4.7 Article

Phase II nonrandomized study of the efficacy and safety of COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib on patients with cancer cachexia

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE-JMM
卷 88, 期 1, 页码 85-92

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00109-009-0547-z

关键词

Cancer cachexia; Chronic inflammation; COX-2 inhibitors; Celecoxib; Lean body mass, resting energy expenditure; Proinflammatory cytokines; Fatigue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic inflammation is one of the main features of cancer cachexia. Experimental and clinical studies showed that cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, such as celecoxib, may be beneficial in counteracting major symptoms of this devastating syndrome. We carried out a prospective phase II clinical trial to test the safety and effectiveness of an intervention with the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (300 mg/day for 4 months) on key variables of cachexia (lean body mass, resting energy expenditure, serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines, and fatigue) in patients with advanced cancer at different sites. A sample of 24 patients was enrolled from January to December 2008 and all were deemed assessable. A significant increase of lean body mass and a significant decrease of TNF-alpha were observed. Moreover, an improvement of grip strength, quality of life, performance status, and Glasgow prognostic score was shown. There were no grade 3/4 toxicities. Patient compliance was very good; no patient had to reduce the celecoxib dosage nor interrupt treatment. Our results showed that the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib is an effective single agent for the treatment of cancer cachexia. Although the treatment of cancer cachexia, a multifactorial syndrome, is more likely to yield success with a multitargeted approach; in the present study, we were able to show that a treatment, such as celecoxib, addressing a single target, albeit very important as chronic inflammation, could have positive effects. Therefore, phase III clinical trials are warranted to test the efficacy and safety of celecoxib.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据