Central neural mechanisms of cancer cachexia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia is a devasting syndrome which impacts a large number of patients with cancer. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the central mechanisms of cancer cachexia. In particular, it focuses on the role of the central nervous system (CNS), the melanocortin system, circulating hormones and molecules which are produced by and act on the CNS and the psychological symptoms of cancer cachexia. RECENT FINDINGS: A growing body of evidence suggests that a central mechanism of action underpins this multi-system disorder. Recent research has focused on the role of neuroinflammation that drives the sickness behaviour seen in cancer cachexia, with emphasis on the role of the hypothalamus. Melanocortin receptor antagonists are showing promise in preclinical studies. There are also new pharmacological developments to overcome the short half-life of ghrelin. GDF-15 has been identified as a core target and trials of compounds that interfere with its signalling or its central receptor are underway. SUMMARY: Understanding the central mechanisms of cancer cachexia is pivotal for enhancing treatment outcomes in patients. While emerging pharmacological interventions targeting these pathways have shown promise, further research is essential.

Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series.

Regulatory agencies require evidence that endpoints correlate with clinical benefit before they can be used to approve drugs. Biomarkers are often considered surrogate endpoints. In cancer cachexia trials, the measurement of biomarkers features frequently. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. A comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2023) was completed. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), prospective design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a biomarker(s) as an endpoint. Biomarkers were defined as any objective measure that was assayed from a body fluid, including scoring systems based on these assays. Routine haematology and biochemistry to monitor intervention toxicity were not considered. Data extraction was performed using Covidence, and reporting followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 studies were assessed, of which 52 trials (total participants = 6522) included biomarkers as endpoints. Most studies (n = 29, 55.7%) included a variety of cancer types. Pharmacological interventions (n = 27, 51.9%) were most evaluated, followed by nutritional interventions (n = 20, 38.4%). Ninety-nine different biomarkers were used across the trials, and of these, 96 were assayed from blood. Albumin (n = 29, 55.8%) was assessed most often, followed by C-reactive protein (n = 22, 42.3%), interleukin-6 (n = 16, 30.8%) and tumour necrosis factor-α (n = 14, 26.9%), the latter being the only biomarker that was used to guide sample size calculations. Biomarkers were explicitly listed as a primary outcome in six trials. In total, 12 biomarkers (12.1% of 99) were used in six trials or more. Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels both increased significantly in all three trials in which they were both used. This corresponded with a primary outcome, lean body mass, and was related to the pharmacological mechanism. Biomarkers were predominately used as exploratory rather than primary endpoints. The most commonly used biomarker, albumin, was limited by its lack of responsiveness to nutritional intervention. For a biomarker to be responsive to change, it must be related to the mechanism of action of the intervention and/or the underlying cachexia process that is modified by the intervention, as seen with IGFBP-3, IGF-1 and anamorelin. To reach regulatory approval as an endpoint, the relationship between the biomarker and clinical benefit must be clarified.

Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series.

Significant variation exists in the outcomes used in cancer cachexia trials, including measures of body composition, which are often selected as primary or secondary endpoints. To date, there has been no review of the most commonly selected measures or their potential sensitivity to detect changes resulting from the interventions being examined. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the frequency and diversity of body composition measures that have been used in cancer cachexia trials. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched between January 1990 and June 2021. Eligible trials examined adults (≥18 years) who had received an intervention aiming to treat or attenuate the effects of cancer cachexia for >14 days. Trials were also of a prospective controlled design and included body weight or at least one anthropometric, bioelectrical or radiological endpoint pertaining to body composition, irrespective of the modality of intervention (e.g., pharmacological, nutritional, physical exercise and behavioural) or comparator. Trials with a sample size of <40 patients were excluded. Data extraction used Covidence software, and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022276710). A total of 84 clinical trials, comprising 13 016 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Non-small-cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer were studied most frequently. The majority of trial interventions were pharmacological (52%) or nutritional (34%) in nature. The most frequently reported endpoints were assessments of body weight (68 trials, n = 11 561) followed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA)-based estimates (23 trials, n = 3140). Sixteen trials (n = 3052) included dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-based endpoints, and computed tomography (CT) body composition was included in eight trials (n = 841). Discrepancies were evident when comparing the efficacy of interventions using BIA-based estimates of lean tissue mass against radiological assessment modalities. Body weight, BIA and DEXA-based endpoints have been most frequently used in cancer cachexia trials. Although the optimal endpoints cannot be determined from this review, body weight, alongside measurements from radiological body composition analysis, would seem appropriate. The choice of radiological modality is likely to be dependent on the trial setting, population and intervention in question. CT and magnetic resonance imaging, which have the ability to accurately discriminate tissue types, are likely to be more sensitive and provide greater detail. Endpoints are of particular importance when aligned with the intervention's mechanism of action and/or intended patient benefit.

