4.5 Article

L-Carnitine-supplementation in advanced pancreatic cancer (CARPAN) - a randomized multicentre trial

期刊

NUTRITION JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-11-52

关键词

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; L-Carnitine; Quality of life; Survival; Cancer cachexia; Fatique syndrome

资金

  1. Alfried-Krupp-von-Bohlen-und-Hahlbach-Foundation
  2. Deutsche Krebshilfe/ Dr. Mildred-Scheel-Stiftung [109102]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFGgRK840-E3/E4, MA 4115/1-2/3, NI 1297/1-1]
  4. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [BMBFgANI-MED 03152061A, BMBF 0314107]
  5. European Union [EU-FP-7: EPC-TM, EU-FP7-REGPOT-2010-1]
  6. Medinal GmbH, Greven, Germany
  7. Fresenius Kabi Germany GmbH Bad Homburg, Germany
  8. Nutricia GmbH, Erlangen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cachexia, a > 10% loss of body-weight, is one factor determining the poor prognosis of pancreatic cancer. Deficiency of L-Carnitine has been proposed to cause cancer cachexia. Findings: We screened 152 and enrolled 72 patients suffering from advanced pancreatic cancer in a prospective, multi-centre, placebo-controlled, randomized and double-blinded trial to receive oral L-Carnitine (4 g) or placebo for 12 weeks. At entry patients reported a mean weight loss of 12 +/- 2,5 (SEM) kg. During treatment body-mass-index increased by 3,4 +/- 1,4% under L-Carnitine and decreased (-1,5 +/- 1,4%) in controls (p < 0,05). Moreover, nutritional status (body cell mass, body fat) and quality-of-life parameters improved under L-Carnitine. There was a trend towards an increased overall survival in the L-Carnitine group (median 519 +/- 50 d versus 399 +/- 43 d, not significant) and towards a reduced hospital-stay (36 +/- 4d versus 41 +/- 9d, n.s.). Conclusion: While these data are preliminary and need confirmation they indicate that patients with pancreatic cancer may have a clinically relevant benefit from the inexpensive and well tolerated oral supplementation of L-Carnitine.

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

4.5
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