Next Article in Journal
Lipidemic Profile of Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Its Association with Driver Mutations: A Tertiary Center Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Ex Vivo Organotypic Brain Slice Models for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 18
Issue 3
10.3390/cancers18030373
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Naloxegol, an Oral Peripherally Acting Opioid Receptor Antagonist, Administered Concurrently with First-Line Systemic Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma (Alliance A221504): A Feasibility and Safety Study

by
Pankaj Gupta
1,2,*,†,
Kalpna Gupta
2,†,
Travis Dockter
3,
Elizabeth Harlos
3,
Selina Chow
4,
Niveditha Subbiah
4,
Kathryn J. Ruddy
5,
Lyudmila Bazhenova
6,
Shelby Terstriep
7,
Chao H. Huang
8,9,
Robert A. Kratzke
10,
Everett E. Vokes
11 and
Charles L. Loprinzi
5
1
VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Long Beach, CA 90822, USA
2
Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA 92868, USA
3
Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
4
Alliance Protocol Operations Office, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60606, USA
5
Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
6
Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA 92093, USA
7
Sanford Roger Maris Cancer Center, Fargo, ND 58102, USA
8
VA Medical Center, Kansas City, MI 64128, USA
9
University of Kansas Hospital-Westwood Cancer Center, Kansas City, MI 66205, USA
10
Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
11
Departments of Medicine and Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Cancers 2026, 18(3), 373; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030373
Submission received: 8 December 2025 / Revised: 19 January 2026 / Accepted: 21 January 2026 / Published: 25 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Therapy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Opioids relieve cancer-related pain by acting on receptors in the brain. Opioids acting on receptors in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects, e.g., constipation. Research on cells and animals suggests that opioid receptors on cancer cells and blood vessels may stimulate cancer progression. Medications (including naloxegol) that only block opioid receptors in peripheral tissues are approved to treat opioid-induced constipation. To examine the feasibility, safety, and benefits of naloxegol in patients with cancer, we conducted a trial of naloxegol vs. placebo in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting systemic therapy. Feasibility included the accrual rate, ≥grade 3 adverse events, and completion of patient-reported outcome questionnaires. The trial was closed early due to slow accrual, limiting the ability to assess endpoints. There was no undesirable impact on adverse events, patient-reported symptoms, pain, or clinical outcomes. Patients receiving naloxegol experienced better emotional well-being, constipation, and pain related to constipation, which needs confirmation in larger studies.

Abstract

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

1. Introduction

