Efficacy of oral nutritional supplement in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) is one of the modalities employed to manage cancer-associated malnutrition. However, evidence of its efficacy is limited. In 2018, a meta-analysis reported the statistical benefits of increased body weight from ONS. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ONS in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in more recent trials. METHODS: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, which compared ONS with standard of care and reported on body weight, nutritional status, or quality of life (QoL), were included. Eligible RCTs were identified from PubMed, OVID, and the references of previous systematic reviews up until February 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The outcomes of interest were pooled and analyzed using the mean difference (MD) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). This study was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42023400471. RESULTS: Ten RCTs comprising 1,101 patients were included. ONS did not show a significant impact on final body weight (MD -0.07 kg, 95% CI: -0.99 to 0.84, P=0.88). It tended to increase body weight (MD 0.90 kg, 95% CI: -0.48 to 2.28, P=0.20), and this benefit was particularly noticeable in elderly patients, those with low baseline body weight, females, and non-Asian patients. After adjusting for risk of bias, ONS was found to significantly increase body weight (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI: 0.12 to 2.52, P=0.03), and it also tended to enhance Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) score of -2.13 (95% CI: -5.07 to 0.82, P=0.16), global domain QoL score of 4.01 (95% CI: 0.08 to 7.94, P=0.05) and fatigue domain QoL score of -7.63 (95% CI: -13.87 to -1.39, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: ONS could help to increase body weight in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This benefit was especially notable in those at high risk of malnutrition, including elderly patients, those with low baseline body weight, females, and non-Asian patients. It also resulted in improved PG-SGA scores and significantly improved patients' QoL during chemotherapy treatment. Future studies should explore the potential benefit of ONS on oncological outcomes or improvements of chemotherapy-related toxicity.

Does the Dose of Standard Adjuvant Chemotherapy Affect the Triple-negative Breast Cancer Benefit from Extended Capecitabine Metronomic Therapy? An Exploratory Analysis of the SYSUCC-001 Trial.

Purpose: Results from studies of extended capecitabine after the standard adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were inconsistent, and only low-dose capecitabine from the SYSUCC-001 trial improved disease-free survival (DFS). Adjustment of the conventional adjuvant chemotherapy doses affect the prognosis and may affect the efficacy of subsequent treatments. This study investigated whether the survival benefit of the SYSUCC-001 trial was affected by dose adjustment of the standard adjuvant chemotherapy or not. Patients and Methods: We reviewed the adjuvant chemotherapy regimens before the extended capecitabine in the SYSUCC-001 trial. Patients were classified into "consistent" (standard acceptable dose) and "inconsistent" (doses lower than acceptable dose) dose based on the minimum acceptable dose range in the landmark clinical trials. Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the impact of dose on the survival outcomes. Results: All 434 patients in SYSUCC-001 trial were enrolled in this study. Most of patients administered the anthracycline-taxane regimen accounted for 88.94%. Among patients in the "inconsistent" dose, 60.8% and 47% received lower doses of anthracycline and taxane separately. In the observation group, the "inconsistent" dose of anthracycline and taxane did not affect DFS compared with the "consistent" dose. Moreover, in the capecitabine group, the "inconsistent" anthracycline dose did not affect DFS compared with the "consistent" dose. However, patients with "consistent" taxane doses benefited significantly from extended capecitabine (P=0.014). The sufficient dose of adjuvant taxane had a positive effect of extended capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 4.06). Conclusion: This study found the dose reduction of adjuvant taxane might negatively impact the efficacy of capecitabine. Therefore, the reduction of anthracycline dose over paclitaxel should be given priority during conventional adjuvant chemotherapy, if patients need dose reduction and plan for extended capecitabine.

Optimizing outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: insights from South East Asia Expert Panel.

