Trude R Balstad1,2, Cinzia Brunelli3, Caroline H Pettersen1, Svanhild A Schønberg1, Frank Skorpen1, Marie Fallon4, Stein Kaasa5, Asta Bye5,6, Barry J A Laird7,8, Guro B Stene1,2, Tora S Solheim1,2. 1. Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 3. Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 4. Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre (IGMM), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Oncology, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway. 7. St. Columba's Hospice, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 8. Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention. Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed. Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64-1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = -0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = -0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = -0.88, p = 0.002) were found. Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.
Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention. Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed. Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64-1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = -0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = -0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = -0.88, p = 0.002) were found. Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.
Authors: Kenneth Fearon; Florian Strasser; Stefan D Anker; Ingvar Bosaeus; Eduardo Bruera; Robin L Fainsinger; Aminah Jatoi; Charles Loprinzi; Neil MacDonald; Giovanni Mantovani; Mellar Davis; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Faith Ottery; Lukas Radbruch; Paula Ravasco; Declan Walsh; Andrew Wilcock; Stein Kaasa; Vickie E Baracos Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Thorhallur Agustsson; Mikael Rydén; Johan Hoffstedt; Vanessa van Harmelen; Andrea Dicker; Jurga Laurencikiene; Bengt Isaksson; Johan Permert; Peter Arner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kch Fearon; J M Argiles; V E Baracos; R Bernabei; Ajs Coats; J Crawford; N E Deutz; W Doehner; W J Evans; L Ferrucci; J M Garcia; R J Gralla; A Jatoi; K Kalantar-Zadeh; M Lainscak; J E Morley; M Muscaritoli; M I Polkey; G Rosano; F Rossi-Fanelli; A M Schols; F Strasser; B Vellas; S von Haehling; S D Anker Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Oscar Barnes; Rebekah L Wilson; Paola Gonzalo-Encabo; Dong-Woo Kang; Cami N Christopher; Thomas Bentley; Christina M Dieli-Conwright Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Georgios Mavropalias; Marc Sim; Dennis R Taaffe; Daniel A Galvão; Nigel Spry; William J Kraemer; Keijo Häkkinen; Robert U Newton Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 4.322