Efficacy and safety of modafinil versus dexamethasone in cancer-related fatigue: a prospective randomized controlled study.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of modafinil and dexamethasone in the management of cancer-related fatigue and their effects on quality of life (QoL). A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted, enrolling 80 cancer patients experiencing moderate or severe fatigue following at least three cycles of chemotherapy or a course of palliative/curative radiotherapy. Patients received either oral modafinil 100 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg daily for 14 days. Levels of fatigue, QoL and symptom severity were compared after 14-21 days. Both drugs were efficacious and safe in the management of fatigue and QoL. However, modafinil performed marginally better. Although modafinil demonstrated marginal superiority, both modafinil and dexamethasone can improve fatigue and QoL in cancer patients. Clinical trials registry of India: CTRI/2018/05/014046 (www.ctri.nic.in).

Lay abstract Cancer-related fatigue is a common and nagging problem that needs best evidence-based management. Modafinil, a brain stimulant, and dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, have been shown in separate studies to provide benefit, but there are little data regarding which one is superior. The present study compared modafinil with dexamethasone in a randomized controlled trial. Modafinil was found to be marginally superior in treating cancer-related fatigue and several domains of quality of life, though dexamethasone also demonstrated significant improvement of fatigue. This study provides a valuable guide for future larger studies for implementation of the findings in the form of better patient care.

Low-dose olanzapine, sedation and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study.

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Lay abstract Methods to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are often not sufficient for patients. Olanzapine, along with other similar drugs (antiemetics), improved control but is often sedating. In this study, a lower dose of olanzapine was compared with the conventional dose. Patients on cancer chemotherapy, which has high occurrence of nausea and vomiting, were given either the low dose or the conventional dose of olanzapine for 3 days, in addition to some other antiemetic agents. Control of nausea and vomiting was reasonably achieved with both doses of olanzapine. The lower dose was significantly less sedating. There were no serious side effects with either doses.

Safety profile of G-CSF in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: A prospective observational study in Eastern India.

Background: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is used in cancer patients to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). However, G-CSF poses few risks. Despite the regular use of G-CSF in CIN management, there is a paucity of published data on its safety profile in the management of CIN in India. Hence, the present study was designed to demonstrate the safety profile of G-CSF in patients with CIN. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted over a period of 5 months enrolling 100 cancer patients aged from 18 years to 70 years. Patients with a diagnosis of CIN who received G-CSF were included. Patients were followed up for 15 days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to US National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. The system organ class and preferred term of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) were used for reporting the AEs. Causality assessment was done by using the WHO-Uppsala Monitoring Centre scale. Results: The most frequently reported AEs were musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders which included bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, and pain in the extremity. Other AEs reported were general disorders and administration site conditions, and gastrointestinal disorders. The highest grade of toxicity reported was of grade 3 among all AEs. The majority of AEs had a "probable" type of causality relationship with G-CSF. Conclusion: ">G-CSF has a safety profile consistent with previous G-CSF studies.

A comparative study of different dose fractionations schedule of thoracic radiotherapy for pain palliation and health-related quality of life in metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the effect of different hypo fractionated thoracic radiotherapy schedules in relation to thoracic pain relief, overall survival and post radiotherapy HRQOL in metastatic NSCLC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stage IV NSCLC and had intra-thoracic symptoms, included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to three treatments arms. (i) 17 Gy in 2 fractions in one week (ii) 20 Gy in five fractions in one week. (iii) 30 Gy in 10 fractions in two weeks. BPI module was used to assess pain score before and after the thoracic radiotherapy. Functional assessment of cancer therapy-G (FACT-G) used to investigate changes in HRQOL. Clinicians' assessment of symptom improvement were recorded at 2(nd), 6(th) and 12(th) weeks after completion of TRT. RESULTS: Pain relief, HRQOL and OS were equivalent in all the three arms. The median OS were 6 months, 5 months, 6 months in arm A, B and arm C, respectively. CONCLUSION: Protracted palliative thoracic radiotherapy renders no added advantage of relief of symptoms, HRQOL and overall survival compared to short course palliative TRT in metastatic NSCLC.