4.7 Article

Randomised double-blind trial of megestrol acetate vs placebo in treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 105, Issue 7, Pages 945-952

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2011.333

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; hormonal therapy; megestrol acetate; randomised controlled trial; Asia-Pacific; advanced cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. SingHealth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. We tested megestrol acetate (MA) against placebo in the treatment of advanced HCC. METHODS: From 2002 through 2007, this randomised double-blind trial enrolled 204 patients with treatment-naive advanced HCC (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance rating of 0-3) from specialist care centres in six Asia-Pacific nations. Patients received placebo or MA (320 mg day(-1)). End points were overall survival (OS) and quality of life. RESULTS: An adverse but not statistically significant difference in OS was found for MA vs placebo: median values 1.88 and 2.14 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.92-1.71, P = 0.16). However, OS was similar among patients of good functional status (Child-Pugh A and ECOG 0, 1 or 2) (44.3%) in both treatment groups, with the adverse effect of MA confined to those of poor status. Megestrol acetate patients had a worse global health status (not statistically significant) but reduced levels of appetite loss and nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSION: Megestrol acetate has no role in prolonging OS in advanced treatment-naive HCC. Overall survival with placebo differed markedly from that in similar trials conducted elsewhere, suggesting therapeutic outcomes may be strongly dependent on ECOG status and Child-Pugh score. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 945-952. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.333 www.bjcancer.com Published online 23 August 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available