MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Melatonin supplementation for preventing cancer-related fatigue in patients receiving radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial.

2022· article· en· W4281650422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Khorasanchi, Nitai D. Mukhopadhyay, Sudeep Pandey, Srinidhi Nemani, Gwendolynn L Parker, Alfredo E. Urdaneta, Xiaoyan Deng, Egidio Del Fabbro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInterim analysisMelatoninInternal medicineBreast cancerRandomizationCancerRadiation therapyClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e24079 Background: Fatigue is common in patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). Melatonin, an inexpensive natural supplement, may improve symptoms and attenuate the side effects of RT. The effect of melatonin for prevention of fatigue and other symptoms was evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Methods: Early-stage or ductal carcinoma in-situ breast cancer patients ≥ 18 years, female, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) < 3, hemoglobin ≥9 g/dL. RT with curative intent, randomized 1:1 to melatonin 20 mg or oral placebo, starting night before RT initiation until 2 weeks post-RT. Sample size of 142 evaluable patients in each arm for 80% power and interim analysis at mid recruitment using the unified family method rho = 0.3. Randomization stratified to RT duration (< 3 weeks, ≥3 weeks) and prior chemotherapy. Primary outcome : Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue subscale after completion of RT with additional scores measured at baseline, 2 and 8 weeks post-RT. Secondary outcomes : FACIT-F subscales, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue-Short Form 8a. Secondary analyses reported using an F-test at a 5% significance level. Results: For this interim analysis, 85 patients screened; 80 randomized; 39 received melatonin and 38 placebo. 72 included in the analysis as 5 patients had no post baseline FACIT score. Characteristics of age, race, and ECOG PS similar in both arms. Treatment X time for FACIT-Fatigue not significant for melatonin compared to placebo (p .83). FACIT physical, emotional, and functional well-being scores not significantly different (p .35, .62, and .71) but showing a trend for social well-being (p .06). PROMIS scores not changed over time (p .34). ESAS individual symptoms of anxiety, well-being, drowsiness, poor appetite, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, sleep and tiredness not significant, except for depression (p.04). However, a decrease of 0.01 unit in depression score is not considered clinically significant. No grade 3 or 4 adverse events. No participants died during study, 2 died after study completion from breast cancer recurrence. 16 withdrew prior to study completion because of adverse events, unrelated hospitalizations, RT discontinuation, and COVID-19 precautions. Trial was stopped based on statistical analysis demonstrating no difference for primary outcome and imminent expiry of available drug. Discontinuation was approved by Data Safety Monitoring Committee. Conclusions: Melatonin did not prevent fatigue in patients with early stage breast cancer undergoing RT. Melatonin also demonstrated no benefit for other symptoms, except depression. Analysis showed little evidence of an effect, and the trial was terminated early. Clinical trial information: NCT02332928.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→