ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Megestrol acetate in the management of cancer cachexia: a prospective quasi-experimental study focusing on body composition and patient-reported outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of megestrol acetate (MA) in treating cancer cachexia from multiple dimensions. Methods: In this prospective, non-randomized study, 97 patients with cancer cachexia were allocated to either a control group ( Results: Compared to baseline, the MA group exhibited significant improvements in body weight, BMI, fat mass, prealbumin (PA), albumin (ALB), and hemoglobin (Hb), coupled with a significant reduction in IL-6 levels and all domains of cancer-related fatigue (somatic, cognitive, affective, and total). Between-group analyses demonstrated that the MA group achieved significantly greater improvements in weight, BMI, fat mass, PA, ALB, and Hb. Skeletal muscle mass was maintained in the MA group, whereas the control group experienced a significant loss, resulting in a significant between-group difference. Furthermore, the MA group showed markedly greater reductions in all fatigue domain scores and a more substantial improvement in QOL. No significant between-group differences were observed for most inflammatory or immune markers. The intervention was well-tolerated with no reported drug-related adverse events. Conclusion: MA significantly improves nutritional status and ameliorates cancer-related fatigue, thereby enhancing the quality of life in patients with cancer cachexia. Our findings provide robust evidence supporting the multi-dimensional benefits of MA in cachexia management, extending beyond mere weight gain to include muscle mass preservation and patient-centered symptom relief.
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.