Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.

Medicinal Cannabis (MedCan 3): a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess THC/CBD (1:20) to relieve symptom burden in patients with cancer-a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Distressing symptoms are common in advanced cancer. Medicinal cannabinoids are commonly prescribed for a variety of symptoms. There is little evidence to support their use for most indications in palliative care. This study aims to assess a 1:20 delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD) cannabinoid preparation in the management of symptom distress in patients with advanced cancer undergoing palliative care. METHODS AND DESIGN: One hundred and fifty participants will be recruited across multiple sites in Queensland, Australia. A teletrial model will facilitate the recruitment of patients outside of major metropolitan areas. The study is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm trial of escalating doses of an oral 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation (10 mg THC:200 mg CBD/mL). It will compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of a titrated dose range of 2.5 mg THC/50mgCBD to 30 mg THC/600 mg CBD per day against a placebo. There is a 2-week patient-determined titration phase, to reach a dose that achieves symptom relief or intolerable side effects, with a further 2 weeks of assessment on the final dose. The primary objective is to assess the effect of escalating doses of a 1:20 THC/CBD medicinal cannabinoid preparation against placebo on change in total symptom distress score, with secondary objectives including establishing a patient-determined effective dose, the effect on sleep quality and overall quality of life. Some patients will be enrolled in a sub-study which will more rigorously evaluate the effect on sleep. DISCUSSION: MedCan-3 is a high-quality, adequately powered, placebo-controlled trial which will help demonstrate the utility of a THC:CBD 1:20 oral medicinal cannabis product in reducing total symptom distress in this population. Secondary outcomes may lead to new hypotheses regarding medicinal cannabis' role in particular symptoms or in particular cancers. The sleep sub-study will test the feasibility of using actigraphy and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) in this cohort. This will be the first large-scale palliative care randomised clinical trial to utilise the teletrial model in Australia. If successful, this will have significant implications for trial access for rural and remote patients in Australia and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12622000083796 . Protocol number 001/20. Registered on 21 January 2022. Recruitment started on 8 August 2022.

Medicinal cannabis in palliative medicine: lessons learnt from randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To detail important lessons learnt while conducting several large, medicinal cannabis (MC) randomised clinical trials in a palliative cancer population. METHODS: Investigators involved in these trials had several meetings to agree on the major lessons learnt and how the various challenges could be mitigated in the future. RESULTS: The lessons were sorted into separate categories: patient confidentiality, family dynamics, driving, cost, unfounded beliefs, accessing specific MC products, trial funding, telehealth and COVID-19, and miscellaneous issues. CONCLUSION: Using MC as the intervention arm in such trials entails some unique regulatory, logistical and other challenges. This short report presents key lessons learnt in conducting these randomised controlled trials in a palliative care population for the benefit of future investigators planning similar trials in a similar patient population.

Oral water-soluble contrast (Gastrografin) for malignant bowel obstruction: open label pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common, challenging condition in advanced cancer. Oral water-soluble contrast medium (Gastrografin) has been used in the management of MBO without quality studies of its effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and adverse effects of Gastrografin in patients with MBO and to assess feasibility of the study protocol. METHODS: A prospective, interventional, single-arm, open label study of Gastrografin across two centres. Patients with unresolved inoperable MBO after 24 hours of conservative medical management were given a single dose of 100 mL of oral Gastrografin. RESULTS: Over 33 months, 69 individual patients were screened. Of the 20 recruited, 17 completed study assessments (85%). MBO resolved in 10 of 17 patients (59%). Gastrografin passed through to the rectum in 14 patients (78%). The most common adverse effects were diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patient recruitment took longer than anticipated, but the study protocol is feasible. Gastrografin was found to be a relatively effective option for the treatment of MBO. An adeqautely powered randomised controlled trial is needed to formally assess the efficacy and safety of Gastrografin© in MBO.

S-acylation regulates Kv1.5 channel surface expression.

The number of ion channels expressed on the cell surface shapes the complex electrical response of excitable cells. An imbalance in the ratio of inward and outward conducting channels is unfavorable and often detrimental. For example, over- or underexpression of voltage-gated K(+) (Kv) channels can be cytotoxic and in some cases lead to disease. In this study, we demonstrated a novel role for S-acylation in Kv1.5 cell surface expression. In transfected fibroblasts, biochemical evidence showed that Kv1.5 is posttranslationally modified on both the NH(2) and COOH termini via hydroxylamine-sensitive thioester bonds. Pharmacological inhibition of S-acylation, but not myristoylation, significantly decreased Kv1.5 expression and resulted in accumulation of channel protein in intracellular compartments and targeting for degradation. Channel protein degradation was rescued by treatment with proteasome inhibitors. Time course experiments revealed that S-acylation occurred in the biosynthetic pathway of nascent channel protein and showed that newly synthesized Kv1.5 protein, but not protein expressed on the cell surface, is sensitive to inhibitors of thioacylation. Sensitivity to inhibitors of S-acylation was governed by COOH-terminal, but not NH(2)-terminal, cysteines. Surprisingly, although intracellular cysteines were required for S-acylation, mutation of these residues resulted in an increase in Kv1.5 cell surface channel expression, suggesting that screening of free cysteines by fatty acylation is an important regulatory step in the quality control pathway. Together, these results show that S-acylation can regulate steady-state expression of Kv1.5.