Shanahan, Thomas G.

PURPOSE: Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate. Several other measures of bowel function were also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving pelvic RT to a minimum of 45 Gy at 1.7 to 2.1 Gy/d were eligible for the study. Patients were assigned randomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical looking placebo during pelvic RT. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were randomly assigned and found assessable. Overall, there was no significant difference in patient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo. Moderate or worse diarrhea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence (16% v 34%, respectively; P = .04) and need for protective clothing (8% v 23%, respectively; P = .04). The incidence and severity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P = .03). Analysis of patient-reported symptoms 10 to 12 months after RT showed a nonsignificant trend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v 1.9 problems, respectively; P = .34). CONCLUSION: Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxicity by any of the end points measured and seems to have aggravated some gastrointestinal symptoms.

PURPOSE: Because small-cell lung cancer is a rapidly proliferating tumor, it was hypothesized that it may be more responsive to thoracic irradiation (TI) given twice-daily than once-daily. This hypothesis was tested in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer were entered onto a phase III trial, and all patients initially received three cycles of etoposide (130 mg/m 2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m 2 × 3). Subsequently, patients who did not have progression to a distant site (other than brain) were randomized to twice-daily thoracic irradiation (TDTI) versus once-daily thoracic irradiation (ODTI) given concomitantly with two additional cycles of etoposide (100 mg/m 2 × 3) and cisplatin (30 mg/m 2 × 3). The irradiation doses were TDTI, 48 Gy in 32 fractions, with a 2.5-week break after the initial 24 Gy, and ODTI, 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. After thoracic irradiation, the patients received a sixth cycle of etoposide/cisplatin, followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (30 Gy/15 fractions) if they had a complete response. RESULTS: Of 311 assessable patients enrolled in the trial, 262 underwent randomization to TDTI or ODTI. There were no differences between the two treatments with respect to local-only progression rates, overall progression rates, or overall survival. The patients who received TDTI had greater esophagitis (≥ grade 3) than those who received ODTI (12.3% v 5.3%; P = .05). Although patients received thoracic irradiation encompassing the postchemotherapy volumes, only seven of 90 local failures were out of the portal of irradiation. CONCLUSION: When TI is delayed until the fourth cycle of chemotherapy, TDTI does not result in improvement in local control or survival compared with ODTI.

Purpose: A phase III, randomized, double-blind study was conducted by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group to determine the efficacy and toxicity of oral glutamine for the prevention of acute diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy (RT). Patients and Methods: All 129 patients enrolled from 14 institutions between February 1998 and October 1999 were eligible. Patients received 4 g of glutamine or placebo orally, twice a day, beginning with the first or second day of RT and continuing for 2 weeks after RT. During treatment, patients were assessed weekly for toxicity, and a bowel function questionnaire was administered. The primary measures of treatment efficacy were diarrhea levels measured by maximum grade of diarrhea, incidence of diarrhea, and average diarrhea score. After completion of RT, the bowel function questionnaire was administered weekly for 4 weeks and at 12 and 24 months. Toxicity was measured by National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria. Results: The median age of patients was 69 years (range, 34 to 86 years). The two treatment arms were balanced with respect to all baseline factors. There were no significant differences in toxicity by treatment. Quality-of-life scores and the mean number of problems reported on the bowel function questionnaire were virtually identical for both treatment groups. The incidence of grade 3 or higher diarrhea was 20% for the glutamine arm and 19% for the placebo arm (P = .99). The maximum number of stools per day was 5.1 for the glutamine arm and 5.2 for the placebo arm (P = .99). Conclusion: There is no evidence of a beneficial effect of glutamine during pelvic RT.