The most common cause of cancer deaths is lung cancer, the second most common cancer across the world [1] that is also the third most common cancer type causing pain [2]. Opioid medications are commonly used for the treatment of severe, chronic cancer pain. Activation of mu opioid receptors (MORs) in the central nervous system (CNS) mediates opioid-induced analgesia. However, peripheral tissues also express opioid receptors (peripheral MORs), including endothelial cells [3,4,5] and human malignancies such as lung [6,7,8] and prostate [9] cancer. In patients with advanced malignancies, symptoms related to progression of cancer and its treatments, as well as the adverse effects of commonly used opioids, all contribute to impairing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [10,11].
Compelling pre-clinical studies have indicated that expression and activation of peripheral MORs are associated with tumor progression and shorter survival in animal models and that blocking opioid receptor (OR) activity inhibits tumor growth [3,4,12]. Recent clinical studies suggest that opioid exposure may also be associated with cancer progression and shorter survival in patients with malignancies, including lung cancer [9,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Specifically, in lung cancer, a large number of studies have reported basic and pre-clinical data demonstrating opioid receptor (OR) expression and activity and retrospective clinical studies have shown that opioid exposure is associated with poorer clinical outcomes [6,8,13,16,20,22,23,24,25].
The hypothesis for the current study was that activation of peripheral MORs would promote cancer progression while concurrently mediating the distressing side effects of opioid analgesics such as constipation, together leading to worsening of disease-related symptoms and impairment of HRQoL. Recently, several peripherally acting mu opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) have been approved for clinical use for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) that is mediated by peripheral ORs, without compromising the analgesic effect of opioids that is mediated by MORs in the CNS [11,26,27]. The PAMORA naloxegol appears to be safe when administered to patients with cancer for treatment of opioid-induced constipation [28,29,30], but its safety and efficacy in patients receiving systemic anticancer treatment remain to be determined. We hypothesized that selective peripheral MOR inhibition may ameliorate the undesirable effects of MOR activation (e.g., tumor progression and peripheral adverse effects), without compromising centrally mediated analgesia, thereby improving HRQoL.
According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), it is important in patients with advanced NSCLC to determine the effect of treatment on symptoms and HRQoL [31,32]. Phase III trials comparing chemotherapy regimens in NSCLC have reported on HRQoL as a primary endpoint [33,34]. We therefore believed that HRQoL could be a clinically relevant measure of the potential benefit of a PAMORA that may reduce the peripheral adverse effects of opioids (e.g., constipation) as well as opioid-induced tumor progression.
In this pilot study, we examined whether long-term administration of naloxegol, an orally available, FDA-approved PAMORA, was feasible and safe in patients receiving first-line standard systemic therapy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma. In doing so, we examined the novel roles of OR antagonism using naloxegol on HRQoL, bowel function, pain, and clinical outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

