Tschetter, Loren K.

526 Background: Antidepressants do not adequately alleviate all HFs. Based on placebo-controlled data demonstrating that GABA is an alternative therapy for HFs, this trial was initiated to test whether the combination of an antidepressant and GABA was better than GABA alone in PTS with inadequate HF control on an antidepressant alone. Methods: Eligible PTS on antidepressants with bothersome HFs were randomized to two groups. PTS kept a daily HF diary during a baseline wk (while continuing their antidepressant). Following the baseline wk, all PTS were given GABA 300 mg at hs for 3 days, then BID for 3 days, and then TID for 22 days. One group continued their antidepressant while the other group was weaned off it over several days. PTS continued a daily HF diary during this 4-wk period. Efficacy was measured using the mean daily HF number and score; the latter measured by assigning points (1–4, for mild to very severe) to each HF and then adding the points for a given time. The study design provided 80% power to detect a difference in the changes from baseline at 4 wks between the two groups of 1.2 HFs/day, or 3 points/day in HF scores. Results: 115 PTS were randomized and given GABA. PTS continuing their antidepressant reported a 48% mean reduction in HF score after 4 wks, vs 49% for PTS stopping it (p=0.97). Mean HF numbers were reduced 50% and 47%, respectively (p=0.54). 16 other symptoms and quality of life items were measured by PT-completed weekly questionnaires, with the only suggestive changes from baseline between the two arms being more mood troubles after 2 wks of treatment (p=0.06) and more nervousness after 4 wks of treatment (p=0.01) in PTS stopping their antidepressant. Also, a mild temporary increase in dizziness after 1 wk of treatment was observed in the same group (p=0.08) suggestive of an antidepressant withdrawal reaction. Conclusion: This trial failed to provide any evidence that the combination of GABA and an antidepressant decreased HFs any more than did GABA alone in PTS who had inadequate HF control with an antidepressant alone. The 50% reduction in HFs in both arms is commensurate with the efficacy of GABA delineated in other published reports. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the third step of a research program to identify variables that supplement the predictive power of the the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) for survival. The objective was to produce a simple, practical, stratification factor for phase III oncology clinical trials involving patients with advanced malignant disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 729 patients with metastatic colorectal or lung cancers. Patients provided a Karnofsky index and appetite rating while physicians provided a survival estimate and the ECOG-PS. Scores for each item were categorized as having a positive, neutral, or negative indication for survival. A patient was classified as having a relatively good prognosis if three or more of the four items showed a positive indication, a bad prognosis if three or more items were negative, and an uncertain prognosis otherwise (Good/Bad/Uncertain [GBU] index). RESULTS: The GBU index improved on the prognostic power of a Cox model quartile index and PS alone and increased the accuracy of survival classification estimates by 5% to 10% more than ECOG-PS alone. For patients with PS of 0 or 1, significant survival patterns exist between GBU groups (P= .002 and .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GBU index may be recommended as a supplementary stratification factor for certain future phase III trials in metastatic lung or colorectal cancer where patient heterogeneity is a particular concern. The GBU represents a relatively modest increase to the cost and patient burden of a clinical trial given the additional control that is achieved over the potentially confounding concomitant to the treatment variable.

Purpose Despite the utility of newer antidepressants for alleviating hot flashes, antidepressants do not work adequately enough in many patients. Gabapentin is a nonhormonal agent that also can reduce hot flashes. No data have been available to address whether the combination of both agents would more effectively alleviate hot flashes, compared with gabapentin alone, in patients with inadequate hot flash control with an antidepressant alone. Patients and Methods This was a randomized trial in which 118 patients with inadequate hot flash control on an antidepressant were randomly assigned to receive both an antidepressant and gabapentin versus being weaned off the antidepressant and receiving gabapentin alone. Patients were observed for 5 weeks (including a baseline week in which patients continued on their current antidepressant without gabapentin) during which time they completed validated daily hot flash diaries. Results Ninety-one patients provided complete data at the 5-week assessment. Regardless of whether or not the antidepressant was continued when gabapentin was started, there was an approximately 50% median reduction in hot flash frequencies (54%; 95% CI, 34% to 70% for combined treatment v 49%; 95% CI, 26% to 58% for gabapentin alone) and scores (56%; 95% CI, 26% to 71% for combined treatment v 60%; 95% CI, 33% to 73% for gabapentin alone). Conclusion Gabapentin seems to decrease hot flashes by approximately 50% in women with inadequate hot flash control who were using an antidepressant. This study saw no significant additional hot flash reduction from continuation of the antidepressant.

