Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support alone. Cachexia has a high prevalence in cancer and a major impact on patient physical function, morbidity and mortality. Despite the consequences of cachexia, there is no licensed treatment for cachexia and no accepted standard of care. It has been argued that the multifactorial genesis of cachexia lends itself to therapeutic targeting through a multimodal treatment. Following a successful phase II trial, a phase III randomised controlled trial of a multimodal cachexia intervention is under way. Termed the MENAC trial (Multimodal—Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory medication for Cachexia), this intervention is based on evidence to date and consists of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and eicosapentaenoic acid to reduce inflammation, a physical exercise programme using resistance and aerobic training to increase anabolism, as well as dietary counselling and oral nutritional supplements to promote energy and protein balance. Herein we describe the development of this trial.
Trial registration number NCT02330926.
- cachexia
- trial
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Cancer cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome characterised by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support.1 The effects of cachexia are pronounced, including increased mortality, reduced physical function1 and increased symptom burden affecting quality of life.2 Additionally, patients with cancer cachexia are likely to have increased complications from anticancer therapy, such as treatment delays and toxicity, which can result in increased healthcare costs.3
Despite the multiple consequences of cancer cachexia, there is no licensed treatment for cachexia and no standard of care. Clinical trials in this field have focused on unimodal therapy and as such have had mixed results.4 5 In recent years, there has been an increasingly persuasive argument for trials that employ a multimodal intervention where multiple interdependent mechanisms that cause cachexia can be targeted in unison.6 However, the evidence to support such a multimodal approach is lacking. We have recently completed a feasibility trial of a multimodal cachexia intervention, termed the preMENAC trial.7 This was a randomised, phase II, open-label trial of a Multimodal Intervention (Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory Medication) plus standard care versus standard care alone to prevent/attenuate cachexia in patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy (clinicaltrials.gov ID; NCT01419145). The latter concept is also in keeping with the argument that practical rehabilitation alongside standard cancer therapies is justified.8
Following this we have recently opened the associated phase III trial, MENAC (Multimodal Intervention—Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory medication in Cachexia) (NCT02330926). The aim of the MENAC study is to attenuate or prevent weight and muscle loss and to improve physical function in patients with lung or pancreatic cancer, receiving anticancer treatment. Herein we present the rationale and motivation for the MENAC trial. This has also been presented in poster format at the European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Meeting in 2017.
Rationale for key components of the multimodal intervention
Anti-inflammatory medication
It has been demonstrated that cancer patients with cachexia often have increased inflammation, and several studies show that pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6 are involved.9 10 Inflammation seems to be one of the main pathophysiological drivers in cachexia, and as such, attenuation of the pro-inflammatory response has been argued as a key component of any cachexia therapy. Inflammation can be targeted via the following mechanisms.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) block cyclooxygenase (COX) which converts arachnoid acid (AA) to prostaglandins, resulting in inflammation and pain (via the COX-2 pathway). COX-1 is a consecutive enzyme present in most tissues in the body, and blockade of this can increase the risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage due to reduction of mucosa-protective prostaglandins. It is appealing to use NSAIDs in the treatment of cachexia as they counteract an upstream mechanism for inflammation and thus might influence several pathways (eg, IL-1, which reduces appetite,11 and tumour necrosis factor α, which might influence muscle and fat catabolism9). Furthermore, NSAIDs are inexpensive, easy to administer and have the potential of being a treatment option for many patients with cachexia and which are well tolerated.
A systematic review examining the evidence for NSAIDs in the treatment of cancer cachexia identified 13 studies, of which 6 were comparative trials.12 Most studies examined patients with advanced cancer of various types; however, few studies examined NSAIDs alongside concomitant anticancer treatment. Of interest, some studies observed that patients receiving an NSAID had significantly improved bodyweight compared with controls, with differences ranging from 2.5 13 and 2.9 kg14 at 6 weeks to 5.1 kg at 12 weeks.13 Another study, which did not report total weight as an outcome, reported a mean difference in lean body mass after 16 weeks of 4.65 kg.15 There was also evidence that NSAIDs may improve performance status and inflammatory parameters.15 However, there were also common limitations across studies including small sample sizes and a multitude of outcomes.
