cycles
≥ 6^a)	1.000	0.692	-	-
< 6	1.269 (0.241-2.568)		-
HRD status
Negative	1.000	< 0.001	1.000	< 0.001
Positive	70.32 (12.072-409.91)		40.71 (5.978-132.89)
Presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy
No	1.000	0.002	1.000	0.004
Yes	11.159 (2.458-50.572)		9.534 (2.050-44.312)

CA125, cancer antigen 125; CI, confidence interval; CINV, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; FIGO, International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage 2014; HRD, homologous repair deficiency; OR, odd ratio.

^a) Median value from Table 1 used as a threshold.

Table 3.

Adverse event management in patients receiving niraparib by grades of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

	Total (n=53)	CTCAE grade of NV		p-value
	Total (n=53)	Grade 0 (n=22)	Grade 1-3 (n=31)	p-value
Adverse events (any grade)
Hematological
Leukopenia	1 (1.9)	0	1 (100)	> 0.99
Neutropenia	10 (18.9)	4 (40.0)	6 (60.0)	> 0.99
Thrombocytopenia	15 (28.3)	4 (26.7)	11 (73.3)	0.331
Anemia	4 (7.5)	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)	> 0.99
Non-hematological
Nausea and vomiting	31 (58.5)	0	31 (100)	< 0.001
Fatigue	25 (47.2)	8 (32.0)	17 (68.0)	0.315
Diarrhea	2 (3.8)	0	2 (100)	0.847
Abdominal pain	4 (7.5)	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)	0.982
Migraine	17 (32.1)	6 (35.3)	11 (64.7)	0.776
Insomnia	36 (67.9)	14 (38.9)	22 (61.1)	0.776
Constipation	13 (24.5)	4 (30.8)	9 (69.2)	0.691
Others	10 (18.9)	6 (60.0)	4 (40.0)	0.341
Dose reduction
Yes	34 (64.2)	14 (41.2)	20 (58.8)	> 0.99
No	19 (35.8)	8 (42.1)	11 (57.9)
Daily dose after three months since initiation
200 mg	19 (35.8)	8 (42.1)	11 (57.9)	> 0.99
100 mg	34 (64.2)	14 (41.2)	20 (58.8)
Dose interruption
Yes	24 (45.3)	8 (33.3)	16 (66.6)	0.436
No	29 (54.7)	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)
Length of interruption (wk)
0	29 (54.7)	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)	0.794
1-4	20 (37.7)	7 (35.0)	13 (65.0)
5-8	4 (7.5)	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)
≥ 9	0	0	0

Values are presented as number (%). CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0; NV, nausea and vomiting.

