Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2013
Effects of enobosarm on muscle wasting and physical function in patients with cancer: a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 2 trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 178 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Finding Study of the Effect of GTx-024 on Muscle Wasting (Cachexia) in Patients With Cancer
Use of Perioperative Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) in Sarcopenic Male Colorectal Cancer Patients - A Single Arm Open Label Feasibility Study
Who cites it
178 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 378 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer cachexia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Body weight and composition endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 4 of the cachexia endpoints series.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2024Pooled it
- Biomarker endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 5 of the cachexia endpoint series.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2024Pooled it
- Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2023Pooled it
- Pharmacological management of cachexia in adult cancer patients: a systematic review of clinical trials.BMC cancer · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of herbal medicines for the treatment of cancer cachexia in animal models.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. BPooled it
- A Randomized Trial of Nutrition and Exercise Treatment in Patients With Pancreatic and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NEXTAC-TWO).Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Trial
- Trial
- A Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator (OPK-88004) in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Trial.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2021Trial
- Feasibility of early multimodal interventions for elderly patients with advanced pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancer.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects of the selective androgen receptor modulator, GSK2881078, in healthy men and postmenopausal women.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Trial
- Treatment with a selective androgen receptor modulator (RAD140) is linked to better cardiac function, with male-specific effects that are graded by interleukin-6.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Sarcopenia and Skeletal Muscle Dysfunction in Liver Cirrhosis: Clinical Perspectives of Myostatin Inhibition.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Overview of Novel Mechanisms in Obesity Pharmacotherapy and Implications for Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- Androgen receptors protect against thoracic aortic dissection via inhibiting ferroptosis of vascular smooth muscle cells in male patients.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Development of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of sarcopenia.Annals of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Sarcopenia in Chronic Heart Failure: Pathophysiology, Clinical Consequences, and Emerging Multimodal Therapeutic Strategies.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Review
- Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators in Women: What Do We Know, and What Is Still Missing.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer-induced muscle wasting begins early in the course of a patient's malignant disease, resulting in declining physical function and other detrimental clinical consequences. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of enobosarm, a selective androgen receptor modulator, in patients with cancer.
methodsWe enrolled male (>45 years) and female (postmenopausal) patients with cancer who were not obese and who had at least 2% weight loss in the previous 6 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1 ratio, by computer generated list, block size three, stratified by cancer type) to receive once-daily oral enobosarm 1 mg, 3 mg, or placebo for up to 113 days at US and Argentinian oncology clinics. The sponsor, study personnel, and participants were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was change in total lean body mass from baseline, assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Efficacy analyses were done only in patients who had a baseline and an on-treatment assessment in the protocol-specified window of within 10 days before baseline or first study drug, and within 10 days of day 113 or end of study (evaluable efficacy population). Adverse events and other safety measurements were assessed in the intention-to-treat (safety) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00467844.
findingsEnrolment started on July 3, 2007, and the last patient completed the trial on Aug 1, 2008. 159 patients were analysed for safety (placebo, n=52; enobosarm 1 mg, n=53; enobosarm 3 mg, n=54). The evaluable efficacy population included 100 participants (placebo, n=34; enobosarm 1 mg, n=32; enobosarm 3 mg, n=34). Compared with baseline, significant increases in total lean body mass by day 113 or end of study were noted in both enobosarm groups (enobosarm 1 mg median 1·5 kg, range -2·1 to 12·6, p=0·0012; enodosarm 3 mg 1·0 kg, -4·8 to 11·5, p=0·046). Change in total lean body mass within the placebo group (median 0·02 kg, range -5·8 to 6·7) was not significant (p=0·88). The most common serious adverse events were malignant neoplasm progression (eight of 52 [15%] with placebo vs five of 53 [9%] with enobosarm 1 mg vs seven of 54 [13%] with enobosarm 3 mg), pneumonia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs three [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [6%vs one [2%] vs none). None of these events were deemed related to study drug.
interpretationCancer cachexia is an unmet medical need and our data suggest that use of enobosarm might lead to improvements in lean body mass, without the toxic effects associated with androgens and progestational agents.
fundingGTx.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.