This level of evidence was considered insufficient to recommend NSAIDs for the treatment of cachexia outside clinical trials, recognising that new interventions should only be introduced when the evidence base is robust, especially considering the known side effects of NSAIDs (eg, stomach ulcers).
As there was no clear guidance on the choice of NSAIDs for cachexia trials,12 the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib was used in the preMENAC trial, primarily because it had been examined in the greatest number of trials. However, using celecoxib in the preMENAC trial resulted in the exclusion of a large group of patients due to coexisting cardiovascular disease. In comparison, low-dose ibuprofen is often considered the NSAID with the least side effects and has therefore been chosen as the NSAID in the MENAC study due to its favourable side effect profile, beneficial effects in cachexia13 16 17 and ease of availability. Ibuprofen will be taken three times daily, and the dose of 1200 mg/24 hours is based on previous work.18
Omega (Ω) -3fatty acids
The Ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and decosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are found in fish oils. Both EPA and DHA are competitive substrates with AA for the COX pathway which leads to the conversion of less inflammatory lipid modulators than those derived from AA and are both well recognised for their anti-inflammatory properties.19 These actions, together with their ability to maintain muscle mass,20 probably account for the effects of Ω-3 fatty acids seen in cancer cachexia, either with EPA alone21 or a combination of EPA and DHA.20
Prior systematic reviews have concluded that there is not enough evidence to determine a net benefit of EPA in cancer cachexia.22 However, a narrative review reported positive effects20 with one study demonstrating maintenance or gain of muscle mass in 69% of patients treated with EPA versus 29% in the control group.23 A further study reported a difference in muscle mass of 3.2 kg after 5 weeks treatment.24 A recent systematic review concluded that Ω-3 fatty acids supplementation during chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy seems to be beneficial in several outcomes, especially in conserving bodyweight and muscle mass, but that more studies are needed to substantiate this.25
The optimal dose of EPA and DHA supplementation to attenuate cachexia has not been defined, but intervention studies showing positive effects on muscle mass have used oral nutritional supplement (ONS) providing daily intake of 2–2.2 g EPA and approximately 1 g of DHA.26 In cachexia trials, oral Ω-3 fatty acids have been administered either as capsules or as ONS.27 The advantage of giving ONS compared with capsules is that they provide extra calories, proteins and micronutrients in addition to Ω-3 fatty acids. On the other hand, low compliance with ONS has been reported,7 and therefore alternative forms of administration of Ω-3 fatty acids can be advantageous for the patients to ensure good compliance.
Based on current evidence, the Ω-3 fatty acids used in the MENAC trial are given via an ONS containing both EPA and DHA. If patients are not able to take the prescribed ONS due to individual taste preferences,7 they will be offered capsules containing EPA and DHA in combination with another ONS without Ω-3 fatty acids to ensure the extra intake of calories and protein provided by the ONS alone. The dose of EPA and DHA is 2 and 1 g daily, respectively, which is in accordance with previous trials which have had positive effects on muscle mass.23
Dietary intervention and treatment of nutritional impact symptoms
Optimising food intake has been advocated as a key modality in the treatment of cancer cachexia.1 In advanced cancer, there are several reasons for patients to experience reduced food intake. Loss of appetite, or anorexia, is probably the most important precursor, but not for all patients.28 29 One study showed that in patients with weight loss, 39% had no anorexia and 16% had normal food intake, while 12% of patients with anorexia had no weight loss.30 Other studies have demonstrated that a wide variety of symptoms directly (eg, oral dryness, taste change, nausea, vomiting) or indirectly (eg, fatigue, psychological problems) interfere with food intake and energy balance.28 Reversible causes of reduced food intake should therefore always be targeted in order to improve food intake.31
Only a few studies have recorded food intake in patients with advanced cancer and thereafter estimated energy intake and energy balance.32–39 Although most of these studies show that energy intake was insufficient to maintain stable weight, no clear association between energy intake and weight loss has been documented. These results reflect the complex causality of weight loss in advanced cancer.32 33 36
