Citations

PURPOSE: Hot flashes can be a prominent problem in women with a history of breast cancer. Given concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in such patients, other nonhormonal means for treating hot flashes are required. Based on anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants for treating hot flashes, the present trial was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a double-blinded, randomized, two-period (4 weeks per period), cross-over methodology to study the efficacy of fluoxetine (20 mg/d) for treating hot flashes in women with a history of breast cancer or a concern regarding the use of estrogen (because of breast cancer risk). Eligible patients had to have reported that they averaged at least 14 hot flashes per week; they could have received tamoxifen or raloxifene as long as they were on a stable dose. The major outcome measure was a bivariate construct representing hot flash frequency and hot flash score, analyzed by a classic sums and differences cross-over analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one randomized women began protocol therapy. By the end of the first treatment period, hot flash scores (frequency × average severity) decreased 50% in the fluoxetine arm versus 36% in the placebo arm. Cross-over analysis demonstrated a significantly greater marked hot flash score improvement with fluoxetine than placebo (P = .02). The results were not adjusted for potential confounding influences, including age and tamoxifen use. The fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This dose of fluoxetine resulted in a modest improvement in hot flashes.

PURPOSE: Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate. Several other measures of bowel function were also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving pelvic RT to a minimum of 45 Gy at 1.7 to 2.1 Gy/d were eligible for the study. Patients were assigned randomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical looking placebo during pelvic RT. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were randomly assigned and found assessable. Overall, there was no significant difference in patient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo. Moderate or worse diarrhea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence (16% v 34%, respectively; P = .04) and need for protective clothing (8% v 23%, respectively; P = .04). The incidence and severity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P = .03). Analysis of patient-reported symptoms 10 to 12 months after RT showed a nonsignificant trend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v 1.9 problems, respectively; P = .34). CONCLUSION: Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxicity by any of the end points measured and seems to have aggravated some gastrointestinal symptoms.

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.