Naloxegol (PEGylated naloxone; Movantik®) is an oral PAMORA that is effective for prolonged treatment of OIC [35]. It is approved for the treatment of OIC in adults with non-cancer pain by the US FDA and for use in patients with or without cancer by the European Medicines Agency. Naloxegol is administered only once a day by mouth. It does not adversely affect analgesia. It is well tolerated: the main adverse effects are mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms that are transient [30,35,36,37,38,39,40]. In long-term studies (537 patients for ≥6 months and 426 patients for ≥12 months), it is safe and effective for treatment of OIC [30,37,40]. There is no risk for dependency/abuse. It is not a controlled substance [41].
The Alliance 221504 study was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm pilot trial to determine the safety and feasibility of naloxegol and identify its optimal dose (from among two FDA-approved doses of 12.5 mg and 25 mg once a day) when administered concurrently with systemic therapy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma. The study was conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials (NCT03087708, 16 March 2017) at the Oncology National Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) research base, and participating sites were either academic or community oncology practices. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was reviewed and approved by the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) and the NCI Central Institutional Review Board. All subjects provided informed consent prior to participation in the study.
Thirty-five sites enrolled at least one patient in the study. Patients were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to either one of the two FDA-approved doses of naloxegol (12.5 mg or 25 mg daily by mouth) or a matching placebo. Naloxegol and matching placebo for this study were supplied by AstraZeneca (Wilmington, DE, USA) and RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (Raleigh, NC, USA). Study treatment was continued for 2 years, irrespective of cancer progression, or discontinued earlier for unacceptable adverse effects or withdrawal of consent for treatment. Two doses of naloxegol were tested to achieve the best possible balance between improving the chances of identifying possible activity, while maintaining tolerability/safety, and limiting the total sample size.
Major eligibility criteria included (i) advanced (stage IIIB/IIIC/IV) lung adenocarcinoma without known EGFR or EML4-ALK driver mutations, initiating first-line systemic therapy (chemotherapy +/− immunotherapy or +/− bevacizumab, or immunotherapy alone, at the discretion of the treating oncologist), (ii) no more than 7 days of prior use of mixed opioid agonist/opioid antagonists or other opioid antagonists within 4 weeks before registration, (iii) no methadone within 4 weeks prior to registration, (iv) age ≥ 18 years, (v) performance status Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0–2, (vi) not pregnant and not nursing, and (vii) calculated creatinine clearance ≥ 60 mL/min. Key exclusion criteria included (i) conditions that may compromise the blood–brain barrier and (ii) gastrointestinal or cardiac conditions or hepatic impairment that may increase the risk of participation. Concurrent use of opioids prior to registration or during the study was permitted as required. Detailed eligibility criteria are provided in the study protocol in the Supplemental Materials.
As detailed in Appendix A and in the study protocol, the primary endpoint was the feasibility of the study and safety of naloxegol. Secondary endpoints included HRQoL, patient-reported outcomes, OIC, pain and analgesic use, and clinical outcomes of systemic therapy.
Due to the earlier than planned termination of the trial because of slow accrual and a lack of power for the originally planned statistical tests, descriptive statistics and statistical plots formed the foundation of the statistical analyses for the secondary endpoints. Differences in HRQoL scores were assessed using Fisher’s exact test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Patients with missing PRO data were excluded from the HRQoL analyses. PFS was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression or death due to any cause, whichever came first. Patients who were alive and had not experienced disease progression were censored at the date of their last disease assessment. Patients who were alive with no post-baseline disease assessments were censored at the date of randomization + 1 day. OS was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. Patients who were alive were censored at the date of last known contact. Kaplan–Meier curves were generated for both PFS and OS, and median (95% CI) survival times were calculated. Differences in PFS and OS were assessed using a log rank test. Hazard ratios (95% CI) exploring the effect of naloxegol compared to placebo on both PFS and OS were obtained using a univariate Cox proportional hazards model. All analyses were conducted using SAS v. 9.4.
The Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center collected data and performed statistical analyses. Data quality was reviewed by the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center and by the study chairperson in accordance with Alliance policies. The trial was monitored at least twice annually by the Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board, a standing committee composed of individuals from within and outside of the Alliance. All analyses were based on the study database that was frozen on 6 October 2022.