Evidence to support nutritional interventions in cancer is conflicting, and a systematic review considering the effect of nutritional support identified five clinical trials examining the effect of weight and energy intake on dietary counselling.40 Two of the five studies showed reduced weight loss in patients receiving dietary counselling (+1.4 kg vs −2 kg, P<0.05, and +1% wt gain vs −1.5% wt loss, P=0.03).41 42 The authors concluded that increased energy intake may have some effect on weight loss in advanced cancer. Additionally, a systematic review indicated that it was possible to maintain or increase energy and protein intake in patients by dietary counselling, but this was only evaluated in two studies (92% of total caloric need vs 73%, P<0.01, and 1865±317 kcal vs 1556±497 kcal, ns).41 43
Even if there are valid criticisms of the currently available evidence, it seems obvious that positive energy and protein balance cannot be reached without optimising nutritional intake. In the MENAC trial, the nutritional intervention is dietary counselling (aiming to promote energy and protein balance) combined with ONS. In all patients, it is fundamental to address symptoms such as pain and nausea in order to improve and maintain food intake. In the MENAC trial, patients will be encouraged to increase meal frequency and intake of food and beverages with high-energy density. Additionally, two cans of ONS daily contribute a total of 542 kcal and 30 g of high-quality protein.
Physical exercise
Physical exercise, and, in particular, strength training, has an essential role in human skeletal muscle proteolysis and produces an anabolic effect leading to increased muscle mass and strength.44 In patients with cancer, it has been demonstrated that exercise can improve muscular strength, reduce fatigue and increase health-related quality of life, both during and after anticancer treatment.45 There is a strong rationale for the benefits of exercise as part of multimodal anti-cachexia therapy as it has the potential to attenuate abnormalities in muscle metabolism found in cachexia.46 In a review of studies exploring the effects of exercise on immunological and hormonal biomarkers in patients with cancer, data suggest that exercise can reduce levels of C reactive protein but has a less consistent effect on other markers of systematic inflammation (eg, cytokines) and hormones important in the regulation of muscle metabolism.47 These reviewed studies were limited to patients with early-stage cancer, and thus the therapeutic effects of exercise need to be explored further in defined cachexia populations.
A systematic review48 examined the effect of physical exercise on muscle mass and strength during anticancer treatment and compared the relative effects of aerobic and resistance training. In total, 16 studies were included but most examined patients with stage I–III breast cancer, prostate cancer or patients undergoing stem cell transplants. Only one trial exclusively studied patients with advanced incurable cancer during palliative treatment, and none of the trials characterised the patients as being cachectic or pre-cachectic. Of 13 studies measuring muscle strength, 11 reported significant improvements in both upper and lower muscle strength favouring both aerobic and resistance training. Five studies measured muscle mass, and two of these reported significant improvement (5.2%49 and 1.0 kg50 again favouring exercise). These findings indicate that exercise can effectively maintain or improve muscle strength during anticancer treatment.
There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the optimal type and dose of exercise in order to counteract cachexia in patients with advanced cancer,51 especially as both the cardiorespiratory and muscular systems are affected.
The design of the physical exercise component of the MENAC trial was thus based on evidence relating to safety and efficacy of exercise interventions trialled in all cancer populations, guided by international guidelines for cancer survivors52 53 and modified to be feasible to offer with light supervision to an advanced cancer population. The main goal of the exercise intervention is to contribute to the prevention of muscle loss and to improve or maintain physical function. Therefore, in the MENAC trial the intervention will consist of functional resistance training three times each week in addition to aerobic training two times each week. This is a home-based exercise programme prescribed during an interview by a trained health professional and supported by a standardised instruction booklet. The intervention is based on experience from the preMENAC trial where compliance (deemed as >50% of individual components in >50% of patients) was 60% for the exercise component and was considered feasible.7 It was observed that many patients in the intervention arm were more physically active than they otherwise would have been, but not enough to be compliant. To further optimise compliance, dependent on patient preference and centre service provision, exercise in the MENAC trial may be supervised on occasion. In addition, the exercises have been modified from those in the preMENAC trial, so they can be performed without specialist equipment (free weights) so as to become easier to implement across settings.
