Barton, Debra L.

Abstract Objective: The need for effective nonhormonal treatments for hot flash management without unwanted side effects continues. The primary aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of combining a nonhormonal pharmacologic agent with a behavioral treatment for hot flash reduction. Methods: Seventy-one postmenopausal women were randomized to one of four groups: venlafaxine 75 mg + hypnosis (VH) versus venlafaxine 75 mg + sham hypnosis (VSH) versus a placebo pill + hypnosis (PH) versus placebo pill + sham hypnosis (PSH). Women recorded hot flash severity and frequency in a daily diary, in real time. The intrapatient difference in hot flash score (frequency × severity) at 8 weeks was analyzed using a General Estimating Equation model, using VSH as the referent arm, controlling for baseline hot flashes. Results: The active arms including PH or VH were not statistically significantly different than VSH (P = 0.34, P = 0.05, respectively). Women in each active arm reported hot flash reductions of about 50%, with the PSH group reporting a 25% reduction. Women receiving the PSH reported statistically significantly smaller reductions in hot flash score than women in the referent VSH arm (P = 0.001). There were no significant negative side effects during the course of the study. Conclusions: Hypnosis alone reduced hot flashes equal to venlafaxine alone, but the combination of hypnosis and venlafaxine did not reduce hot flashes more than either treatment alone. More research is needed to clarify whether combining hypnosis with a different antidepressant would provide synergistic benefits.

PURPOSE: A meta-analysis of six North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trials involving patients receiving their first ever fluorouracil (5-FU)–based chemotherapy was undertaken to explore the association of sex with reports of the incidence and severity of stomatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained on a total of 731 patients (402 men and 329 women). Comparisons of incidence and severity rates and average stomatitis across sex were performed using standard binomial testing and t tests, respectively. Logistic regression analysis and a weighted analysis using data summarized to study level served as evidence of cross-validation. RESULTS: Women reported stomatitis both more often and with greater severity than did men. The incidence of any stomatitis for women was 63% versus 52% for men (P = .002). The incidence of severe or very severe stomatitis for men and women was 22% and 12%, respectively (P = .0006). On average, women reported stomatitis of roughly 0.4 points higher than men on a 0 to 4 ordinal scale (P < .00001). Comparison of results across treatment and placebo arms was carried out to validate the initial findings. Logistic regression modelling further confirmed the results conditional on the presence of a number of potentially confounding covariates. Women were also 11% more likely than men to experience leukopenia of common toxicity criteria grade ≥ 1, (70% v 59%, respectively; P < .00001) and grade 3+ (18% v 11%, respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSION: More women than men reported 5-FU–induced stomatitis. The precise mechanism resulting in different degrees of stomatitis across sex is not evident.

PURPOSE: In the course of conducting a series of prospective clinical trials devoted to defining new treatment opportunities for hot flashes in cancer survivors, considerable experience has been acquired with related methodologic issues. This article has been written in response to many queries regarding this methodology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of seven different clinical trials that involved 968 patients was used for this work. Reliable and valid definitions of hot flash intensity were developed from patient-reported descriptions. Concomitant validity and reliability assessment of patient-completed diaries was undertaken to compare hot flash data with toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) end points and to examine consistency across patient groups using variability analysis and correlation procedures. Parametric data from this meta-analysis was used to examine relative power considerations for the design of phase II and phase III clinical trials. RESULTS: Daily diaries used in these studies exhibited consistency and reliability and had few missing data. Hot flash frequency and hot flash score (frequency multiplied by average severity) variables produced almost identical end point results. For phase III placebo-controlled studies, 50 patients per treatment arm seem appropriate to provide sufficient power specifications to detect a clinically meaningful change in hot flash activity. For phase II trials, 25 patients per trial seem to provide reasonable estimates of eventual hot flash efficacy to screen potential agents for more definitive testing. CONCLUSION: Given the data gained from these experiences, we can plan and carry out more efficient trials to identify efficacious agents for the reduction of hot flash activity.

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.

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.

Improving early detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is critical because untreated AF is a major contributor to stroke and heart failure. We sought to generate knowledge about the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to test the effect of the Alert for AFib intervention on knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about treatment-seeking for signs and symptoms of AF. Adults ≥65 years old (96% White) at risk for developing AF were randomized to receive the Alert for AFib intervention ( n = 40) or an attention control session ( n = 40). Feasibility goals for recruitment, participant retention, adherence, perceived satisfaction and burden, and intervention fidelity were met. From baseline to study completion, knowledge ( p = .005) and attitudes ( p < .001) about treatment-seeking improved more in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results support testing the effectiveness of the Alert for AFib intervention in a large trial.

BACKGROUNDDespite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).METHODSParticipants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2‐4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2‐6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test.RESULTSFour hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty‐seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects.CONCLUSIONSIn this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients. Cancer 2014;120:3575–3583. © 2014 American Cancer Society.