REFERENCES

1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–63. Article PubMed
2. Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ, Lee ES. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2019. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51:431–7. Article PubMed PMC PDF
3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian cancer including fallopain tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer, version 2.2024. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2024.
4. Lim MC, Yoo HJ, Song YJ, Seo SS, Kang S, Kim SH, et al. Survival outcomes after extensive cytoreductive surgery and selective neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to institutional criteria in bulky stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28:e48Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Sabatier R, Rousseau F, Joly F, Cropet C, Montegut C, Frindte J, et al. Efficacy and safety of maintenance olaparib and bevacizumab in ovarian cancer patients aged ≥ 65 years from the PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial. Eur J Cancer. 2023;181:42–52. Article PubMed
6. Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G, Kim BG, Oaknin A, Friedlander M, et al. Maintenance olaparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2495–505. Article PubMed
7. Gonzalez-Martin A, Pothuri B, Vergote I, DePont Christensen R, Graybill W, Mirza MR, et al. Niraparib in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2391–402. PubMed
8. Lee A. Niraparib: a review in first-line maintenance therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. Target Oncol. 2021;16:839–45. Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Falchook G, Patnaik A, Richardson DL, Harvey RD, Sharma MR, Hafez N, et al. A relative bioavailability, bioequivalence, and food effect study of niraparib tablets in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Ther. 2024;46:228–38. Article PubMed
10. Kim JH, Kim SI, Park EY, Kim ET, Kim H, Kim S, et al. Comparison of survival outcomes between olaparib and niraparib maintenance therapy in BRCA-mutated, newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2024;181:33–9. Article PubMed
11. Gonzalez-Martin A, Pothuri B, Vergote I, Graybill W, Lorusso D, McCormick CC, et al. Progression-free survival and safety at 3.5years of follow-up: results from the randomised phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial of niraparib maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2023;189:112908.Article PubMed
12. Kim JH, Lee Y, Kim DY, Kim S, Seo SS, Kang S, et al. Adherence of PARP inhibitor for frontline maintenance therapy in primary epithelial ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey. J Gynecol Oncol. 2024;35:e3Article PubMed PDF
13. Friedlander M, Lee YC, Tew WP. Managing adverse effects associated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in ovarian cancer: a synthesis of clinical trial and real-world data. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2023;43:e390876Article PubMed
14. Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, Oza AM, Mahner S, Redondo A, et al. Niraparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2154–64. PubMed
15. Vanbockstael J, Coquan E, Gouerant S, Allouache D, Faveyrial A, Noal S, et al. How to improve the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? The French NAVI study. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:1131–8. Article PubMed PDF
16. Maeda A, Yoshida H, Inoue H, Ejiri M, Yamaguchi S, Kushihara H, et al. Effects of 5-mg dose of olanzapine for breakthrough nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a prospective trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10:2699–708. Article PubMed
17. Molassiotis A, Stamataki Z, Kontopantelis E. Development and preliminary validation of a risk prediction model for chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2759–67. Article PubMed PDF
18. Li N, Zhu J, Yin R, Wang J, Pan L, Kong B, et al. Treatment with niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9:1230–7. Article PubMed PMC
19. Xu M, Wang Y, Wang X, Pu Z, Liu Y, Jiang C, et al. Unveiling the influence of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetics of oral globalagliatin, a glucokinase activator, in healthy Chinese volunteers. Drugs R D. 2024;24:41–50. Article PubMed PDF
20. Bruin MA, Sonke GS, Beijnen JH, Huitema AD. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of PARP inhibitors in oncology. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61:1649–75. Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Berek JS, Matulonis UA, Peen U, Ghatage P, Mahner S, Redondo A, et al. Safety and dose modification for patients receiving niraparib. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:1784–92. Article PubMed
22. Antolin AA, Mestres J. Linking off-target kinase pharmacology to the differential cellular effects observed among PARP inhibitors. Oncotarget. 2014;5:3023–8. Article PubMed PMC
23. Antolin AA, Ameratunga M, Banerji U, Clarke PA, Workman P, Al-Lazikani B. The kinase polypharmacology landscape of clinical PARP inhibitors. Sci Rep. 2020;10:2585.Article PubMed PMC PDF
24. Valabrega G, Pothuri B, Oaknin A, Graybill WS, Sanchez AB, McCormick C, et al. Efficacy and safety of niraparib in patients aged 65 years and older with advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial. Gynecol Oncol. 2024;187:128–38. Article PubMed PMC
25. Ni J, Cheng X, Zhou R, Zhao Q, Xu X, Guo W, et al. Adverse events as a potential clinical marker of antitumor efficacy in ovarian cancer patients treated with poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor. Front Oncol. 2021;11:724620.Article PubMed PMC
26. Pujade-Lauraine E, Brown J, Barnicle A, Wessen J, Lao-Sirieix P, Criscione SW, et al. Homologous recombination repair gene mutations to predict olaparib plus bevacizumab efficacy in the first-line ovarian cancer PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial. JCO Precis Oncol. 2023;7:e2200258Article PubMed PMC
27. Bajetta E, Pusceddu S, Guadalupi V, Ducceschi M, Celio L. Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the role of palonosetron. Cancer Manag Res. 2009;1:89–97. Article PubMed PMC
28. Butel-Simoes LE, Haw TJ, Williams T, Sritharan S, Gadre P, Herrmann SM, et al. Established and emerging cancer therapies and cardiovascular system: focus on hypertension-mechanisms and mitigation. Hypertension. 2023;80:685–710. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Time-Trend Analysis and Risk Factors for Niraparib-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2024.899

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Time-Trend Analysis and Risk Factors for Niraparib-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study

Fig. 1. Flow diagram. FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Fig. 2. Hourly pattern of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting (NINV) intensity over 12 weeks in patients with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-3 nausea and vomiting and a swimmer plot of the patient drug administration schedule. LPV, likely pathologic variant; PV, pathologic variant.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Time-Trend Analysis and Risk Factors for Niraparib-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study

