|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 12 (April 20), 2005: pp. 2872-2873 © 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.310
In Reply:Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
Carle Cancer Center, Urbana, IL
Cancer Center of Kansas, Wichita, KS We thank Drs Dahele and Wall for their comments and are pleased to respond. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) recently reported a three-arm trial that compared a fish oilderived eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) nutritional supplement with megesterol acetate.1 This 421-patient trial concluded that EPA adds little to current treatments of the cancer anorexia/weight-loss syndrome. We share the disappointment of Drs Dahele and Wall. We, too, had hoped that EPA would help patients with cancer. This disappointment should not, however, detract from the inevitable conclusion of this large comparative trial and of the two others that preceded it2,3: EPA did not work. It did not fulfill the promise generated by earlier pilot studies. There is a dearth of phase III data that support the use of EPA in the treatment of the cancer anorexia/weight-loss syndrome. Drs Dahele and Wall provide insight into some of the challenges of research on the cancer anorexia/weight-loss syndrome by commenting on the importance of clinically relevant end points, the need for compliance assessment, and the potential of early intervention. These are important points, and we acknowledge that each of these three "negative" trials may have limitations. However, any such limitations in their own right do not justify the use of EPA. After three large "negative" studies, the onus of demonstrating benefit now rests in the hands of proponents of EPA. These proponents must put forth critical new evidence to convince cancer patients, their families, and oncologists that this agent continues to be worthy of clinical investigation. For others of us who continue to observe the devastating decline of weight-losing cancer patients on a daily basisdespite their ingestion of EPA-containing supplementswe think it time to move on and study other agents. Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest. Acknowledgment The authors whish to acknowledge Dr Gabriel N. Hortobagyi for reviewing this letter. REFERENCES
1. Jatoi A, Rowland K, Loprinzi CL, et al: An eicosapentaenoic acid supplement versus megestrol acetate versus both for patients with cancer-associated wasting: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group and National Cancer Institute of Canada collaborative effort. J Clin Oncol 22:2469-2476, 2004
2. Bruera E, Strasser F, Palmer JL, et al: Effect of fish oil on appetite and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and anorexia/cachexia: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol 21:129-134, 2003
3. Fearon KC, Von Meyenfeldt MF, Moses AG, et al: Effect of a protein and energy dense N-3 fatty acid enriched oral supplement on loss of weight and lean tissue in cancer cachexia: A randomised double blind trial. Gut 52:1479-1486, 2003
Related Correspondence
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|