Citations

Cancer cachexia is a complex metabolic condition characterized by loss of skeletal muscle. Common clinical manifestations include muscle wasting, anemia, reduced caloric intake, and altered immune function, which contribute to increased disability, fatigue, diminished quality of life, and reduced survival. The prevalence of cachexia and the impact of this disorder on the patient and family underscore the need for effective management strategies. Dietary supplementation and appetite stimulation alone are inadequate to reverse the underlying metabolic abnormalities of cancer cachexia and have limited long-term impact on patient quality of life and survival. Therapies that can increase muscle mass and physical performance may be a promising option; however, there are currently no drugs approved for the prevention or treatment of cancer cachexia. Several agents are in clinical development, including anabolic agents, such as selective androgen receptor modulators and drugs targeting inflammatory cytokines that promote skeletal muscle catabolism.

PurposeSingle-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is standard treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fixed-dose rate (FDR) GEM and GEM plus oxaliplatin have shown promise in early clinical trials. E6201 was designed to compare overall survival (OS) of standard weekly GEM 1,000 mg/m2/30 minutes versus GEM FDR 1,500 mg/m2/150 minutes or GEM 1,000 mg/m2/100 minutes/day 1 plus oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2/day 2 every 14 days (GEMOX).MethodsThis trial included patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, normal organ function, and performance status of 0 to 2. The study was designed to detect a 33% difference in median survival (hazard ratio [HR] ≤ 0.75 for either of the experimental arms) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each of the two primary comparisons.ResultsEight hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median survival and 1-year survival were 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.6) and 16% for GEM, 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 6.9), and 21% for GEM FDR (HR, 0.83; stratified log-rank P = .04), and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 6.5) and 21% for GEMOX (HR, 0.88; stratified log-rank P = .22). Neither of these differences met the prespecified criteria for significance. Survival was 9.2 months for patients with locally advanced disease, and 5.4 months for those with metastatic disease. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were greatest with GEM FDR. GEMOX caused higher rates of nausea, vomiting, and neuropathy.ConclusionNeither GEM FDR nor GEMOX resulted in substantially improved survival or symptom benefit over standard GEM in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Abstract This phase 3 prospective randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and long-term safety of erythropoietin (EPO) with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor plus supportive care (SC; n = 53) versus SC alone (n = 57) for the treatment of anemic patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. The response rates in the EPO versus SC alone arms were 36% versus 9.6%, respectively, at the initial treatment step, 47% in the EPO arm, including subsequent steps. Responding patients had significantly lower serum EPO levels (45% vs 5% responses for levels < 200 mU/mL vs ≥ 200 mU/mL) and improvement in multiple quality-of-life domains. With prolonged follow-up (median, 5.8 years), no differences were found in overall survival of patients in the EPO versus SC arms (median, 3.1 vs 2.6 years) or in the incidence of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (7.5% and 10.5% patients, respectively). Increased survival was demonstrated for erythroid responders versus nonresponders (median, 5.5 vs 2.3 years). Flow cytometric analysis showed that the percentage of P-glycoprotein+ CD34+ marrow blasts was positively correlated with longer overall survival. In comparison with SC alone, patients receiving EPO with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor plus SC had improved erythroid responses, similar survival, and incidence of acute myeloid leukemia transformation.

Purpose To prospectively assess the impact of treatment with cisplatin alone or in combination with topotecan (CT) on quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer, and to explore the prognostic value of baseline QOL scores. Patients and Methods Patients entered on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Protocol 179 were expected to complete QOL assessments at four time points using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G), Cervix subscale (Cx subscale), FACT/GOG–Neurotoxicity subscale (NTX subscale), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and UNISCALE (UNI). Adjusting for patient age, baseline scores, and effects of time, we longitudinally examined treatment effect on QOL during and after chemotherapy. Results Among patients randomly allocated to receive cisplatin (n = 146) or CT (n = 147), there were no statistically significant differences in QOL up to 9 months after randomization despite more hematologic toxicity in the combination arm. QOL assessments were completed at rates of 98%, 85%, 68%, and 59%, respectively, for the four time points, with similar rates and reasons for nonparticipation between regimens. Baseline FACT-G (P = .0016) and BPI (P = .0001) scores were significantly associated with patient age; older patients had better QOL and less pain. Baseline UNI was positively correlated with FACT-G (r = 0.66; P < .001) and Cx subscale (r = 0.29; P < .001), and negatively related to BPI (r = −0.41; P < .0001). Baseline FACT-Cx (FACT-G + Cx subscale) was associated with survival. Conclusion Despite increased toxicity, CT did not significantly reduce patient QOL when compared with cisplatin alone. Patient-reported QOL measures may be an important prognostic tool in advanced cervix cancer.

Purpose: Studies have documented that the majority of consent documents for medical diagnosis and treatment are written at a reading level above that of the majority of the U.S. population. This study hypothesized that use of an easy-to-read consent statement, when compared with a standard consent statement, will result in higher patient comprehension of the clinical treatment protocol, lower patient anxiety, higher patient satisfaction, and higher patient accrual.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 44 institutions that were members or affiliates of three cooperative oncology groups. Institutions were randomly assigned to administer either an easy-to-read consent statement or the standard consent statement to patients being recruited to participate in selected cancer treatment trials. Telephone interviews were conducted with a total of 207 patients to assess study outcomes.Results: Patients in the intervention arm demonstrated significantly lower consent anxiety and higher satisfaction compared with patients in the control arm. Patient comprehension and state anxiety were not affected by the intervention. Accrual rates into the parent studies also did not differ significantly between the two study groups.Conclusion: Clinical trial informed consent statements can be modified to be easier to read without omitting critical information. Patient anxiety and satisfaction can be affected by the consent document. The generalizability of these study results is limited by the characteristics of the patient sample. Ninety percent of the sample were white women, and the mean Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine score was approximately 64, indicating a literacy level at or above the ninth grade.