BackgroundThere are several methods of assessing nutritional status in cancer of which serum albumin is one of the most commonly used. In recent years, the role of malnutrition as a predictor of survival in cancer has received considerable attention. As a result, it is reasonable to investigate whether serum albumin has utility as a prognostic indicator of cancer survival in cancer. This review summarizes all available epidemiological literature on the association between pretreatment serum albumin levels and survival in different types of cancer.MethodsA systematic search of the literature using the MEDLINE database (January 1995 through June 2010) to identify epidemiologic studies on the relationship between serum albumin and cancer survival. To be included in the review, a study must have: been published in English, reported on data collected in humans with any type of cancer, had serum albumin as one of the or only predicting factor, had survival as one of the outcome measures (primary or secondary) and had any of the following study designs (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional, case-series prospective, retrospective, nested case-control, ecologic, clinical trial, meta-analysis).ResultsOf the 29 studies reviewed on cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, all except three found higher serum albumin levels to be associated with better survival in multivariate analysis. Of the 10 studies reviewed on lung cancer, all excepting one found higher serum albumin levels to be associated with better survival. In 6 studies reviewed on female cancers and multiple cancers each, lower levels of serum albumin were associated with poor survival. Finally, in all 8 studies reviewed on patients with other cancer sites, lower levels of serum albumin were associated with poor survival.ConclusionsPretreatment serum albumin levels provide useful prognostic significance in cancer. Accordingly, serum albumin level could be used in clinical trials to better define the baseline risk in cancer patients. A critical gap for demonstrating causality, however, is the absence of clinical trials demonstrating that raising albumin levels by means of intravenous infusion or by hyperalimentation decreases the excess risk of mortality in cancer.
PurposeThis phase I clinical trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of high-dose intravenous (i.v.) ascorbic acid as a monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy.MethodsFive cohorts of three patients received i.v. ascorbic acid administered at 1 g/min for 4 consecutive days/week for 4 weeks, starting at 30 g/m2 in the first cohort. For subsequent cohorts, dose was increased by 20 g/m2 until a maximum tolerated dose was found.ResultsAscorbic acid was eliminated by simple first-order kinetics. Half-life and clearance values were similar for all patients of all cohorts (2.0 ± 0.6 h, 21 ± 5 dL/h m2, respectively). Cmax and AUC values increased proportionately with dose between 0 and 70 g/m2, but appeared to reach maximal values at 70 g/m2 (49 mM and 220 h mM, respectively). Doses of 70, 90, and 110 g/m2 maintained levels at or above 10–20 mM for 5–6 h. All doses were well tolerated. No patient demonstrated an objective antitumor response.ConclusionsAscorbic acid administered i.v. at 1 g/min for 4 consecutive days/week for 4 weeks produced up to 49 mM ascorbic acid in patient’s blood and was well tolerated. The recommended dose for future studies is 70–80 g/m2.
Phase angle is a prognostic indicator in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Similar studies of other cancer types with larger sample sizes are needed to further validate the prognostic significance of phase angle in cancer treatment settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.