Thalidomide for managing cancer cachexia [review paper]

Cancer cachexia is a multidimensional syndrome characterised by wasting, loss of weight, loss of appetite, metabolic alterations, fatigue and reduced performance status. A significant number of patients with advanced cancer develop cachexia before death. There is no identified optimum treatment for cancer cachexia. While the exact mechanism of the action of thalidomide is unclear, it is known to have immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties, which are thought to help reduce the weight loss associated with cachexia. Preliminary studies of thalidomide have demonstrated encouraging results. This review aimed to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of thalidomide, and (2) identify and assess adverse effects from thalidomide for cancer cachexia. Electronic searches were undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (from inception to April 2011). Reference lists from reviewed articles, trial registers, relevant conference documents and thalidomide manufacturers identified additional literature. This review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Participants were adults diagnosed with advanced or incurable cancer and weight loss or a clinical diagnosis of cachexia who were administered thalidomide. All titles and abstracts retrieved by electronic searching were downloaded to a reference management database. Duplicates were removed and the remaining citations were read by two review authors and checked for eligibility. Studies that were deemed ineligible for inclusion had clear reasons for exclusion documented. Data were extracted independently by two review authors for all eligible studies. While a meta-analysis was planned for this review, this was not possible due to the small number of studies included and high heterogeneity among them. Thus a narrative synthesis of the findings is presented. The literature search revealed a dearth of large, well conducted trials in this area. This has hindered the review authors' ability to make an informed decision about thalidomide for the management of cancer cachexia. At present, there is insufficient evidence to refute or support the use of thalidomide for the management of cachexia in advanced cancer patients. The review authors cannot confirm or refute previous literature on the use of thalidomide for patients with advanced cancer who have cachexia and there is inadequate evidence to recommend it for clinical practice. Additional, well conducted, large RCTs are needed to test thalidomide both singularly and in combination with other treatment modalities to ascertain its true benefit, if any, for this population. Furthermore, one study (out of the three reviewed) highlighted that thalidomide was poorly tolerated and its use needs to be explored further in light of the frailty of this population

Population-based study reveals new risk-stratification biomarker panel for Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is low and difficult to calculate. Accurate tools to determine risk are needed to optimize surveillance and intervention. We assessed the ability of candidate biomarkers to predict which cases of BE will progress to EAC or high-grade dysplasia and identified those that can be measured in formalin-fixed tissues. METHODS: We analyzed data from a nested case-control study performed using the population-based Northern Ireland BE Register (1993-2005). Cases who progressed to EAC (n = 89) or high-grade dysplasia =6 months after diagnosis with BE were matched to controls (nonprogressors, n = 291), for age, sex, and year of BE diagnosis. Established biomarkers (abnormal DNA content, p53, and cyclin A expression) and new biomarkers (levels of sialyl Lewis(a), Lewis(x), and Aspergillus oryzae lectin [AOL] and binding of wheat germ agglutinin) were assessed in paraffin-embedded tissue samples from patients with a first diagnosis of BE. Conditional logistic regression analysis was applied to assess odds of progression for patients with dysplastic and nondysplastic BE, based on biomarker status. RESULTS: Low-grade dysplasia and all biomarkers tested, other than Lewis(x), were associated with risk of EAC or high-grade dysplasia. In backward selection, a panel comprising low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL most accurately identified progressors and nonprogressors. The adjusted odds ratio for progression of patients with BE with low-grade dysplasia was 3.74 (95% confidence interval, 2.43-5.79) for each additional biomarker and the risk increased by 2.99 for each additional factor (95% confidence interval, 1.72-5.20) in patients without dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL can be used to identify patients with BE most likely to develop EAC or high-grade dysplasia.