4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective randomized clinical trial of d-threo-methylphenidate HCL in brain tumor patients receiving radiation therapy

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.076

关键词

fatigue; quality of life; cognitive function; radiation therapy; methylphenidate

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [1 U10CA81851] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The quality of life (QOL) and neurocognitive function of patients with brain tumors are negatively affected by the symptoms of their disease and brain radiation therapy (RT). We assessed the effect of prophylactic d-threo-methylphenidate HCL (d-MPH), a central nervous system (CNS) stimulant on QOL and cognitive function in patients undergoing RT. Methods and Materials: Sixty-eight patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors were randomly assigned to receive d-MPH or placebo. The starting dose of d-MPH was 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) and was escalated by 5 mg b.i.d. to a maximum of 15 mg b.i.d. The placebo was administered as one pill b.i.d. escalating three pills b.i.d. The primary outcome was fatigue. Patients were assessed at baseline, the end of radiation therapy, and 4, 8, and 12 weeks after brain RT using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy with brain and fatigue (FACIT-F) subscales, as well as the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Scale and Mini-Mental Status Exam. Results: The Mean Fatigue Subscale Score at baseline was 34.7 for the d-MPH arm and 33.3 for the placebo arm (p = 0.61). At 8 weeks after the completion of brain RT, there was no difference in fatigue between patient groups. The adjusted least squares estimate of the Mean Fatigue Subscale Score was 33.7 for the d-MPH and 35.6 for the placebo arm (p = 0.64). Secondary outcomes were not different between the two treatment arms. Conclusions: Prophylactic use of d-MPH in brain tumor patients undergoing RT did not result in an improvement in QOL. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc.

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