Jatoi, Aminah

Purpose Studies suggest eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid, augments weight, appetite, and survival in cancer-associated wasting. This study determined whether an EPA supplement—administered alone or with megestrol acetate (MA)—was more effective than MA. Patients and Methods Four hundred twenty-one assessable patients with cancer-associated wasting were randomly assigned to an EPA supplement 1.09 g administered bid plus placebo; MA liquid suspension 600 mg/d plus an isocaloric, isonitrogenous supplement administered twice a day; or both. Eligible patients reported a 5-lb, 2-month weight loss and/or intake of less than 20 calories/kg/d. Results A smaller percentage taking the EPA supplement gained ≥ 10% of baseline weight compared with those taking MA: 6% v 18%, respectively (P = .004). Combination therapy resulted in weight gain of ≥ 10% in 11% of patients (P = .17 across all arms). The percentage of patients with appetite improvement (North Central Cancer Treatment Group Questionnaire) was not statistically different: 63%, 69%, and 66%, in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .69). In contrast, 4-week Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy scores suggested MA-containing arms experienced superior appetite stimulation compared with the EPA arm, with scores of 40, 55, and 55 in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .004). Survival was not significantly different among arms. Global quality of life was not significantly different among groups. With the exception of increased impotence in MA-treated patients, toxicity was comparable. Conclusion This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone.

Purpose: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group performed a phase III trial to determine whether chemotherapy plus either bid radiation therapy (RT) or daily (qd) RT resulted in a better outcome for patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No difference in survival was identified between the two arms. This secondary analysis was performed to examine the relationship between patient age and outcome. Patients and Methods: Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized to receive etoposide plus cisplatin and either RT qd or split-course RT bid. This retrospective study compared the outcomes of patients aged ≥70 years (“elderly patients”) with those of younger individuals. Of the 244 assessable patients, 63 (26%) were elderly, and 181 (74%) were younger individuals. Results: The 2-year and 5-year survival rates were 39% and 18%, respectively, in patients younger than 70 years, compared with 36% and 13%, respectively, in elderly patients (P = .4). Grade 4+ toxicity occurred in 62% of patients younger than 70 years compared with 81% of elderly patients (P = .007). Grade 4+ hematologic toxicity occurred in 56% of patients younger than 70 years, compared with 78% of elderly patients (P = .003). Grade 4+ pneumonitis occurred in 1% of those younger than 70 years, compared with 6% of elderly patients (P = .02). Conclusion: Toxicity, especially myelosuppression and pneumonitis, was more pronounced in the elderly patients receiving combined-modality therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. Despite increased toxicity, elderly patients have survival rates equivalent to younger individuals. Therefore, fit, elderly patients with locally advanced NSCLC should be encouraged to receive combined-modality therapy, preferably on clinical trials with cautious, judicious monitoring. Future studies should explore ways to decrease toxicity of therapy in elderly patients.