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. Controlled trial of megestrol acetate for the treatment of cancer anorexia and cachexia. Randomized comparison of megestrol acetate versus dexamethasone versus fluoxymesterone for the treatment of cancer anorexia/cachexia. Usefulness of megestrol acetate in cancer cachexia and anorexia. A placebo-controlled study. Megestrol acetate for anorexia in patients with far-advanced cancer: a double-blind controlled clinical trial. Megestrol acetate in cancer anorexia and weight loss. Randomized phase III clinical trial of five different arms of treatment in 332 patients with cancer cachexia. A controlled trial of megestrol acetate on appetite, caloric intake, nutritional status, and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. Prospective randomised trial of two dose levels of megestrol acetate in the management of anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with metastatic cancer.
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.
                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.
                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.
                This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone. Preliminary information has suggested that megestrol acetate leads to appetite stimulation and nonfluid weight gain in patients with breast cancer, other cancers, and AIDS. Pursuant to this, we developed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate in patients with cancer-associated anorexia and cachexia. We randomly assigned 133 eligible patients to receive 800 mg of megestrol acetate per day or a placebo. Patients assigned to megestrol acetate more frequently reported improved appetite (P = .003) and food intake (P = .009) when compared with patients receiving the placebo. A weight gain of 15 lb or more over baseline was seen in 11 of 67 (16%) patients receiving megestrol acetate compared with one of 66 (2%) given the placebo (P = .003). Patients receiving megestrol acetate reported significantly less nausea (13% vs. 38%; P = .001) and emesis (8% vs. 25%, P = .009). No clinically or statistically significant toxic reactions were ascribed to megestrol acetate, with the exception of mild edema. This study convincingly demonstrated that megestrol acetate can stimulate appetite and food intake in patients with anorexia and cachexia associated with cancer, leading to significant weight gain in a proportion of such patients. 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 appetite 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 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 appetite and drug toxicities.
                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).
                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. To assess the effect of megestrol acetate (MA) on the appetite and weight of cancer patients with nonhormone-dependent tumors, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed. One hundred fifty patients were included: 76 were given MA (240 mg/day orally) for at least 2 months, and 74 were given placebo (P). Body weight, subjective sense of appetite (SSA) evaluated by an analogic linear visual scale scored from 1 to 10, and performance status (PS) were measured before therapy and monthly thereafter. No differences in body weight before and after treatment could be found in any group. However, 32% of the patients in the MA group (95% confidence interval: 20.1-44.6%) gained 2 or more kilograms (P less than 0.001). This group also showed an improvement in SSA (P less than 0.01): an increase greater than or equal to 2 points appeared in 57.5% of patients (95% confidence interval 44.6-69.4%). There was no significant difference in PS for the treatment groups before or after therapy. The percentage of reported adverse events did not differ significantly from one treatment group to the next. We conclude that therapy with MA at a dose of 240 mg/day improved SSA and was associated with moderate weight gain in patients with hormone-insensitive malignancies. The aim of this study was to evaluate a low-dose regimen of megestrol acetate (MA; 320 mg/day) on appetite in advanced cancer patients. Out-patients with far-advanced non-hormone responsive tumours and loss of appetite were randomised in a phase III trial, with two consecutive phases: a 14-day double-blind placebo controlled phase (phase A) and a 76-day open phase (phase B). During phase A, patients were treated with MA, two 160 mg tablets/day, or placebo. In phase B, the MA dose was titrated to clinical response in both groups. Appetite, food intake, body weight, performance status, mood and quality of life were evaluated with standardised measures; patients' global judgement about treatment efficacy was also requested. Of 42 patients entering the study, 33 (17 MA and 16 placebo) were evaluable for efficacy. The appetite score improved significantly with MA after 7 days (P = 0.0023), and this effect was still significant at 14 days (P = 0.0064). Patients judged the treatment with MA effective in 88.2% of cases (14th day), whilst placebo was considered effective by 25% (P = 0.0003). None of the other measures showed significant changes during treatment. The remarkable effect on appetite evident after 7 days, without serious side-effects, shows that MA can produce significant subjective effects at a low-dose even in patients with far-advanced disease. High-dose megestrol acetate has been associated with increased appetite and weight. To examine the effects of high-dose megestrol acetate in the treatment of anorexia and weight loss in patients with advanced hormone-insensitive malignant lesions, a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Patients receiving megestrol acetate for 1 month reported a significant improvement in appetite and adequacy of food intake compared with those receiving placebo. A three-item scale measuring appetite, adequacy of food intake, and concern about weight revealed a higher improvement with megestrol acetate than with placebo. Patients who worsened while receiving placebo had similar favorable changes after the cross over to megestrol acetate. These data indicate that megestrol acetate may improve appetite and food intake in patients with advanced cancer. A phase III, randomized study was carried out to establish the most effective and safest treatment to improve the primary endpoints of cancer cachexia-lean body mass (LBM), resting energy expenditure (REE), and fatigue-and relevant secondary endpoints: appetite, quality of life, grip strength, Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and proinflammatory cytokines.
                Three hundred thirty-two assessable patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia syndrome were randomly assigned to one of five treatment arms: arm 1, medroxyprogesterone (500 mg/day) or megestrol acetate (320 mg/day); arm 2, oral supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid; arm 3, L-carnitine (4 g/day); arm 4, thalidomide (200 mg/day); and arm 5, a combination of the above. Treatment duration was 4 months.
