Dexamethasone 8 mg for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Inpatients with Advanced Cancer Undergoing Palliative Care: A Multicenter Phase II Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: No standard treatment for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) for inpatients in a palliative care setting exists. The aim of this study was to validate the previous study-derived efficacy of dexamethasone 8 mg for CRF among inpatients in a palliative care setting. Methods: Inpatients with moderate fatigue (≥4/10) were enrolled in a multicenter phase II trial. Dexamethasone 8 mg p.o. or 6.6 mg i.v. was administered for seven days and 4 mg p.o. or 3.3 mg i.v. for seven consecutive days. The primary endpoint was a threshold average change of Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-fatigue subscale score of 3. The secondary endpoints were evaluated with the anorexia-cachexia subscale (ACS), and the Edmonton symptom assessment scale-revised Japanese version. Results: A total of 32 patients were enrolled. On day 8, the mean change of FACIT-fatigue subscale from day 1 was 5.2 (95% confidence interval 0.8–10.0), in which the lower bound was above 0 but not above the prespecified threshold value of 3.0 ( p = 0.72). Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS)-fatigue was significantly improved by day 3 ( p = 0.02), but not on day 8 or day 15. ACS, physical well-being, and ESAS-lack of appetite significantly improved by day 8 and day 15. Adverse events were tolerable. Conclusion: This study showed that dexamethasone 8 mg failed to achieve the preset efficacy for CRF among inpatients in a palliative care setting. However, this treatment improved fatigue and would be an option for CRF. jRCT (jRCTs031180068).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".