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self-report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990-2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty-five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full-text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty-four (48%) were double-blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty-nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty-seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4-96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well-validated QOL measures, including cachexia-specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co-primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific-based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series.

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series.

In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

The prognostic impact of pre-treatment cachexia in resectional surgery for oesophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Cancer cachexia is not purely an end-stage phenomenon and can influence the outcomes of patients with potentially curable disease. This review examines the effect of pre-treatment cachexia on overall survival, in patients undergoing surgical resection of oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases was conducted, from January 2000 to May 2022, to identify studies reporting the influence of cachexia on patients undergoing an oesophagogastric resection for cancer with curative intent. Meta-analyses of the primary (overall survival) and secondary (disease-free survival and postoperative mortality) outcomes were performed using random-effects modelling. Meta-regression was used to examine disease stage as a potential confounder. RESULTS: Ten non-randomized studies, comprising 7186 patients, were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence of pre-treatment cachexia was 35 per cent (95 per cent c.i.: 24-47 per cent). Pooled adjusted hazard ratios showed that cachexia was adversely associated with overall survival (HR 1.46, 95 per cent c.i.: 1.31-1.60, P < 0.001). Meta-analysis of proportions identified decreased overall survival at 1-, 3- and 5-years in cachectic cohorts. Pre-treatment cachexia was not a predictor of disease-free survival and further data are required to establish its influence on postoperative mortality. The proportion of patients with stage III/IV disease was a significant moderator of between-study heterogeneity. Cachexia may have a greater influence on overall survival in studies where more patients have a locally advanced malignancy. CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment cachexia adversely influences overall survival following resection of an oesophagogastric malignancy.

Integrated Short-term Palliative Rehabilitation to improve quality of life and equitable care access in incurable cancer (INSPIRE): a multinational European research project.

Background: Disability related to incurable cancer affects over a million Europeans each year and people with cancer rank loss of function among the most common unmet supportive care needs. Objectives: To test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an integrated short-term palliative rehabilitation intervention, to optimise function and quality of life in people affected by incurable cancer. Design: This is a multinational, parallel group, randomised, controlled, assessor blind, superiority trial. Methods: The INSPIRE consortium brings together leaders in palliative care, oncology and rehabilitation from partner organisations across Europe, with complementary expertise in health service research, trials of complex interventions, mixed-method evaluations, statistics and economics. Partnership with leading European civil society organisations ensures citizen engagement and dissemination at the highest level. We will conduct a multinational randomised controlled trial across five European countries, recruiting participants to assess the effectiveness of palliative rehabilitation for people with incurable cancer on the primary outcome - quality of life - and secondary outcomes including disability, symptom burden and goal attainment. To support trial conduct and enhance analysis of trial data, we will also conduct: comparative analysis of current integration of rehabilitation across oncology and palliative care services; mixed-method evaluations of equity and inclusivity, processes and implementation for the intervention, at patient, health service and health system levels. Finally, we will conduct an evidence synthesis, incorporating INSPIRE findings, and a Delphi consensus to develop an international framework for palliative rehabilitation practice and policy, incorporating indicators, core interventions, outcomes and integration methods. Scientific contribution: If positive, the trial could produce a scalable and equitable intervention to improve function and quality of life in people with incurable cancer and reduce the burden of care for their families. It could also upskill the practitioners involved and motivate future research questions. The intervention could be adapted and integrated into different health systems using existing staff and services, with little or no additional cost.

