4.7 Article

Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial of Five Different Arms of Treatment in 332 Patients with Cancer

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 200-211

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0153

关键词

Cancer cachexia; Randomized phase III trial; Combined approach; Lean body mass; Fatigue; Resting energy expenditure

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. A phase III, randomized study was carried out to establish the most effective and safest treatment to improve the primary endpoints of cancer cachexia- lean body mass (LBM), resting energy expenditure (REE), and fatigue-and relevant secondary endpoints: appetite, quality of life, grip strength, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and proinflammatory cytokines. Patients and Methods. Three hundred thirty-two assessable patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia syndrome were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms: arm 1, medroxyprogesterone (500 mg/day) or megestrol acetate (320 mg/day); arm 2, oral supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid; arm 3, L-carnitine (4 g/day); arm 4, thalidomide (200 mg/day); and arm 5, a combination of the above. Treatment duration was 4 months. Results. Analysis of variance showed a significant dif-ference between treatment arms. A post hoc analysis showed the superiority of arm 5 over the others for all primary endpoints. An analysis of changes from baseline showed that LBM (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and by L3 computed tomography) significantly increased in arm 5. REE decreased significantly and fatigue improved significantly in arm 5. Appetite increased significantly in arm 5; interleukin (IL)-6 decreased significantly in arm 5 and arm 4; GPS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score decreased significantly in arm 5, arm 4, and arm 3. Toxicity was quite negligible, and was comparable between arms. Conclusion. The most effective treatment in terms of all three primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary endpoints appetite, IL-6, GPS, and ECOG PS score was the combination regimen that included all selected agents. The Oncologist 2010;15:200-211

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