Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Ahmed Kaseb x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Effect of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Patients With Cancer: Addressing a Neglected Population

Harrys A. Torres, Parag Mahale, Boris Blechacz, Ethan Miller, Ahmed Kaseb, H. Franklin Herlong, Nathan Fowler, Ying Jiang, Issam I. Raad, and Dimitrios P. Kontoyiannis

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a neglected disease in patients with cancer. Therefore, this study examined the impact of HCV infections in these patients. Methods: The records of HCV-infected patients with cancer seen at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (2008–2011) were reviewed. The outcomes of those who underwent HCV treatment were analyzed. Results: Of 1291 patients who had positive test results for an antibody to HCV (anti-HCV), 744 (58%) were tested for HCV-RNA; 642 (86%) of which had chronic HCV infections. Most had solid tumors (72%) and genotype-1 (G-1) infections (66%). HCV therapy was administered in 348 patients (98 of them after cancer diagnosis). Sustained virologic response (SVR) occurred in 27 (35%) of the 78 patients treated for whom outcome data were available. Compared with patients who experienced an SVR, more patients who did not were black (29% vs 4%; P=.007), had G-1 infections (72% vs 6%; P<.0001), and had higher baseline aspartate aminotransferase (78 vs 47 IU/L; P=.006) and alanine aminotransferase levels (71.1 vs 43.3 IU/L; P=.009). Overall, progression to cirrhosis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; P=.03) and portal hypertension (HR, 0.19; P=.009) was less common in those treated, irrespective of the treatment outcome (SVR or non-SVR). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) developed as a second primary malignancy in 7% of patients with non-HCC cancer. Conclusions: This is the largest series to analyze HCV infections in patients with cancer. HCV therapy is feasible and prevents liver disease progression in this forgotten population. A treatment algorithm is provided.

Full access

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Panax Ginseng for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Sriram Yennurajalingam, Nizar M. Tannir, Janet L. Williams, Zhanni Lu, Kenneth R. Hess, Susan Frisbee-Hume, Helen L. House, Zita Dubauskas Lim, Kyu-Hyoung Lim, Gabriel Lopez, Akhila Reddy, Ahsan Azhar, Angelique Wong, Sunil M. Patel, Deborah A. Kuban, Ahmed Omar Kaseb, Lorenzo Cohen, and Eduardo Bruera

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.