Comparison of three different treatment modalities in the management of cancer cachexia
Comparison of three different treatment modalities in the management of cancer cachexia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1700/1283.14197
复制
发表时间：
2013-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Olmez, Fatih
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kanat, Ozkan;Cubukcu, Erdem;Olmez, Fatih
目标和背景。癌症恶病质的最佳治疗方法仍然未知。在这项研究中，我们比较了三种不同治疗方式在治疗癌症恶病质方面的疗效。方法。 62 名可评估的恶病质癌症患者被随机分配至以下三组之一：1) 醋酸甲地孕醇 (MA) 加美洛昔康 (n = 23)； 2）MA加美洛昔康加口服富含二十碳五烯酸（EPA）的营养补充剂（n = 21）；或 3) 美洛昔康加口服富含 EPA 的营养补充剂 (n = 18)。治疗持续3个月。结果。治疗组在基线时平衡良好。所有三组治疗后，主要疗效（体重和去脂体重）和次要疗效（体重指数、生活质量以及 IL-6 和 TNF-α 血清水平）参数均有所改善。从基线到研究结束，所有疗效参数的平均百分比变化在治疗组之间没有统计学上的显着差异。结论。 MA 加美洛昔康或 EPA 补充剂加美洛昔康可能是治疗癌症恶病质的有效治疗选择。这些试剂的组合使用不提供进一步的优点。
Aims and background. The optimal treatment of cancer cachexia remains unknown. In this study, we compared the efficacy of three different treatment modalities in the management of cancer cachexia.Methods. Sixty-two assessable cachectic cancer patients were randomized to one of the following three arms: 1) megesterol acetate (MA) plus meloxicam (n = 23); 2) MA plus meloxicam plus oral eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-enriched nutritional supplement (n = 21); or 3) meloxicam plus oral EPA-enriched nutritional supplement (n = 18). Treatment duration was 3 months.Results. The treatment arms were well balanced at baseline. The primary efficacy (body weight and lean body mass) and secondary efficacy (body mass index, quality of life, and serum levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha) parameters improved after treatment in all three arms. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the mean percentage changes in all efficacy parameters from baseline to end of study.Conclusions. MA plus meloxicam or EPA supplement plus meloxicam may be effective treatment options in the management of cancer cachexia. The combined use of these agents does not provide further advantages.