4.7 Article

Effects of recombinant erythropoietin in palliative treatment of unselected cancer patients

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 20, 页码 6855-6864

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0373

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose is to evaluate relationships between objectively assessed exercise capacity and subjectively assessed scoring of physical functioning and well-being after erythropoietin treatment in cancer patients on palliative care. Experimental Design: Unselected cancer patients (n = 108) who experienced progressive cachexia were randomized to receive either anti-inflammatory treatment alone (indomethacin) or recombinant erythropoietin plus indomethacin to prevent the appearance of disease-induced anemia and thereby protect patients' exercise capacity. Follow-up investigations of nutritional status, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life assessed by SF-36 and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 were compared. Results: Effective treatment by erythropoietin on top of basal whole body anti-inflammatory treatment was confirmed and indicated by time course changes of biochemical, physiologic, and nutritional objectives, whereas individual self-reported scoring of physical functioning and general health did not indicate a clear-cut effectiveness, particularly at moderately subnormal hemoglobin levels. Conclusions: Discrepancies between objective and subjective self-reported measures may be either fundamental or indicate scoring limitations for evaluation of therapeutic results. Present results demonstrate a clinical benefit of erythropoietin treatment in cancer patients with subnormal to normal hemoglobin levels, whereas the patients' own subjective scoring was insufficient to sense such improvements. The discrepancy may be either fundamental or methodological but emphasizes the importance to document therapeutic outcome in both subjective and objective perspectives in palliative care of cancer patients.

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