3. Results

The randomization and analysis of patients enrolled in the study are shown in Figure 1. Of 50 patients enrolled in the study, 17 were randomized to naloxegol 12.5 mg daily, 16 patients to naloxegol 25 mg daily, and 17 to placebo. Since there did not appear to be any meaningful differences in safety or tolerability of naloxegol, or in clinical outcomes between patients on the two doses of naloxegol, these two groups were combined for all analyses (N = 33).
This study opened on 13 October 2017, with the goal of accruing 204 patients. After 2 years and 8 months, a total of 50 (24.5% of 204) patients had been enrolled and the study was closed on 30 June 2020, without meeting the accrual goal, due to slow accrual issues. Thus, the accrual component of the primary endpoint was not met. Seven of these fifty patients were not evaluable for the 6-month timepoint analysis for the primary endpoint due to death prior to starting treatment (placebo: one patient, naloxegol: one patient) and patient withdrawal prior to starting treatment (placebo: three patients, naloxegol: two patients). Of the 43 patients evaluable for the 6-month timepoint HRQoL analysis for the primary endpoint at the time of analysis (6 October 2022), 19 (success rate: 44%, 95% CI, 29–60%) remained on treatment and alive for 6 months while completing the HRQoL booklets at each treatment cycle.
Further analysis was performed on the 43 patients (placebo: 13 and naloxegol: 30) who received at least one dose of study medication and were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Patient characteristics and stratification factors are shown in Table 1.
The study continued without meeting toxicity stopping criteria, thus the safety endpoint of the study was met. The reasons for patients coming off study treatment are shown in Table 2.
Adverse events at least possibly related to study treatment are shown in Table 3, and adverse events regardless of relationship to study treatment are shown in Supplemental Tables S1 and S2, supporting that naloxegol did not cause toxicity.
At baseline, both groups were well balanced regarding HRQoL as assessed by FACT-L scores, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy questions, and the bowel function diary, as well as in their average pain scores over the past 7 days (naloxegol: median 5.5, IQR 3.5, 8.0 vs. placebo: 4.5, IQR 4.0, 7.0; p = 0.7546), as shown in Supplemental Table S3a–d.
At the 6-month endpoint (Table 4 and Table 5), patients on naloxegol reported significantly better emotional well-being than those on placebo (naloxegol: median 23, IQR 21, 24 vs. placebo: 17, IQR 13, 18; p = 0.0113). There were trends towards a better Trial Outcome Index (naloxegol: median 65, IQR 58, 69.5 vs. placebo: 53, IQR 40, 80; p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (naloxegol: median 28, IQR 22.5, 28 vs. placebo: 22, IQR 15.2, 25.7; p = 0.0628) favoring patients receiving naloxegol. Bowel function responses favored naloxegol for constipation (naloxegol: median 5, IQR 4, 5 vs. placebo: 3, IQR 3, 4; p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (lower is better; naloxegol: median 1, IQR 1, 1 vs. placebo: 2, IQR 2, 2; p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain due to constipation (lower is better; naloxegol: median 1, IQR 1, 1 vs. placebo: 3, IQR 1, 4; p = 0.0113). PRO-CTCAE and urinary hesitancy responses were similar in the two groups (Supplemental Table S4a). Importantly, there were no significant differences between the groups in general pain scores (naloxegol: median 2.5, IQR 0.0, 6.0 vs. placebo: 2.2, IQR 0.0, 5.7; p = 0.9114, Supplemental Table S4b). There were no significant differences in the requirement/use of non-opioid or opioid pain medications (Supplemental Table S5). There were also no significant differences in the change from baseline to 6 months in the FACT-L scores, urinary hesitancy questions, and average pain scores over the past 7 days (naloxegol: median −0.5, IQR −2.0, 0.0 vs. placebo: 0.2, IQR −4.5, 0.7; p = 0.5154), as shown in Supplemental Table S6a–d.
First-line systemic cancer therapies received by patients in the two groups were statistically comparable (Supplemental Table S5). A numerically smaller proportion of patients in the naloxegol group received the most effective triplet therapy (platinum-based doublet plus immunotherapy) compared to the placebo group (17/30 (56.7%) vs. 11/13 (91.7%) patients). Nevertheless, PFS and OS were similar between the two groups (Figure 2A,B). The median PFS was 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.1-NE) and 8.9 months (95% CI, 6.1-NE) in patients on naloxegol and placebo, respectively (p = 0.7688). The median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 7.1-NE) and 12.5 months (95% CI, 10.2-NE) in patients on naloxegol and placebo, respectively (p = 0.9385).