                Analysis of variance showed a significant difference between treatment arms. A post hoc analysis showed the superiority of arm 5 over the others for all primary endpoints. An analysis of changes from baseline showed that LBM (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and by L3 computed tomography) significantly increased in arm 5. REE decreased significantly and fatigue improved significantly in arm 5. Appetite increased significantly in arm 5; interleukin (IL)-6 decreased significantly in arm 5 and arm 4; GPS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score decreased significantly in arm 5, arm 4, and arm 3. Toxicity was quite negligible, and was comparable between arms.
                The most effective treatment in terms of all three primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary endpoints appetite, IL-6, GPS, and ECOG PS score was the combination regimen that included all selected agents. This double-blind, cross-over trial was designed to assess the effects of megestrol acetate (MA) on cancer-induced cachexia. Forty consecutive malnourished patients with advanced non-hormone-responsive tumors receiving no antineoplastic treatment were randomized to receive MA 480 mg/day versus placebo for 7 days. During day 8, a cross-over was made until day 15. Appetite, pain, nausea, depression, energy, and well-being were assessed with a visual analog scale (0 to 100 mm) at 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM during days 6, 7, 13, and 14. Weight (W;kg), tricep skinfold (TS; mm), arm circumference (AC; cm), and calf circumference (CC; cm) were measured at days 1, 8, and 15. Caloric intake (CI; Kcal/day) was determined during days 6, 7, 13, and 14. In 31 evaluable patients, the percentual difference in appetite at 9:00 AM, appetite at 4:00 PM, energy, and well-being after MA was +15.1, +14, +3.2, and +5.2, versus -12 (P = 0.03), -5.1 (P = 0.015), -10 (P = 0.024), and -8.3 (not significant) after placebo. Percentual difference in W, TS, AC, and CC after MA was +0.2, +1, -0.1, and +0.4 versus -0.8 (P = 0.03), -0.8 (P = 0.001), -0.3 (not significant), and -0.5 (P = 0.04) after placebo. CI during MA was 3480 +/- 1574 (48-hour intake), versus 2793 +/- 1542 (P less than 0.001) during placebo. Patients and investigators blindly chose MA in 20 (66%, P = 0.023) and 28 cases (92%, P less than 0.001), placebo in eight and two cases, and made no choice in three and one cases, respectively. Toxicity consisted of mild edema and nausea in three and two cases, respectively. After mean follow-up of 27 +/- 13 days, on an open basis, an average increase in W and AC of 4.8 +/- 1.7 kg and 2.8 +/- 1.7 cm was observed, respectively. The authors conclude that MA is a powerful appetite stimulant with subjective and objective effects on nutritional status. Two doses of megestrol acetate (MA) have been prospectively compared in a random fashion as treatment for cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome (ACS) in 122 patients with progressive soft tissue sarcoma, colorectal, lung, head and neck and renal cancer resistant to systemic chemotherapy. After 30 days of MA, 55% of patients receiving MA at 160 mg day-1 reported an increase in appetite, 27% of patients no variation and 18% complained of a decrease in appetite. Patients treated with MA at 320 mg day-1 reported an increase in appetite in 68% of cases, a stabilisation in 20% of cases and a decrease in 12%. Although an increase in appetite was more frequently observed in patients receiving MA at 320 mg day-1, however this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.305). After 30 days of MA, 31% of patients treated with MA at 160 mg day-1 showed an increase in body weight, 25% a stabilisation and 44% a decrease. In the group of patients treated with MA at 320 mg day-1, 45% reported an increase in body weight, 16% no change and 23% weight loss. Although there was a trend favouring the higher dose of MA, overall analysis however failed to detect any statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms (P = 0.242). Twenty-seven patients pretreated with 160 mg day-1 and 23 patients treated with 320 mg day-1 received further therapy with MA at the dose of 320 and 480 mg day-1 respectively. In the group of 22 patients treated with 320 mg day-1 four (18%) reported an increase in body weight, eight (36%) an improvement in appetite, but none had an increase in performance status. Among the 20 evaluable patients treated with 480 mg day-1, two (10%) had an increase in body weight, four (20%) an improvement in appetite, but none reported an increase in performance status. No difference in median survival was detected between the two arms. Toxicity was mild and predictable. In conclusion, the data achieved in the present study confirm the clinical safety and effectiveness of oral MA in the management of ACS in patients with advanced cancer resistant to systemic chemotherapy. Moreover, data concerning the dose escalation of MA dosage in unresponsive patients suggest that a step by step increase in MA dosage could be the best way of administering MA for the management of ACS and that the increase of MA dosage over 480 mg day-1 will probably be useless in the vast majority of cases. Data on body weight suggest that after 2 weeks' therapy MA could be stopped or its dosage tailored to patients' needs since the majority of patients respond after only 15 days of MA.
There were insufficient data to establish whether oral EPA was better than placebo. Comparisons of EPA combined with a protein energy supplementation versus a protein energy supplementation (without EPA) in the presence of an appetite stimulant (Megestrol Acetate) provided no evidence that EPA improves symptoms associated with the cachexia syndrome often seen in patients with advanced cancer.