Oral THC:CBD cannabis extract for refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial aimed to evaluate an oral THC:CBD (tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol) cannabis extract for prevention of refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Here we report the phase II component results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients experienced CINV during moderate-to-high emetogenic intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Study treatment consisted of one cycle of 1-4 self-titrated capsules of oral THC 2.5 mg/CBD 2.5 mg (TN-TC11M) three times daily, from days -1 to 5, and 1 cycle of matching placebo in a crossover design, then blinded patient preference for a third cycle. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with complete response during 0-120 h from chemotherapy. A total of 80 participants provided 80% power to detect a 20% absolute improvement with a two-sided P value of 0.1. RESULTS: A total of 81 participants were randomised; 72 completing two cycles were included in the efficacy analyses and 78 not withdrawing consent were included in safety analyses. Median age was 55 years (range 29-80 years); 78% were female. Complete response was improved with THC:CBD from 14% to 25% (relative risk 1.77, 90% confidence interval 1.12-2.79, P = 0.041), with similar effects on absence of emesis, use of rescue medications, absence of significant nausea, and summary scores for the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Thirty-one percent experienced moderate or severe cannabinoid-related adverse events such as sedation, dizziness, or disorientation, but 83% of participants preferred cannabis to placebo. No serious adverse events were attributed to THC:CBD. CONCLUSION: The addition of oral THC:CBD to standard antiemetics was associated with less nausea and vomiting but additional side-effects. Most participants preferred THC:CBD to placebo. Based on these promising results, we plan to recruit an additional 170 participants to complete accrual for the definitive, phase III, parallel group analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001036404; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370473&isReview=true.

Prevalence and predictors of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by men in Australian cancer outpatient services.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have shown that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common in cancer patients, no survey has assessed CAM use in men with a variety of cancers. In Australia, no data exist about male cancer patients' use of CAM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was completed by 403 men attending four cancer outpatient services in Metropolitan Adelaide. Data were analyzed using Pearson's χ(2) tests and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: CAMs were currently used by 52.9%, or used at some point by 61.5%, of respondents. The most popular CAM treatments were dietary supplements (36.1%), prayer (25.9%), herbs and botanicals (21.4%), and relaxation techniques/meditation (15.2%). CAM use was directed by a cancer specialist in 9.9% of respondents. Independent predictors of CAM use were metastatic cancer (P = 0.022), actively practicing religion (P = 0.008), and tertiary education (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: CAM use in males is equally common across all cancer diagnoses, namely prostate, hematological malignancies, colorectal, lung, and other cancers. Oncologists should be aware that one-third of male patients modify their diet and/or search for spiritual guidance, particularly when diagnosed with metastatic cancer.

A phase III study of radiotherapy with and without continuous-infusion fluorouracil as palliation for non-small-cell lung cancer.

This study assesses the effect of adding continuous-infusion fluorouracil to palliative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) on the rate and duration of symptom relief in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two hundred eligible patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive either 20 Gy in five daily fractions as palliation for intrathoracic disease or the same RT with concurrent continuous infusion of 1 g m(-2) day(-1) fluorouracil for 5 days. Survival, response and rates of symptom relief in the two groups were compared according to treatment intent, and toxicities were compared according to treatment received. The overall response rate was higher in patients randomized to the combination (29%) than in patients randomized to RT alone (16%) (P = 0.035). However, there were no significant differences between the treatment arms in terms of overall or progression-free survival or in palliation of symptoms. Patients treated with RT plus fluorouracil had significantly more acute toxicity, including nausea and vomiting (P = 0.01), oesophagitis (P = 0.0003), stomatitis (P = 0.0005) and skin reaction (P = 0.003). This study suggests for the first time an interaction between RT and infusional fluorouracil in NSCLC. Although RT plus fluorouracil resulted in a significantly higher response rate than achieved with RT alone, this did not translate into more effective palliation. Because the combination produced significantly more toxicity than RT alone, it is not recommended for the palliative treatment of NSCLC. Nevertheless, these results suggest that opportunities may exist for exploitation of the observed enhancement of antitumour effect in the setting of high-dose radical RT for NSCLC.

Antiemetic study methodology: recommendations for future studies.

The methodology of future antiemetic studies will reflect the need to address the problems identified in current studies. New preclinical information on the mechanisms of emesis and antiemetic action will allow more rational clinical study design. Prior to large randomized studies, phase I and II trials should define the minimum effective dose of an antiemetic which may differ according to the strength of the emetic stimulus. The most convenient route of administration and schedule should also be sought in early phase trials. New endpoints such as cost-effectiveness should be incorporated into phase III studies, which should also serve as vehicles for further studies of prognostic factors. Problem areas such as delayed emesis should be specifically targeted in future trials. Patients must evaluate the overall benefit of a new antiemetic regimen.