4. Discussion

This is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective study of concurrent administration of a PAMORA in patients with advanced cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy. The main findings of this pilot study are that administration of the PAMORA naloxegol concurrently with systemic therapy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL, including a previously unappreciated benefit on emotional well-being, and without any evident adverse impact on clinical outcomes. However, despite energetic efforts by the study team, the study experienced slow enrollment due to reasons that are unknown. After careful consideration by the Alliance, the study was terminated without meeting its accrual goal. The tests performed are therefore underpowered. This could result in some differences between arms being missed because of the small sample sizes. Additionally, more patients on the placebo arm were not evaluable for the 6-month analysis, which could have biased our results. There may also have been a confounding factor on our results due to a higher proportion of current smokers in the placebo arm.
Naloxegol was well tolerated and safe in the current study, consistent with other studies that evaluated this product. In patients who already had OIC refractory to laxatives, adverse events leading to discontinuation of naloxegol occurred in 10.5% non-cancer patients [40] and in 4.8–8.7% of cancer patients [30,36,39] in short- and long-term studies. These early, primarily gastrointestinal events (diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting) may have been related at least partly to the restoration of bowel function in the setting of severe OIC. This possibility is supported by the finding that the discontinuation rate of naloxegol in the current study was no higher than that of placebo, probably because patients did not have OIC at study entry.
For the secondary endpoints of this study (HRQoL, patient-reported outcomes, urinary retention, constipation, pain, analgesic use, PFS, and OS), this pilot study demonstrated a signal of modest improvement for some measures in the naloxegol group and no difference from placebo in other measures. On the FACT-L instrument, administration of naloxegol was associated with significantly better emotional well-being and trends towards a better Trial Outcome Index and physical well-being. Even though high opioid use or the presence of OIC was not required for study entry, subjects receiving naloxegol reported significantly less constipation, rectal pain, and abdominal pain compared to those receiving placebo. Notably, administration of this peripherally acting MOR antagonist did not worsen pain scores.
PAMORAs were synthesized so that they had little or no effect in the CNS, while being effective in antagonizing the distressing gastrointestinal side effects of opioids. Naloxegol is a pegylated form of naloxone, which limits its ability to cross the blood–brain barrier and makes it a substrate for efflux by P-glycoprotein [42]. It functions as a competitive antagonist of MOR in peripheral tissues [43,44]. Findings in the current study were consistent with the known pharmacology of naloxegol.
Recent prospective observational single-arm studies from Europe (where naloxegol is approved for use in patients with cancer) in patients with various types of cancer reported that naloxegol improved refractory OIC and improved QoL specifically related to improvement in OIC. Davies et al. reported on a short-term (4-week) single-arm, open label study of naloxegol in patients with more than nine types of cancer (including lung cancer) with OIC, and while 46.2% patients were receiving chemotherapy, no information was provided on chemotherapy-related safety or outcomes [36]. Similarly, Lemaire et al. conducted a short-term (4-week), single-arm study of naloxegol for treatment of OIC in patients with more than seven types of malignancy, including lung cancer; 54% patients were receiving chemotherapy, but chemotherapy-related outcomes were not available [38]. Another short-term (4-week) observational single-arm study reported on patients with more than five different cancers receiving palliative care, but none of the patients was receiving chemotherapy [39]. A 3-month single-arm, observational study on patients with lung, breast, gastrointestinal, prostate, and other cancers treated with naloxegol for OIC described the improvement in OIC and related HRQoL but did not include the effect of naloxegol on the safety or outcomes of chemotherapy [29]. Finally, Cobo Dols et al. published a one-year follow-up of patients with lung, breast, gastrointestinal, prostate, and other malignancies treated with naloxegol for OIC, but information on systemic cancer treatment was not included [30]. In contrast to our trial, therefore, none of these prior studies comprised a homogenous population of patients with a single type of advanced cancer receiving systemic anticancer treatment and treated in a randomized, double-blind manner with naloxegol vs. matching placebo (irrespective of OIC) and evaluated for potential effects of naloxegol on the safety and efficacy of anticancer therapies.
A pooled post hoc analysis of 229 patients with end-stage cancer on palliative care and experiencing opioid-induced constipation enrolled in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials found that administration of methylnaltrexone was associated with longer OS [45]. However, the effect of methylnaltrexone or other PAMORAs in patients receiving systemic anticancer therapies has not been examined previously. Because of the small sample size of the current study, the 95% CI for median PFS and OS is wide. Nevertheless, there did not appear to be any obvious difference in outcomes between subjects receiving naloxegol vs. placebo. The fact that PFS and OS did not appear to be adversely impacted by naloxegol provides additional reassurance that it can probably be administered safely with systemic anticancer treatments.