Longitudinal characterisation of cachexia in patients undergoing surgical resection for cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The complexity of the cancer cachexia phenotype has undoubtedly hindered researchers' understanding of this devastating syndrome. The presence and magnitude of host-tumour interactions are rarely considered during clinical decision-making within the current staging paradigm. Furthermore, treatment options for those patients who are identified as suffering from cancer cachexia remain extremely limited. RECENT FINDINGS: Previous attempts to characterise cachexia have largely focussed on individual surrogate disease markers, often studied across a limited timeframe. While the adverse prognostic value of clinical and biochemical features is evident, the relationships between these are less clear. Investigation of patients with earlier-stage disease could allow researchers to identify markers of cachexia that precede the refractory stage of the wasting process. Appreciation of the cachectic phenotype within 'curative' populations may aid our understanding of the syndrome's genesis and provide potential routes for prevention, rather than treatment. SUMMARY: Holistic, longitudinal characterisation of cancer cachexia, across all at-risk and affected populations, is of vital importance for future research in the field. This paper presents the protocol for an observational study aiming to create a robust and holistic characterisation of surgical patients with, or at risk of, cancer cachexia.

The Impact of Acute Systemic Inflammation Secondary to Oesophagectomy and Anastomotic Leak on Computed Tomography Body Composition Analyses.

This study aimed to longitudinally assess CT body composition analyses in patients who experienced anastomotic leak post-oesophagectomy. Consecutive patients, between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2022 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Changes in computed tomography (CT) body composition at the third lumbar vertebral level (remote from the site of complication) were assessed across four time points where available: staging, pre-operative/post-neoadjuvant treatment, post-leak, and late follow-up. A total of 20 patients (median 65 years, 90% male) were included, with a total of 66 computed tomography (CT) scans analysed. Of these, 16 underwent neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy prior to oesophagectomy. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was significantly reduced following neoadjuvant treatment (p < 0.001). Following the inflammatory response associated with surgery and anastomotic leak, a decrease in SMI (mean difference: -4.23 cm2/m2, p < 0.001) was noted. Estimates of intramuscular and subcutaneous adipose tissue quantity conversely increased (both p < 0.001). Skeletal muscle density fell (mean difference: -5.42 HU, p = 0.049) while visceral and subcutaneous fat density were higher following anastomotic leak. Thus, all tissues trended towards the radiodensity of water. Although tissue radiodensity and subcutaneous fat area normalised on late follow-up scans, skeletal muscle index remained below pre-treatment levels.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Cachexia.

Cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome that is common in cancer and chronic disease. It is often underdiagnosed and therefore goes untreated or undertreated. Cachexia causes suffering across biopsychosocial domains and affects patients and their loved ones. In this article, a group of clinicians and researchers across cancer care, nutrition, and exercise offers tips about assessment, classification, and management of cachexia, with attention to its stage. The required multimodal management of cachexia mirrors well the interprofessional collaboration that is the mainstay of interdisciplinary palliative care and attention to screening, diagnosis, and management of cachexia is critical to maximize patients' quality of life.

Cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer anorexia and cachexia: Where have we been, where are we going?

Cachexia-anorexia cancer syndrome remains an unmet clinical need with a dearth of treatment and no standard of care. Acting through the endocannabinoid system, cannabinoids are one potential cancer cachexia treatment. Herein, the potential mechanisms for cannabinoids for cancer cachexia are discussed as are previous and ongoing clinical trials.

Understanding Cancer Cachexia and Its Implications in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers.

OPINION STATEMENT: Considerable advances in the investigation and management of oesophagogastric cancer have occurred over the last few decades. While the historically dismal prognosis associated with these diseases has improved, outcomes remain very poor. Cancer cachexia is an often neglected, yet critical, factor for this patient group. There is a persuasive argument that a lack of assessment and treatment of cachexia has limited progress in oesophagogastric cancer care. In the curative setting, the stage of the host (based on factors such as body composition, function, and inflammatory status), alongside tumour stage, has the potential to influence treatment efficacy. Phenotypical features of cachexia may decrease the survival benefit of (peri-operative) chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, or surgical resection in patients with potentially curative malignancy. Most patients with oesophagogastric cancer unfortunately present with disease which is not amenable, or is unlikely to respond, to these treatments. In the palliative setting, host factors can similarly impair results from systemic anti-cancer therapies, cause adverse symptoms, and reduce quality of life. To optimise treatment pathways and enhance patient outcomes, we must utilise this information during clinical decision-making. As our understanding of the genesis of cancer cachexia improves and more therapeutic options, ranging from basic (e.g. exercise and nutrition) to targeted (e.g. anti-IL1 α and anti-GDF-15), become available, there can be grounds for optimism. Cachexia can change from a hitherto neglected condition to an integral part of the oesophagogastric cancer treatment pathway.

