Sloan, Jeff A.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes represent a significant clinical problem for some breast cancer survivors. Safe, effective treatment is needed for this prominent clinical problem. Although it has been shown that estrogen or progesterone replacement therapy can alleviate this problem, there are continued safety concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in these women. Based on anecdotal information, we hypothesized that soy-derived phytoestrogens, weak estrogen-like substances in the soybean that demonstrate estrogen agonist and/or antagonist effects when they bind to estrogen receptors, could alleviate hot flashes. This current trial was designed to investigate this hypothesis.PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind clinical trial involved breast cancer survivors with substantial hot flashes. After randomization, patients underwent a 1-week baseline period with no therapy. This was followed by 4 weeks of either soy tablets or placebo. The patients then crossed over to the opposite arm in a double-blind manner for the last 4 weeks. Patients completed a daily questionnaire documenting hot flash frequency, intensity, and perceived side effects.RESULTS: Of the 177 women who were randomized and started the study substance, 155 (88%) provided useable data over the first 5 weeks; 149 provided usable data over the entire 9 weeks. There was no suggestion that the soy product was more effective in reducing hot flashes than the placebo. At study completion, patients preferred the soy product 33% of the time, the placebo 37% of the time, and neither substance 31% of the time. No toxicity was observed.CONCLUSION: The soy product did not alleviate hot flashes in breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics of continuous venous infusion (CVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with that of oral eniluracil/5-FU and to describe toxicities and clinical activity of prolonged oral administration of eniluracil/5-FU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, cross-over study compared CVI 5-FU to an oral 5-FU/eniluracil combination. Seventeen patients (arm A) were randomly assigned to receive eniluracil/5-FU combination tablets (10:1 mg/m 2 BID for 7 days) during the first study period, followed by 5-FU (300 mg/m 2 CVI for 7 days) during period 2, with a 14-day washout between periods. Sixteen patients (arm B) received treatment in the opposite sequence. In period 3, all patients received eniluracil/5-FU tablets BID for 28 days. Plasma levels of 5-FU during CVI and oral administration were analyzed in periods 1 and 2. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) activity was determined by measuring plasma uracil, urinary α–fluoro-β-alanine, and peripheral-blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DPD activity. RESULTS: There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities in either arm. Partial responses were observed in three patients. Another three patients had stable disease for ≥ 3 months. Eniluracil and 5-FU pharmacokinetics were similar to those observed in previous studies and were unaffected by administration sequence. The mean ± SD steady-state plasma concentration (C P ) and area under the curve (AUC) 144-168h for CVI 5-FU (104 ± 45 ng/mL and 2,350 ± 826 ng·h/mL, respectively) were three-fold greater than those for oral 5-FU (38.1 ± 7.7 ng/mL and 722 ± 182 ng·h/mL, respectively [P < .00001]). Individual 5-FU concentrations during CVI were highly variable, whereas those after eniluracil/5-FU were very reproducible. DPD activity in PBMCs before each study period was normal. CONCLUSION: Both CVI 5-FU and oral eniluracil/5-FU were well tolerated, with moderate activity in these heavily pretreated patients. However, 5-FU steady-state C P and AUCs achieved with oral eniluracil/5-FU were significantly less than with CVI 5-FU.

PURPOSE: To determine whether dronabinol administered alone or with megestrol acetate was more, less, or equal in efficacy to single-agent megestrol acetate for palliating cancer-associated anorexia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred sixty-nine assessable advanced cancer patients were randomized to (1) oral megestrol acetate 800 mg/d liquid suspension plus placebo, (2) oral dronabinol 2.5 mg twice a day plus placebo, or (3) both agents. Eligible patients acknowledged that loss of appetite or weight was a problem and reported the loss of 5 pounds or more during 2 months and/or a daily intake of less than 20 calories/kg of body weight. RESULTS: Groups were comparable at baseline in age, sex, tumor type, weight loss, and performance status. A greater percentage of megestrol acetate-treated patients reported appetite improvement and weight gain compared with dronabinol-treated patients: 75% versus 49% (P = .0001) for appetite and 11% versus 3% (P = .02) for ≥ 10% baseline weight gain. Combination treatment resulted in no significant differences in appetite or weight compared with megestrol acetate alone. The Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy questionnaire, which emphasizes anorexia-related questions, demonstrated an improvement in quality of life (QOL) among megestrol acetate–treated and combination-treated patients. The single-item Uniscale, a global QOL instrument, found comparable scores. Toxicity was also comparable, with the exception of an increased incidence of impotence among men who received megestrol acetate. CONCLUSION: In the doses and schedules we studied, megestrol acetate provided superior anorexia palliation among advanced cancer patients compared with dronabinol alone. Combination therapy did not appear to confer additional benefit.

PURPOSE: Previous double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that both corticosteroids and progestational agents do partially alleviate cancer anorexia/cachexia. Pilot information suggested that an anabolic corticosteroid might also improve appetites in patients with cancer anorexia/cachexia. The current trial was developed to compare and contrast a progestational agent, a corticosteroid, and an anabolic corticosteroid for the treatment of cancer anorexia/cachexia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients suffering from cancer anorexia/cachexia were randomized to receive either dexamethasone 0.75 mg qid, megestrol acetate 800 mg orally every day, or fluoxymesterone 10 mg orally bid. Patients were observed at monthly intervals to evaluate weight changes and drug toxicity. Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at monthly intervals to evaluate appetites and drug toxicities. RESULTS: Fluoxymesterone resulted in significantly less appetite enhancement and did not have a favorable toxicity profile. Megestrol acetate and dexamethasone caused a similar degree of appetite enhancement and similar changes in nonfluid weight status, with nonsignificant trends favoring megestrol acetate for both of these parameters. Dexamethasone was observed to have more corticosteroid-type toxicity and a higher rate of drug discontinuation because of toxicity and/or patient refusal than megestrol acetate (36% v 25%; P = .03). Megestrol acetate had a higher rate of deep venous thrombosis than dexamethasone (5% v 1%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Whereas fluoxymesterone clearly seems to be an inferior choice for treating cancer anorexia/cachexia, megestrol acetate and dexamethasone have similar appetite stimulating efficacy but differing toxicity profiles.

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.