5. Conclusions

We report the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a PAMORA administered concurrently with systemic cancer therapy for advanced lung cancer. Naloxegol was safe and tolerable. The limitation of a smaller than required sample size limits its effectiveness on multiple outcomes but offers a suggestion of improvement in emotional and other aspects of HRQoL, without adverse effects on clinical outcomes. Our findings may inform the design of future studies that examine the effect of PAMORAs on HRQoL in patients receiving diverse anticancer treatments for various malignancies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers18030373/s1, Table S1: Adverse events regardless of relationship to study treatment. Table S2: Grade 5 adverse events, regardless of relationship to study treatment. Table S3: (a) Quality of Life (FACT-L) at Baseline; (b) PRO-CTCAE and urinary hesitancy questions at Baseline; (c) Bowel Function Diary at Baseline; (d) Pain Diary at Baseline. Table S4: (a) PRO-CTCAE and urinary hesitancy questions at 6 months; (b) Pain Diary at 6 months. Table S5: Analgesic use and first-line systemic cancer treatments. Table S6: (a) Quality of Life (FACT-L) change from baseline to 6 months; (b) Urinary Hesitancy change from baseline to 6 months; (c) Bowel Function Diary change from baseline to 6 months; (d) Pain Diary change from baseline to 6 months.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.G., K.G., T.D., N.S., K.J.R., L.B., S.T., R.A.K., E.E.V., and C.L.L. Methodology, P.G., K.G., T.D., E.H., N.S., K.J.R., L.B., S.T., R.A.K., E.E.V., and C.L.L. Formal Analysis, P.G., K.G., T.D., N.S., and C.L.L. Investigation, P.G., K.G., T.D., E.H., S.C., N.S., K.J.R., L.B., S.T., C.H.H., R.A.K., E.E.V., and C.L.L. Resources, S.C., K.J.R., E.E.V., and C.L.L. Data Curation, T.D. and N.S. Writing: Original Draft Preparation, P.G., K.G., T.D., N.S., and C.L.L. Review and Editing, P.G., K.G., T.D., E.H., S.C., N.S., K.J.R., L.B., S.T., C.H.H., R.A.K., E.E.V., and C.L.L. Supervision, P.G., T.D., S.C., N.S., and C.L.L. Project Administration, T.D., E.H., S.C., N.S., and C.L.L. Funding Acquisition, P.G., K.G., S.C., and C.L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Number UG1CA189823 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology NCORP Grant), UG1CA233327, and U10CA180888 (SWOG). Also supported in part by funds from AstraZeneca. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention and Control (CPC) Central IRB (CIRB) Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) registration number is IRB00010018. The initial full approval for the study was granted on 14 September 2016. The most recent continuing review approval was granted on 18 August 2025.

Informed Consent Statement

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data for this study were captured in iMedidata Rave. De-identified patient data may be requested from Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology via Datasharing@alliancenctn.org if data are not publicly available. A formal review process includes verifying the availability of data, conducting a review of any existing agreements that may have implications for the project, and ensuring that any transfer is in compliance with the IRB. The investigator will be required to sign a data release form prior to transfer.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the patients who willingly participated in this study, Carrie A Olson (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA), and many other members and staff of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (ALLIANCE). We are also grateful to AstraZeneca and RedHill Biopharma for providing the study medication and matching placebos for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

