Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer-associated wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada collaborative effort.
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15; 22(12):2469-76.JC

Abstract

PURPOSE

Studies suggest eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid, augments weight, appetite, and survival in cancer-associated wasting. This study determined whether an EPA supplement-administered alone or with megestrol acetate (MA)-was more effective than MA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred twenty-one assessable patients with cancer-associated wasting were randomly assigned to an EPA supplement 1.09 g administered bid plus placebo; MA liquid suspension 600 mg/d plus an isocaloric, isonitrogenous supplement administered twice a day; or both. Eligible patients reported a 5-lb, 2-month weight loss and/or intake of less than 20 calories/kg/d.

RESULTS

A smaller percentage taking the EPA supplement gained >or= 10% of baseline weight compared with those taking MA: 6% v 18%, respectively (P =.004). Combination therapy resulted in weight gain of >or= 10% in 11% of patients (P =.17 across all arms). The percentage of patients with appetite improvement (North Central Cancer Treatment Group Questionnaire) was not statistically different: 63%, 69%, and 66%, in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P =.69). In contrast, 4-week Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy scores suggested MA-containing arms experienced superior appetite stimulation compared with the EPA arm, with scores of 40, 55, and 55 in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P =.004). Survival was not significantly different among arms. Global quality of life was not significantly different among groups. With the exception of increased impotence in MA-treated patients, toxicity was comparable.

CONCLUSION

This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. jatoi.aminah@mayo.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15197210

Citation

Jatoi, Aminah, et al. "An Eicosapentaenoic Acid Supplement Versus Megestrol Acetate Versus Both for Patients With Cancer-associated Wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada Collaborative Effort." Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 12, 2004, pp. 2469-76.
Jatoi A, Rowland K, Loprinzi CL, et al. An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer-associated wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada collaborative effort. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2469-76.
Jatoi, A., Rowland, K., Loprinzi, C. L., Sloan, J. A., Dakhil, S. R., MacDonald, N., Gagnon, B., Novotny, P. J., Mailliard, J. A., Bushey, T. I., Nair, S., & Christensen, B. (2004). An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer-associated wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada collaborative effort. Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 22(12), 2469-76.
Jatoi A, et al. An Eicosapentaenoic Acid Supplement Versus Megestrol Acetate Versus Both for Patients With Cancer-associated Wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada Collaborative Effort. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jun 15;22(12):2469-76. PubMed PMID: 15197210.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer-associated wasting: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada collaborative effort. AU - Jatoi,Aminah, AU - Rowland,Kendrith, AU - Loprinzi,Charles L, AU - Sloan,Jeff A, AU - Dakhil,Shaker R, AU - MacDonald,Neil, AU - Gagnon,Bruno, AU - Novotny,Paul J, AU - Mailliard,James A, AU - Bushey,Teresita I L, AU - Nair,Suresh, AU - Christensen,Brad, AU - ,, PY - 2004/6/16/pubmed PY - 2004/6/30/medline PY - 2004/6/16/entrez SP - 2469 EP - 76 JF - Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology JO - J. Clin. Oncol. VL - 22 IS - 12 N2 - PURPOSE: Studies suggest eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid, augments weight, appetite, and survival in cancer-associated wasting. This study determined whether an EPA supplement-administered alone or with megestrol acetate (MA)-was more effective than MA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty-one assessable patients with cancer-associated wasting were randomly assigned to an EPA supplement 1.09 g administered bid plus placebo; MA liquid suspension 600 mg/d plus an isocaloric, isonitrogenous supplement administered twice a day; or both. Eligible patients reported a 5-lb, 2-month weight loss and/or intake of less than 20 calories/kg/d. RESULTS: A smaller percentage taking the EPA supplement gained >or= 10% of baseline weight compared with those taking MA: 6% v 18%, respectively (P =.004). Combination therapy resulted in weight gain of >or= 10% in 11% of patients (P =.17 across all arms). The percentage of patients with appetite improvement (North Central Cancer Treatment Group Questionnaire) was not statistically different: 63%, 69%, and 66%, in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P =.69). In contrast, 4-week Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy scores suggested MA-containing arms experienced superior appetite stimulation compared with the EPA arm, with scores of 40, 55, and 55 in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P =.004). Survival was not significantly different among arms. Global quality of life was not significantly different among groups. With the exception of increased impotence in MA-treated patients, toxicity was comparable. CONCLUSION: This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone. SN - 0732-183X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15197210/An_eicosapentaenoic_acid_supplement_versus_megestrol_acetate_versus_both_for_patients_with_cancer_associated_wasting:_a_North_Central_Cancer_Treatment_Group_and_National_Cancer_Institute_of_Canada_collaborative_effort_ L2 - http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.024?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -