Methylphenidate Versus Placebo for Treating Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Author(s): Patrick Charles Stone, MD, MA, MRCP¹; Ollie Minton, PhD, FRCP, FHEA²; Alison Richardson, PhD, MSc, BN (Hons), PGDipEd, RGN³; Peter Buckle¹; Zinat E. Enayat, PhD, MSc, BSc¹; Louise Marston, PhD, MSc, BSc⁴; Nick Freemantle, PhD, MA(Dist), BA(Hons)⁴

Source: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.02639

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Stimulant therapy with methylphenidate did not improve fatigue in a well-done, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. This refutes prior practices of using ADD medications to mitigate fatigue for patients on chemotherapy. I rarely use these in my own practice given the concern for weight loss and mood disorder.

PURPOSE

To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, –0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, –1.35 [95% CI, –2.41 to –0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated.

Author Affiliations

¹Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; ²University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing Hospital, Lyndhurst Road, Worthing, West Sussex, United Kingdom; ³University of Southampton & University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom; ⁴Department of Primary Care & Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom; ⁵Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom

Prescribing Changes After Accelerated vs Regular Approval of Oncology Therapies

This study analyzed prescribing patterns for oncology drugs granted FDA Accelerated Approval (AA) versus those later converted to Regular Approval (RA) using data from over 63,000 patients with advanced solid tumors. Prescribing of AA drugs increased sharply—by an average of 23 percentage points—immediately after AA, while conversion to RA led to only a minimal further increase. Off-label use of AA drugs, either in earlier lines of therapy or in biomarker-negative patients, was rare. The findings suggest that oncologists rapidly adopt AA drugs into practice, often without waiting for confirmatory evidence required for RA. In summary, AA status drives substantial and immediate uptake of oncology drugs, highlighting the importance of timely confirmatory trials to ensure clinical benefit.

Mapping the rapid growth of multi-omics in tumor immunotherapy: Bibliometric evidence of technology convergence and paradigm shifts

The article demonstrates that multi-omics research in tumor immunotherapy has grown rapidly since 2019, with China leading in publication volume but showing limited international collaboration. Early research focused on immune checkpoint blockade, while recent trends emphasize machine learning, multi-omics integration, and lncRNA, reflecting a shift toward predictive modeling and biomarker discovery. Multi-omics approaches have enabled the development of immune infiltration-based prognostic models and identified metabolic and spatial biomarkers, such as oxidative phosphorylation in melanoma and ENPP1 in Ewing sarcoma, which may guide therapeutic strategies. Overall, the study provides a systematic framework for tracking technological convergence and emerging frontiers, highlighting the need for longitudinal omics monitoring, AI-driven integration, and enhanced international collaboration to optimize precision-driven tumor immunotherapy.

Nonoperative Management of Mismatch Repair—Deficient Tumors

Two cohorts, one for patients with colon cancer and the second for all other patients. Of the 103 patients who completed treatment across both cohorts, 84 had a clinical complete response and 82 did not undergo surgery. Among the 117 total patients, recurrence-free survival at two years was 92%. Only 20-months follow up for now. It will be interesting to see how this goes with future updates but seems promising.

Abelacimab versus Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

This new subcutaneous anticoagulant, abelacimab, binds to the inactive form of FXI and blocks its activation by FXII. This drug seems significantly safer than DOAC’s in terms of bleeding risk. So much so that the study was stopped early due to a greater-than-expected reduction in bleeding events in the study arm. I hope this drug is also going to be studied for the treatment of VTE.

Corticosteroids for Immune-Related Adverse Events and Checkpoint Inhibitor Efficacy: Analysis of Six Clinical Trials

Pooled data of nearly 2000 patients across six trials in melanoma using IO therapy. It seems clear that high dose corticosteroid use was associated with worse outcomes, especially with high peak doses. What may be worth considering is if non-steroid based immunosuppression can be used as an adjunct to blunt this concerning effect.