Dataset Information

Doxepin rinse versus placebo in the treatment of acute oral mucositis pain in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial (NCCTG-N09C6 [Alliance]).

ABSTRACT: Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to test the efficacy of doxepin hydrochloride in the reduction of radiotherapy-induced OM pain.In all, 155 patients were randomly allocated to a doxepin oral rinse or a placebo for the treatment of radiotherapy-related OM pain. Patients received a single dose of doxepin or placebo on day 1 and then crossed over to receive the opposite agent on a subsequent day. Pain questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Patients were then given the option to continue doxepin. The primary end point was pain reduction as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scale using data from day 1.Primary end point analysis revealed that the AUC for mouth and throat pain reduction was greater for doxepin (-9.1) than for placebo (-4.7; P < .001). Crossover analysis of patients completing both phases confirmed that patients experienced greater mouth and throat pain reduction with doxepin (intrapatient changes of 4.1 for doxepin-placebo arm and -2.8 for placebo-doxepin arm; P < .001). Doxepin was associated with more stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, and greater drowsiness than the placebo rinse. More patients receiving doxepin expressed a desire to continue treatment than did patients with placebo after completion of each of the randomized phases of the study.A doxepin rinse diminishes OM pain. Further studies are warranted to determine its role in the management of OM.

SUBMITTER: Leenstra JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4026580 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Doxepin rinse versus placebo in the treatment of acute oral mucositis pain in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial (NCCTG-N09C6 [Alliance]).

Leenstra James L JL Miller Robert C RC Qin Rui R Martenson James A JA Dornfeld Kenneth J KJ Bearden James D JD Puri Dev R DR Stella Philip J PJ Mazurczak Miroslaw A MA Klish Marie D MD Novotny Paul J PJ Foote Robert L RL Loprinzi Charles L CL

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20140414 15

<h4>Purpose</h4>Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to test the efficacy of doxepin hydrochloride in the reduction of radiotherapy-induced OM pain.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In all, 155 patients were randomly allocated to a doxepin oral rinse or a placebo for the treatment of radiotherapy-related OM pain. Patients received a single dose of doxepin or placebo o ...[more]

PMID: 24733799

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.Design, setting, and participantsA phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.InterventionsNinety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.Main outcome and measuresThe primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).ResultsAmong the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.

Project description:Purpose: Oral mucositis (OM) remains a common, debilitating toxicity of radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. The goal of this phase IIb, multi-institutional, randomized, double-blind trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of GC4419, a superoxide dismutase mimetic, with placebo to reduce the duration, incidence, and severity of severe OM (SOM).Patients and methods: A total of 223 patients (from 44 institutions) with locally advanced oral cavity or oropharynx cancer planned to be treated with definitive or postoperative intensity-modulated RT (IMRT; 60 to 72 Gy [≥ 50 Gy to two or more oral sites]) plus cisplatin (weekly or every 3 weeks) were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg (n = 73) or 90 mg (n = 76) of GC4419 or to receive placebo (n = 74) by 60-minute intravenous administration before each IMRT fraction. WHO grade of OM was assessed biweekly during IMRT and then weekly for up to 8 weeks after IMRT. The primary endpoint was duration of SOM tested for each active dose level versus placebo (intent-to-treat population, two-sided α of .05). The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.03, was used for adverse event grading.Results: Baseline patient and tumor characteristics as well as treatment delivery were balanced. With 90 mg GC4419 versus placebo, SOM duration was significantly reduced (P = .024; median, 1.5 v 19 days). SOM incidence (43% v 65%; P = .009) and severity (grade 4 incidence, 16% v 30%; P = .045) also were improved. Intermediate improvements were seen with the 30-mg dose. Safety was comparable across arms, with no significant GC4419-specific toxicity nor increase of known toxicities of IMRT plus cisplatin. The 2-year follow-up for tumor outcomes is ongoing.Conclusion: GC4419 at a dose of 90 mg produced a significant, clinically meaningful reduction of SOM duration, incidence, and severity with acceptable safety. A phase III trial (ROMAN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03689712) has begun.

Project description:PurposeRadiotherapy-related dermatological toxicities over time have not been well quantified. We examined during and immediately following radiation therapy skin toxicities over time in a randomized study of mometasone furoate vs placebo during breast radiotherapy.Material and methodsPatients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomized. Symptoms related to skin toxicity were addressed weekly using provider-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0) and 4 patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys. We applied repeated measures and risk analysis methodologies.ResultsOne hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled. By CTCAE, significant differences favoring mometasone were detected over time in all toxicities except skin striae, atrophy, and infection. Statistically significant differences between arms at baseline but not over time occurred for all Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Statistically significant differences occurred for all symptoms in the temporal profile of symptoms as measured by PRO surveys (all P < .001).ConclusionsThe use of longitudinal methods enhanced the ability of PRO tools to detect differences between study arms. Our results strengthened the conclusions of the original report that mometasone reduced acute skin toxicities. PRO surveys can accurately assess patients' experiences of symptom type and intensity over time and should be included in future clinical trials. For radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicity, we hypothesized that clinically significant differences over time, if any, can be found by repeated measures. We examined the acute skin toxicities in a randomized study of mometasone vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. For secondary end points, we showed that longitudinal methods enhanced the detection of differences between study arms and strengthened the conclusions from the original report. Frequent patient-reported outcome surveys over time should be included in future clinical trials.

Project description:LESSONS LEARNED:Everolimus does not have sufficient activity to justify its use as single agent in metastatic melanoma.Patients treated with 10 mg per day dose were most likely to require dose reductions.Everolimus appeared to reduce the numbers of regulatory T cells in approximately half of the treated patients; unfortunately, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND:Everolimus (RAD-001) is an orally active rapamycin analogue shown in preclinical data to produce cytostatic cell inhibition, which may be potentially beneficial in treating melanoma. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma (MM). METHODS:This study included two cohorts; cohort 1 received 30 mg of everolimus by mouth (PO) weekly, and cohort 2 was dosed with 10 mg of everolimus PO daily. The endpoints of the study were safety, 16-week progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and measures of immunomodulatory/antiangiogenic properties with therapy. Tumor samples before therapy and at week 8 of treatment were analyzed. Peripheral blood plasma or mononuclear cell isolates collected prior to therapy and at weeks 8 and 16 and at time of tumor progression were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor and regulatory T-cell (Treg) measurements. RESULTS:A total of 53 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 (n?=?24) and cohort 2 (n?=?29). Only 2 patients of the first 20 patients enrolled in cohort 2 had treatment responses (25%; 95% confidence interval, 8.6%-49.1%); this result did not allow full accrual to cohort 2, as the study was terminated for futility. Median OS was 12.2 months for cohort 1 versus 8.1 months in cohort 2; no PFS advantage was seen in either group (2.1 months vs. 1.8 months). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 myocardial ischemia (3.4%); grade 3 fatigue, mucositis, and hyperglycemia (10.3%); and anorexia and anemia (6.9%). Everolimus significantly reduced the number of Tregs in approximately half of the treated patients; however, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION:Everolimus does not have sufficient single-agent activity in MM; however, we have identified evidence of biological activity to provide a potential rationale for future combination studies.

Dataset Information

Doxepin rinse versus placebo in the treatment of acute oral mucositis pain in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial (NCCTG-N09C6 [Alliance]).

Publications

Doxepin rinse versus placebo in the treatment of acute oral mucositis pain in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial (NCCTG-N09C6 [Alliance]).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets