Loprinzi, Charles L.

PURPOSE: Physicians and patients require quantitative information on the expected benefits of adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer to make appropriate treatment decisions. To date, there has not been any widely available method for estimating the benefits from adjuvant systemic therapy, in terms of long-term disease-free survival probabilities, in patients with primary breast cancer. METHODS: Baseline prognostic information for primary breast cancer patients was estimated by asking 11 breast cancer specialists to complete a questionnaire on baseline prognosis and then using mean values. Data on the relative benefits of adjuvant therapy were culled from systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. A computer algorithm was developed to calculate 10-year absolute outcome data. Results from this evaluation were compared with a previously described actuarial algorithm. RESULTS: Individual prognostic estimates varied within a group of breast cancer specialists, but mean values of their estimates closely followed published data. Translation of expected benefits of adjuvant therapy from relative to absolute terms was performed with a simple computer algorithm. The data were translated into tabular forms to facilitate user-friendly clinical use. CONCLUSION: The provided data should facilitate a better understanding of the absolute magnitude of benefit for available systemic adjuvant therapies in individual women with primary breast cancer. This should allow patients to make more informed decisions about their options.

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.

CRA9015 Background: Hot flashes are a common symptom during the menopause transition or following breast cancer treatment that can negatively impact the quality of life for many women. Preliminary data have suggested that flaxseed, a rich source of dietary lignans, may be a potentially effective treatment for hot flashes. Methods: A phase III randomized, placebo controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of flaxseed in reducing hot flashes. Postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to a flaxseed bar (providing 410 mg of lignans) for 6 weeks vs a placebo bar. Participants completed daily prospective, self report hot flash diaries during the baseline week and then began eating one study bar per day for 6 weeks, while continuing to record their daily hot flashes. The intra-patient difference in hot flash activity between baseline and the last treatment week was the primary endpoint. Side effects of the bars were evaluated through self report and CTC assessment. Results: Between October and December 2009, 188 women were enrolled onto this trial. Mean hot flash scores were reduced by 4.9 units in the flaxseed group and 3.5 in the placebo group (p=0.29). In both groups, a little over a third of the women received a 50% reduction in their hot flash scores. Only one side effect was significantly different between groups, that being grade 1 pruritis, which was more common (7%) in the placebo group versus 1% in the flaxseed group. Both groups reported increased abdominal distension, flatulence, diarrhea and nausea. Adherence and ability to detect treatment assignment did not differ between groups. Conclusions: The results of this trial do not support the use of 410 mg of flaxseed lignans for the reduction of hot flashes. The gastrointestinal side effects seen in both groups were likely due to the fiber content in the flaxseed and placebo bars.