Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30482179›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2018

Pharmacological management of cachexia in adult cancer patients: a systematic review of clinical trials.

Shailesh M Advani, Pragati G Advani, Helena M VonVille, Syed H Jafri

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Multimodal interventions for cachexia management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Ovarian cancer and malnutrition: a literature review.Translational cancer research · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shailesh M AdvaniDivision of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown, University School of Medicine, Washington DC, 20007, USA.
Pragati G AdvaniRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Helena M VonVilleThe University of Texas Health Science Center School of Public Health, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Syed H JafriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Syed.H.Jafri@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3949-3482
Georgetown University · USNational Institutes of Health · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCachexia is a multisystem syndrome characterized by weight loss, anorexia, loss of muscle mass, systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and functional decline. Management of cachexia involves addressing multiple underlying biological mechanisms. Previous review on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia identified progestins and corticosteroids as effective agents for treatment of cachexia. However, to date no consensus exists on a single effective or standard treatment for management of cachexia. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments used to manage cachexia among adult cancer patients.

methodsWe performed literature searches of PubMed (NLM), Embase (Ovid), and Medline(Ovid) to identify clinical trials focused on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia among adult cancer patients from 2004 to 2018. Three reviewers screened a random selection of abstracts to measure for interrater reliability. After this step, each screener screened two-thirds of all abstracts and 177 studies were identified for full text review. The primary outcome was impact of pharmacological management on change in either weight or lean body mass in cancer patients.

resultsWe identified 19 articles (representing 20 RCTs) that focused on pharmacological management of cancer cachexia. Agents showing promising results included Anamorelin and Enobosarm. Anamorelin at 50 or 100 mg per day for 12 weeks showed a consistent benefit across all studies and resulted in significant improvement in weight as compared to baseline among cancer patients. Enobosarm at 1 and 3 mg per day was also effective in improving lean body mass and QOL symptoms among advancer stage cancer patients. Finally, use of combination agents provide evidence for targeting multiple pathways underlying cachexia mechanism to achieve maximum benefit. No agents showed functional improvement in cancer patients.

conclusionAnamorelin as a single agent shows promising results in improving cachexia related weight loss among cancer patients. Further research on combination therapies may be helpful to address critical gaps in cachexia management.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCachexiaClinical Trials as TopicCytokinesDisease ManagementFemaleHumansHydrazinesNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingOligopeptidesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeanamorelinCytokinesHydrazinesOligopeptidesAnamorelinCancer cachexiaSarcopeniaSystemic inflammationWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID30482179
PMCPMC6260745
OpenAlexW2903362839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.