A phase III study of transdermal granisetron versus oral ondansetron for women with gynecologic cancers receiving pelvic chemoradiation

Shannon D. Armbruster, Bryan M. Fellman, Anuja Jhingran, Patricia J. Eifel, Ann H. Klopp, Robert L. Coleman, Lois M. Ramondetta, Michael Frumovitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Purpose: To compare rates of complete response (no emesis, retching, or rescue antiemetics) in the late phase (days 4–7 post-chemotherapy) of cycle 1 between transdermal granisetron and oral ondansetron in cervical, endometrial, or vaginal cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and LBJ Hospital in Houston, TX. Methods: In this non-blinded parallel design trial, eligible patients received a granisetron patch replaced every 7 days or 8 mg of ondansetron thrice daily continued for 72 h after chemotherapy completion. Data were collected on medication compliance, episodes of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), use of rescue antiemetics, and effects of CINV on quality of life. Results: Seventy-five survivors receiving chemoradiation for cervical (n = 61), endometrial (n = 12), or vaginal (n = 2) cancer were electronically randomized to transdermal granisetron (n = 41) or oral ondansetron (n = 34). In the late phase of cycle 1, the rate of complete response was 49.8% (95% CI, 35.2–64.3%) for transdermal granisetron and 39.7% (95% CI, 24.4–56.1%) for oral ondansetron. The posterior probability that transdermal granisetron achieved a higher success rate in controlling late-onset CINV compared with oral ondansetron was 82%. During the acute phase (day 1 post-chemotherapy) of cycles 2 and 3, transdermal granisetron patients used more rescue antiemetics than oral ondansetron patients (p = 0.006 and p = 0.003, respectively). Otherwise, no between-group differences in CINV events were observed. Medication compliance and the effect of CINV on quality of life were similar between groups. Conclusion: Transdermal granisetron was 82% more like to control CINV than oral ondansetron in the late phase of cycle 1 and performed similarly to oral ondansetron in all other cycles. Transdermal granisetron should be considered an option as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for gynecologic cancer survivors undergoing chemoradiation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)213-222
Number of pages10
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2021


  • Antiemetics
  • Radiation
  • Radiation-sensitizing agents, cancer survivors, uterine cervical neoplasms, palliative care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A phase III study of transdermal granisetron versus oral ondansetron for women with gynecologic cancers receiving pelvic chemoradiation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this