Raimond K W Wong1, Snehal Deshmukh2, Gwen Wyatt3, Stephen Sagar4, Anurag K Singh5, Khalil Sultanem6, Phuc F Nguyen-Tân7, Sue S Yom8, Joseph Cardinale9, Min Yao10, Ian Hodson4, Chance L Matthiesen11, John Suh12, Harish Thakrar13, Stephanie L Pugh2, Lawrence Berk14. 1. McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: wongrai@hhsc.ca. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 4. McMaster University, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. 6. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 7. Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 8. University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 9. Yale-New Haven Hospital Saint Raphael Campus, New Haven, Connecticut. 10. University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio. 11. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 12. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 13. John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County MB-CCOP, Chicago, Illinois. 14. University of South Florida H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Abstract
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: This report presents the analysis of the RTOG 0537 multicenter randomized study that compared acupuncture-like transcutaneous stimulation (ALTENS) with pilocarpine (PC) for relieving radiation-induced xerostomia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients were randomized to twice-weekly 20-minute ALTENS sessions for 24 sessions during 12 weeks or PC (5 mg 3 times daily for 12 weeks). The primary endpoint was the change in the University of Michigan Xerostomia-Related Quality of Life Scale (XeQOLS) scores from baseline to 9 months from randomization (MFR). Secondary endpoints included basal and citric acid primed whole salivary production (WSP), ratios of positive responders (defined as patients with ≥20% reduction in overall radiation-induced xerostomia symptom burden), and the presence of adverse events based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. RESULTS:One hundred forty-eight patients were randomized. Only 96 patients completed the required XeQOLS and were evaluable at 9 MFR (representing merely 68.6% statistical power). Seventy-six patients were evaluable at 15 MFR. The median change in the overall XeQOLS in ALTENS and PC groups at 9 and 15 MFR were -0.53 and -0.27 (P=.45) and -0.6 and -0.47 (P=.21). The corresponding percentages of positive responders were 81% and 72% (P=.34) and 83% and 63% (P=.04). Changes in WSP were not significantly different between the groups. Grade 3 or less adverse events, mostly consisting of grade 1, developed in 20.8% of patients in the ALTENS group and in 61.6% of the PC group. CONCLUSIONS: The observed effect size was smaller than hypothesized, and statistical power was limited because only 96 of the recruited 148 patients were evaluable. The primary endpoint-the change in radiation-induced xerostomia symptom burden at 9 MFR-was not significantly different between the ALTENS and PC groups. There was significantly less toxicity in patients receiving ALTENS.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: This report presents the analysis of the RTOG 0537 multicenter randomized study that compared acupuncture-like transcutaneous stimulation (ALTENS) with pilocarpine (PC) for relieving radiation-induced xerostomia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients were randomized to twice-weekly 20-minute ALTENS sessions for 24 sessions during 12 weeks or PC (5 mg 3 times daily for 12 weeks). The primary endpoint was the change in the University of Michigan Xerostomia-Related Quality of Life Scale (XeQOLS) scores from baseline to 9 months from randomization (MFR). Secondary endpoints included basal and citric acid primed whole salivary production (WSP), ratios of positive responders (defined as patients with ≥20% reduction in overall radiation-induced xerostomia symptom burden), and the presence of adverse events based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were randomized. Only 96 patients completed the required XeQOLS and were evaluable at 9 MFR (representing merely 68.6% statistical power). Seventy-six patients were evaluable at 15 MFR. The median change in the overall XeQOLS in ALTENS and PC groups at 9 and 15 MFR were -0.53 and -0.27 (P=.45) and -0.6 and -0.47 (P=.21). The corresponding percentages of positive responders were 81% and 72% (P=.34) and 83% and 63% (P=.04). Changes in WSP were not significantly different between the groups. Grade 3 or less adverse events, mostly consisting of grade 1, developed in 20.8% of patients in the ALTENS group and in 61.6% of the PC group. CONCLUSIONS: The observed effect size was smaller than hypothesized, and statistical power was limited because only 96 of the recruited 148 patients were evaluable. The primary endpoint-the change in radiation-induced xerostomia symptom burden at 9 MFR-was not significantly different between the ALTENS and PC groups. There was significantly less toxicity in patients receiving ALTENS.
Authors: Charles Scarantino; Francis LeVeque; R Suzanne Swann; Robert White; Alan Schulsinger; D Ian Hodson; Ruby Meredith; Robert Foote; David Brachman; Nancy Lee Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2006-05
Authors: A Eisbruch; J A Ship; M K Martel; R K Ten Haken; L H Marsh; G T Wolf; R M Esclamado; C R Bradford; J E Terrell; S S Gebarski; A S Lichter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J T Johnson; G A Ferretti; W J Nethery; I H Valdez; P C Fox; D Ng; C C Muscoplat; S C Gallagher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Eisbruch; L H Marsh; M K Martel; J A Ship; R Ten Haken; A T Pu; B A Fraass; A S Lichter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gwen Wyatt; Stephanie L Pugh; Raimond K W Wong; Stephen Sagar; Anurag K Singh; Shlomo A Koyfman; Phuc F Nguyen-Tân; Sue S Yom; Francis S Cardinale; Khalil Sultanem; Ian Hodson; Greg A Krempl; Barbara Lukaszczyk; Alexander M Yeh; Lawrence Berk Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Austin J Iovoli; Alexander Ostrowski; Charlotte I Rivers; Gregory M Hermann; Adrienne Groman; Austin Miller; Anurag K Singh Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Primož Strojan; Katherine A Hutcheson; Avraham Eisbruch; Jonathan J Beitler; Johannes A Langendijk; Anne W M Lee; June Corry; William M Mendenhall; Robert Smee; Alessandra Rinaldo; Alfio Ferlito Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Stephanie L Pugh; Gwen Wyatt; Raimond K W Wong; Stephen M Sagar; Bevan Yueh; Anurag K Singh; Min Yao; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan; Sue S Yom; Francis S Cardinale; Khalil Sultanem; D Ian Hodson; Greg A Krempl; Ariel Chavez; Alexander M Yeh; Deborah W Bruner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-11-27 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Luciana Lastrucci; Silvia Bertocci; Vittorio Bini; Simona Borghesi; Roberta De Majo; Andrea Rampini; Pietro Giovanni Gennari; Paola Pernici Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 3.469