	Total (n=53)	CTCAE grade of NV		p-value
	Total (n=53)	Grade 0 (n=22)	Grade 1-3 (n=31)	p-value
Age at diagnosis (yr)	54 (34-70)	55.5 (42-70)	50 (34-68)	0.042
Occupation
Unemployed or retired	40 (75.5)	19 (47.5)	21 (52.5)	0.407
Employed	13 (24.5)	3 (23.1)	10 (76.9)
Histology
High-grade serous	50 (94.3)	21 (42.0)	29 (58.0)	0.243
Others	3 (5.7)	1 (33.3)	2 (66.6)
FIGO stage
III	22 (41.5)	5 (22.7)	17 (77.3)	0.040
IV	31 (58.5)	17 (54.8)	14 (45.2)
Timing of surgery
Upfront	20 (37.7)	9 (45.0)	11 (55.0)	0.909
Interval	33 (62.3)	13 (39.4)	20 (60.6)
Postoperative residual disease
No gross residual tumor	40 (75.5)	19 (47.5)	21 (52.5)	0.219
< 1cm	13 (24.5)	3 (23.1)	10 (76.9)
No. of previous chemotherapy cycles	6 (3-11)	6 (6-9)	6 (3-11)	0.177
Interval between niraparib and chemotherapy	48 (1-98)	48.5 (21-88)	44 (1-98)	0.257
Presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy
Yes	20 (37.7)	2 (10.0)	18 (90.0)	< 0.001
No	33 (62.2)	20 (60.1)	13 (39.9)
BRCA1/2 status
Wild-type/VUS	30 (56.6)	13 (43.3)	17 (56.7)	0.927
BRCA1 PV/LPV	16 (30.2)	6 (37.5)	10 (62.5)
BRCA2 PV/LPV	7 (13.2)	3 (42.9)	4 (57.1)
HRD status
Positive	32 (60.4)	3 (9.4)	29 (90.6)	< 0.001
Negative	20 (37.7)	18 (90.0)	2 (10.0)
Unknown	1 (1.9)	1 (100)	0
CA125 level (U/mL)
At diagnosis	1,135 (37-20,636)	1,596.5 (102-20,636)	690 (37-7,864)	0.051
At PARPi initiation	13 (4-604)	12.5 (4-84)	13 (5-604)	0.205

	Univariate		Multivariate
	OR (95% CI)	p-value	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age at diagnosis (yr)
≥ 54	1.000	< 0.001	1.000	0.228
< 54^a)	6.101 (2.816-13.516)		0.455 (0.126-1.639)
FIGO stage
IV	1.000	0.031	1.000	0.122
III	3.825 (1.128-12.975)		4.930 (1.532-37.313)
CA125 level at diagnosis (U/mL)
≥ 1,135^a)	1.000	0.099	-	-
< 1,135	2.581 (1.194-7.948)		-
No. of previous chemotherapy cycles
≥ 6^a)	1.000	0.692	-	-
< 6	1.269 (0.241-2.568)		-
HRD status
Negative	1.000	< 0.001	1.000	< 0.001
Positive	70.32 (12.072-409.91)		40.71 (5.978-132.89)
Presence of CINV in previous chemotherapy
No	1.000	0.002	1.000	0.004
Yes	11.159 (2.458-50.572)		9.534 (2.050-44.312)

	Total (n=53)	CTCAE grade of NV		p-value
	Total (n=53)	Grade 0 (n=22)	Grade 1-3 (n=31)	p-value
Adverse events (any grade)
Hematological
Leukopenia	1 (1.9)	0	1 (100)	> 0.99
Neutropenia	10 (18.9)	4 (40.0)	6 (60.0)	> 0.99
Thrombocytopenia	15 (28.3)	4 (26.7)	11 (73.3)	0.331
Anemia	4 (7.5)	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)	> 0.99
Non-hematological
Nausea and vomiting	31 (58.5)	0	31 (100)	< 0.001
Fatigue	25 (47.2)	8 (32.0)	17 (68.0)	0.315
Diarrhea	2 (3.8)	0	2 (100)	0.847
Abdominal pain	4 (7.5)	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)	0.982
Migraine	17 (32.1)	6 (35.3)	11 (64.7)	0.776
Insomnia	36 (67.9)	14 (38.9)	22 (61.1)	0.776
Constipation	13 (24.5)	4 (30.8)	9 (69.2)	0.691
Others	10 (18.9)	6 (60.0)	4 (40.0)	0.341
Dose reduction
Yes	34 (64.2)	14 (41.2)	20 (58.8)	> 0.99
No	19 (35.8)	8 (42.1)	11 (57.9)
Daily dose after three months since initiation
200 mg	19 (35.8)	8 (42.1)	11 (57.9)	> 0.99
100 mg	34 (64.2)	14 (41.2)	20 (58.8)
Dose interruption
Yes	24 (45.3)	8 (33.3)	16 (66.6)	0.436
No	29 (54.7)	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)
Length of interruption (wk)
0	29 (54.7)	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)	0.794
1-4	20 (37.7)	7 (35.0)	13 (65.0)
5-8	4 (7.5)	1 (25.0)	3 (75.0)
≥ 9	0	0	0

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics categorized by grade of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of baseline and treatment-related factors for niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

Median value from Table 1 used as a threshold.

Table 3. Adverse event management in patients receiving niraparib by grades of niraparib-induced nausea and vomiting

Values are presented as number (%). CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0; NV, nausea and vomiting.