REVOLUTION (Routine EValuatiOn of people LivIng with caNcer)-Protocol for a prospective characterisation study of patients with incurable cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There is a pressing need for a holistic characterisation of people with incurable cancer. In this group, where quality of life and improvement of symptoms are therapeutic priorities, the physical and biochemical manifestations of cancer are often studied separately, giving an incomplete picture. In order to improve care, spur therapeutic innovation, provide meaningful endpoints for trials and set priorities for future research, work must be done to explore how the tumour influences the clinical phenotype. Characterisation of the host-tumour interaction may also provide information regarding prognosis, allowing appropriate planning of investigations, treatment and referral to palliative medicine services. METHODS: Routine EValuatiOn of people LivIng with caNcer (REVOLUTION) is a prospective observational study that aims to characterise people with incurable cancer around five key areas, namely body composition, physical activity, systemic inflammatory response, symptoms, and quality of life by developing a bio-repository. Participants will initially be recruited from a single centre in the UK and will have assessments of body composition (bio-impedance analysis [BIA] and computed tomography [CT]), assessment of physical activity using a physical activity monitor, measurement of simple markers of inflammation and plasma cytokine proteins and three symptom and quality of life questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This study aims to create a comprehensive biochemical and clinical characterisation of people with incurable cancer. Data in this study can be used to give a better understanding of the 'symptom phenotype' and quality of life determinants, development of a profile of the systemic inflammatory response and a detailed characterisation of body composition.

A randomized, feasibility trial of an exercise and nutrition-based rehabilitation programme (ENeRgy) in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite rehabilitation being increasingly advocated for people living with incurable cancer, there is limited evidence supporting efficacy or component parts. The progressive decline in function and nutritional in this population would support an approach that targets these factors. This trial aimed to assess the feasibility of an exercise and nutrition based rehabilitation programme in people with incurable cancer. METHODS: We randomized community dwelling adults with incurable cancer to either a personalized exercise and nutrition based programme (experimental arm) or standard care (control arm) for 8 weeks. Endpoints included feasibility, quality of life, physical activity (step count), and body weight. Qualitative and health economic analyses were also included. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were recruited (23 experimental arm, 22 control arm). There were 26 men (58%), and the median age was 78 years (IQR 69-84). At baseline, the median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (IQR: 22-29), and median weight loss in the previous 6 months was 5% (IQR: -12% to 0%). Adherence to the experimental arm was >80% in 16/21 (76%) patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the following between trial arms: step count - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental -18.5% [IQR: -61 to 65], control 5% [IQR: -32 to 50], P = 0.548); weight - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 1%[IQR: -3 to 3], control -0.5% [IQR: -3 to 1], P = 0.184); overall quality of life - median % change from baseline to endpoint, per trial arm (experimental 0% [IQR: -20 to 19], control 0% [IQR: -23 to 33], P = 0.846). Qualitative findings observed themes of capability, opportunity, and motivation amongst patients in the experimental arm. The mean incremental cost of the experimental arm versus control was £-319.51 [CI -7593.53 to 6581.91], suggesting the experimental arm was less costly. CONCLUSIONS: An exercise and nutritional rehabilitation intervention is feasible and has potential benefits for people with incurable cancer. A larger trial is now warranted to test the efficacy of this approach.

Relationship between cytokines and symptoms in people with incurable cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Development and spread of cancer is linked to the inflammatory response, in which cytokines serve a key role. The inflammatory response may also form the basis for symptoms of cancer. This systematic review examines the relationship between cytokines and symptoms in incurable cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies from January 2004 to January 2020. RESULTS: Twenty studies were selected (n = 1806 patients, 119 controls). Symptoms studied included depression, fatigue, pain, and loss of appetite. Nine studies examined patients with a specified tumour type, the remainder included patients with a mix of tumour types. Thirty-one cytokines were examined; multiple associations between cytokines and symptoms were described, supporting the hypothesis that cytokines may have a key role in symptom generation. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of incurable cancer are associated with circulating cytokines. Further study is required to characterise these relationships, and to explore their therapeutic potential.

Power Comparisons and Clinical Meaning of Outcome Measures in Assessing Treatment Effect in Cancer Cachexia: Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Pilot Multimodal Intervention Trial.

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.