AIMS: Clinical decision making is challenging in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), as heterogeneity in treatment options and patient characteristics have resulted in multiple scenarios with little or no evidence. The South East Asia Expert Panel 2019 addressed some of these challenges. METHODS: Based on evidence in the literature and expert interviews, 19 statements were formulated for key challenges in the treatment of men with castration-sensitive and -resistant prostate cancer in clinical practice. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus among experts in the panel and develop clinical practice recommendations. RESULTS: The majority of the panel preferred a risk-based stratification and recommended abiraterone or enzalutamide as first-line therapy for symptomatic chemotherapy naïve patients. Abiraterone is preferred over enzalutamide as a first-line treatment in these patients. However, the panel did not support the use of abiraterone in high risk lymph-node positive only (N+M0) or in non-metastatic (N0M0) patients. In select patients, low dose abiraterone with food may be used to optimize clinical outcomes. Androgen receptor gene splice variant status may be a useful guide to therapy. In addition, generic versions of approved therapies may improve access to treatment to a broader patient population. The choice of treatment, as well as sequencing are guided by both patient and disease characteristics, preferences, drug access, cost, and compliance. CONCLUSION: Expert recommendations are key to guidance for the optimal management of mPC. Appropriate choice, timing, and sequence of treatment options can help to tailor therapy to maximize outcomes in men with mPC.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy of combination olanzapine, ondansetron and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide.

BACKGROUND: Since most of Thai cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy do not have access to neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists or palonosetron as recommended by international guidelines for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention. We decided to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine with the real-life practice antiemetic drugs ondansetron and dexamethasone, in prevention of CINV resulting from doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide regimen in early-stage breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we compared olanzapine with a placebo in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone in early-stage breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2. The intervention group received olanzapine 10 mg orally while the control group received a matching placebo daily on day 1 through day 4. All patients received ondansetron 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously 30 minutes before chemotherapy administration and then dexamethasone 10 mg daily orally from day 1 through day 4. The primary endpoint was no nausea rate in the early period. The secondary endpoints were no nausea rate in the delayed and overall periods and a complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue drug). Outcomes were determined by patients' self-reported daily records of episodes of vomiting or retching, use of rescue therapy and daily levels of nausea based on a visual-analogue scale from the first cycle of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 39 female patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive olanzapine (20 patients) or a matching placebo (19 patients). A significantly greater proportion of patients reported no nausea in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group in both the early period (0-24 hours after chemotherapy) and the overall period (0-120 hours after chemotherapy). Patients who reported no nausea in the early period accounted for 50% and 10.5% in the olanzapine group and in the placebo group respectively (P=0.008). In the overall period, 30.0% and 0% of patients reported no nausea in the olanzapine and placebo groups respectively (P=0.009). In the early period, there was a significantly different complete response rate between two treatment groups; 75.0% in the olanzapine group and 36.8% in the placebo group (P=0.016). Overall treatment-related adverse events were not significantly different between the two study groups except that somnolence was significantly more common in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine 10 mg combined with ondansetron and dexamethasone was more effective than a placebo in preventing CINV resulting from doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in early-stage breast cancer patients, especially in the first 24 hours after chemotherapy administration. The short duration of olanzapine was safe and well tolerated.

Understanding the Key to Targeting the IGF Axis in Cancer: A Biomarker Assessment.

Type 1 insulin like growth factor receptor (IGF-1R) targeted therapies showed compelling pre-clinical evidence; however, to date, this has failed to translate into patient benefit in Phase 2/3 trials in unselected patients. This was further complicated by the toxicity, including hyperglycemia, which largely results from the overlap between IGF and insulin signaling systems and associated feedback mechanisms. This has halted the clinical development of inhibitors targeting IGF signaling, which has limited the availability of biopsy samples for correlative studies to understand biomarkers of response. Indeed, a major factor contributing to lack of clinical benefit of IGF targeting agents has been difficulty in identifying patients with tumors driven by IGF signaling due to the lack of predictive biomarkers. In this review, we will describe the IGF system, rationale for targeting IGF signaling, the potential liabilities of targeting strategies, and potential biomarkers that may improve success.