Treating cachexia alongside anticancer therapy
Cancer cachexia cannot be treated in a vacuum, and the best way to treat cancer cachexia is to treat the underlying cancer. However, both chemotherapy54 and targeted therapy55 may cause significant loss of muscle, a side effect which has previously been given little attention. In patients with advanced cancer, the motivation for giving chemotherapy is often to delay disease progression and thereby delay or reduce symptoms to maintain function and quality of life. It is therefore of importance to focus on possible side effects that might increase symptoms instead of alleviating the total symptom load as intended. If chemotherapy is to be delivered, it is vital to develop strategies to minimise its side effects.
It is increasingly acknowledged that cachexia treatment needs to be initiated at an early phase of cachexia6 20 and at this time co-treatment with anticancer therapy is inevitable. Some evidence exists that tumour-related outcomes or toxicity are improved where EPA,25 NSAIDs,56 nutrition57 and physical exercise in isolation are given alongside anticancer therapy (figure 1). Based on the above considerations, participants will enter the MENAC trial when they are commencing anticancer therapy.
Components of optimum cachexia management. EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; NSAID, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Systematic reviews on key components of the multimodal intervention have been completed by our group.12 40 48 58
MENAC trial design
The MENAC trial is a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multimodal therapy (ONS plus ibuprofen plus exercise) versus standard care. Following randomisation, patients will be allocated to either the intervention or the control arm and key endpoints will be assessed after 6 weeks (figure 2). After this, patients in the intervention arm will be allowed to continue and those in the control will be offered the multimodal intervention. This latter step is mainly to reduce contamination of the control arm with the aim of limiting those patients mimicking the intervention.
Multimodal—Exercise, Nutrition and Anti-inflammatory medication for Cachexia trial schema.
Although the 6-week time period may be considered short, data from previous studies showed that it is possible to achieve meaningful changes in weight in this time frame,14 16 59 whereas increasing it may result in unacceptable levels of attrition.13 A cancer cachexia intervention is probably more likely to succeed at an early phase. Thus in the MENAC trial the aim is to include patients with a high risk of developing cachexia or who are early in the cachexia trajectory.
Patients will be recruited from multiple sites in Europe and Canada. In order to have clinically meaningful findings, it is necessary to demonstrate both effectiveness and feasibility of the multimodal treatment programme.
MENAC has received ethical and regulatory approval in countries where it is being conducted. Southampton Clinical Trials Unit (SCTU), a UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTU, is coordinating the trial in the UK with worldwide trial coordination from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. An independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee have been set up to monitor trial progress and safety. The MENAC Trial Management Group includes representatives from medical and paliative care oncology, patients and CTU staff involved in the day-to-day running of the trial.
Endpoints
The primary objective of the MENAC trial is to prevent the development of cachexia and/or to attenuate cachexia progression. From a patient perspective, a short-term effect will be to improve physical and psychological function, to reduce symptom burden and to improve survival; in other words, to live a longer and better life, during and after chemotherapy.
Defining the key endpoints in cancer cachexia is challenging, and a lack of consensus from regulatory agencies (the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency) has failed to progress this. The FDA argues that any cachexia intervention must benefit both lean muscle mass and function; however, defining how best to assess this is challenging and recent studies in this area have failed to meet endpoints that assess muscle function.4 Therefore, it is important that the optimal way of assessing muscle function in cancer cachexia is decided with the caveat that traditional measures such as hand-grip strength may not be appropriate in this setting. As there is no consensus, the primary endpoint in the MENAC trial has been chosen on a pragmatic basis. Weight loss has been chosen as it is a key defining factor of cachexia and is meaningful for both patients and clinicians.1
It is expected that a difference in weight between the treatment groups is followed by a parallel increase in muscle mass and physical activity. These important factors are chosen as secondary outcomes in this trial.