Purpose To compare maintenance epoetin alfa administered once every 3 weeks with continued weekly epoetin alfa for patients with cancer-associated anemia. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were randomly assigned at enrollment to receive three weekly doses of epoetin alfa 40,000 U subcutaneously (SC), followed by either standard weekly epoetin alfa (40K arm) or 120,000 U of epoetin alfa (120K arm) SC every 3 weeks for 18 additional weeks. Results Three hundred sixty-five patients were enrolled. One hundred eighty-three patients were assigned to the 40K arm, and 182 were assigned to the 120K arm. There was no difference in the proportion of patients requiring transfusions during the study (23% in 40K arm and 18% in 120K arm, P = .22) or specifically during the maintenance phase (13% in 40K arm v 15% in 120K arm, P = .58). Patients randomly assigned to the 40K arm were more likely to have a ≥ 2 or ≥ 3 g/dL hemoglobin (Hb) increment, were more likely to have a drug dose held because of high Hb, and had higher mean end-of-study Hb levels. Toxicities, including thromboembolism, and overall survival were similar. Patients in the 40K arm had a higher global quality of life (QOL) at baseline for unclear reasons, whereas patients in the 120K arm had a greater global QOL improvement during the study, so end-of-study QOL was equivalent. Conclusion After three weekly doses of epoetin alfa 40,000 U, a dose of 120,000 U can be administered safely once every 3 weeks without increasing transfusion needs or sacrificing QOL. The Hb increment is somewhat greater with continued weekly epoetin alfa. Lack of blinding as a result of different treatment schedules may have confounded results.

Purpose Vasomotor hot flashes are a common problem in menopausal women. Given concerns regarding estrogen and/or combined hormonal therapy, other treatment options are desired. Prior trials have confirmed that progestational agents and newer antidepressants effectively reduce hot flashes. This current trial compared a single intramuscular dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), depot preparation, versus daily oral venlafaxine as treatment for hot flashes. Methods Women with bothersome hot flashes were entered onto this trial, were randomly assigned to treatment, and then had a baseline week where hot flash scores were recorded without treatment. They were then treated and observed for 6 weeks; daily diaries were used to measure hot flash frequencies and severities. There were 109 patients per each arm randomly assigned to receive MPA 400 mg intramuscularly for a single dose versus venlafaxine 37.5 mg per day for a week, then 75 mg per day. Results During the sixth week after random assignment, hot flash scores were reduced by 55% in the venlafaxine arm versus 79% in the MPA arm (P < .0001). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 46% of venlafaxine patients (50 of 109) compared with 74% of the MPA patients (81 of 109) had a decrease in hot flashes by more than 50% from baseline (P < .0001). Less toxicity was reported in the MPA arm. Conclusion A single MPA dose seems to be well tolerated and more effectively reduces hot flashes than does venlafaxine.

Purpose Gemcitabine remains the standard therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ACA), but has limited activity. ISIS-2503 is an antisense compound directed against H-ras with preclinical activity against pancreatic ACA in tumor models. The combination of ISIS-2503 and gemcitabine has been evaluated in a prior phase I study. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic ACA not amenable to surgery or local radiation received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 and ISIS-2503 6 mg/kg/d as a continuous intravenous infusion over 14 days of an every-3-weeks cycle. Responses were monitored by radiologic imaging every 6 weeks. Results Forty-eight eligible patients were enrolled, 43 with metastatic disease. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range, 2.2 to 16.8 months) for living patients. A median of four cycles of treatment was given (range, 1 to 18 cycles). All patients were assessable for response and toxicity. The 6-month survival percentage was 57.5% (95% CI, 44.9% to 73.5%) and the median survival was 6.6 months. The response rate was 10.4% (one complete response, four partial responses). Clinically significant toxicity was limited except for one fatal pulmonary embolism. Conclusion This study shows a promising response rate to the combination of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in patients with pancreatic ACA. The observed 6-month survival rate in these patients met our protocol-defined criteria for success. This regimen is tolerable, but is of unclear benefit. Additional studies evaluating the role of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in the treatment of pancreatic ACA should be considered.