Weight gain alone does not take into account increased oedema, increased tumour weight or the muscle loss that can remain undisclosed due to adiposities. Muscle mass, which is an essential factor in cachexia, will therefore be assessed by CT which is a validated, objective method.60 CT scans were the chosen method over dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry as CT scans are more available in most clinical centres and are usually done as part of routine care, leaving minimal additional burden for the patient and healthcare system. Physical activity level is objectively measured by ActivPAL®, a physical activity meter which assesses mean daily step count and time spent upright, using a small monitor attached to the anterior mid-thigh.
There will also be several exploratory endpoints investigating other consequences of the treatment. One set of exploratory endpoints is measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs -appetite, physical activity and fatigue using the European Organisation for the Research and treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30)61 and Health Status (EQ-5D-3L).62 Informed by findings from studies investigating effects from nutritional63 and NSAID12 interventions, our hypothesis is that various PROMs will improve with the multimodal intervention. There is however a non-negligible risk that the patients will feel overburdened by the treatment and that quality of life might be reduced. Therefore, the satisfaction and burden of the intervention will also be assessed.
NSAIDs are drugs commonly in use, and major side effects are relatively rare. There are however no large-scale evaluations of side effects in this frail patient population, and side effects are not necessarily transferable from other patient populations. Side effects described by the patients will therefore be reported.
Conclusion
Currently there are no established treatments for cachexia, and the condition is often neglected. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that current intensive oncological treatments are both exacerbating cachexia and are being curtailed by increased toxicity due to cachexia. There is consensus that cachexia is a multidimensional problem and that a multimodal approach to treatment is necessary. The intervention in the MENAC trial is based on thorough systematic literature reviews. It aims to establish a practical rehabilitation programme that will provide the first evidence-based method to reverse this currently intractable syndrome, that affects >50% of patients with advanced cancer and reduces their quality of life and life expectancy.64 Successful management of cachexia could have a major impact on supportive oncology, but could in addition also improve the tolerance and probability of completing chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment. This trial, which will include patients from multiple countries, will hopefully help improve standardisation of nutritional and metabolic care of patients undergoing anticancer therapy.
The novel treatments developed in this project may subsequently benefit other diseases as cachexia is not specific to advanced cancer. Common conditions such as heart failure, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may potentially also benefit from this research.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following: the sponsor for the trial: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Liz Dixon and Natalie Hutchings at the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton. This trial was developed on behalf of the NCRI Palliative and Supportive Care Clinical Studies group in the UK. Recruitment is supported by the research nurses and staff within the NIHR Clinical Research Network Cancer in England and equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Norway: Cancer Fund, St. Olavs Hospital; Nordic Cancer Union; Norwegian Cancer Society and Vardesenteret St. Olavs Hospital; Active against cancer and Pusterommet St Olavs Hospital; Liaison Committee between the Central Norway Regional Health Authority (RHA) and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU); Unit for Applied Clinical Research (webCRF). The European Union through the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN). Theoral nutritional supplement will be received free of charge from Abbott Nutrition. They are also grateful to Anne Voss for her support. The Omega-3 capsules will be received free of charge from Pronova BioPharma Norge AS. Canada: Thomas Jagoe, Martin Chasen and Nancy Page. Thank you to all patients who have taken part in the preMENAC trial and those taking part in the MENAC trial.
References
Footnotes
30 TSS and BJAL are joint first authors.
32 SK and KF are joint senior authors.
Contributors TS, BL, SK and KF led the manuscript writing. KF conceptualised the MENAC trial. TB, AB, GS, VB, MM, MF, FS and GG had significant input in manuscript preparation. All authors approved the submitted manuscript.
Funding UK: Marie Curie, Pancreatic Cancer UK and the Rising Tide Foundation funded the MENAC trial.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethical approval was not required for this article; however, ethical and regulatory approval has been given for the MENAC trial.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.