P.G., no conflicts of interest. K.G., research grants from Novartis, Zilker LLC, UCI Foundation, and NIH. None of these has any conflicts with the work in this manuscript. T.D., no conflicts of interest. E.H., no conflicts of interest. S.C., no conflicts of interest. N.S., no conflicts of interest. K.J.R., no conflicts of interest. L.B., no conflicts of interest. S.T., no conflicts of interest. C.H.H., investment in the Vanguard healthcare fund that holds stocks in pharmaceutical companies. Institution PI for several pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. Institution has received funding from Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, and IOVANCE. None of these has any conflicts with the work in this manuscript. R.A.K., no conflicts of interest. E.E.V., consultant/advisory role with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BioNTech. None of these has any conflicts with the work in this manuscript. C.L.L., personal fees from: PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Asahi Kasei/Veloxis, Metys Pharmaceuticals, OnQuality, Mitsubishi Tanabe, NKMax, HengRui, Osmol Therapeutics, Inc., Grunenthal, Bexion, Metys Pharmaceuticals, Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Neuropathix, Dernsli Therapeutics, Bexion, Galendia, Genentech, Nevro, Toray, and AstraZeneca. None of these has any conflicts with the work in this manuscript. AstraZeneca and Redhill Biopharma had no role in the design, execution, interpretation, or writing of the study.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ASCOAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
CNSCentral Nervous System
DCPDivision of Cancer Prevention (of the National Cancer Institute)
ECOGEastern Cooperative Oncology Group
EML4-ALKEchinoderm Microtubule-Associated Protein-Like 4-Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Fusion Gene
EGFREpidermal Growth Factor Receptor
EWBEmotional Well-Being
FACT-GFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General
FACT-LFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung
FDAFood and Drug Administration
FWBFunctional Well-Being
HRQoLHealth-Related Quality of Life
IQRInter-Quartile Range
LCSLung Cancer Subscale
MORMu Opioid Receptor
NCINational Cancer Institute
NCORPNCI Community Oncology Research Program
NENot Evaluable
NSCLCNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer
OICOpioid-Induced Constipation
OROpioid Receptor
OSOverall Survival
PAMORAPeripherally Acting Mu Opioid Receptor Antagonist
PFSProgression-Free Survival
PRO-CTCAEPatient Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events
PWBPhysical Well-Being
SFWBSocial/Family Well-Being
TOITrial Outcome Index
95% CI95% Confidence Interval

Appendix A

As detailed in the study protocol, the primary endpoint was the feasibility of the study and safety of naloxegol in this setting, evaluated by the following criteria:
(i)
the rate of accrual remaining ≥ 80% of the expected,
(ii)
≥80% of patients who remain alive at 6 months continuing the study medication and completing the HRQoL and other forms, for at least 6 months, and
(iii)
the study continuing without meeting toxicity stopping criteria as specified below.
Accrual will be temporarily suspended to this study if at any time we observe events considered at least possibly related to study treatment (i.e., an adverse event with attribute specified as “possible”, “probable”, or “definite”) that satisfy the following:
  • If 5 or more patients in the first 20 treated patients (or 25% of all patients after 20 are accrued) experienced a grade 4 or higher non-hematologic adverse event and there was a higher rate in the highest dose active treatment arm as opposed to the placebo arm.
  • The study team reviewed grade 4 and 5 adverse events deemed “unrelated” or “unlikely to be related” to verify their attribution and to monitor the emergence of a previously unrecognized treatment-related adverse event.
Secondary endpoints included
(i)
the change from baseline to 6 months in Trial Outcome Index (TOI), function subscales, and Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L),
(ii)
patient-reported outcomes assessed by PRO-CTCAEs and urinary retention,
(iii)
opioid-induced constipation rating,
(iv)
pain and analgesic use,
(v)
clinical outcomes unexpected for the systemic therapy given,
(vi)
progression-free survival (PFS), and
(vii)
overall survival (OS).
The FACT-L [46] includes the FACT-G (version 4.0), developed by Cella et al. [47] as an overall cancer-specific HRQoL questionnaire, with a 9-item subscale concerning specific lung cancer issues. The FACT-G consists of a self-report 28-item HRQoL measure grouped into four subscales: physical well-being (PWB), social/family well-being (SFWB), emotional well-being (EWB), and functional well-being (FWB). Most items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, from 0, “not at all” to 4, “very much”. When the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) is added to FACT-G, 9 additional items focus on symptoms and issues more specific to lung cancer patients. The FACT-L was scored according to the published scoring algorithm, and the following endpoints were computed at each timepoint: FACT-L (PWB + SFWB + EWB + FWB + LCS), Trial Outcome Index (TOI; PWB + FWB + LCS), PWB, SFWB, EWB, FWB, and LCS. Higher scores indicate better HRQoL. Recently, the NCI developed a patient-reported version of the CTCAE called the Patient-Reported Outcome-CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE). The PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions asking patients about specific symptomatic adverse events associated with cancer therapy. The frequency and severity of 8 PRO-CTCAE items were also assessed in this study. Urinary hesitancy was assessed using a visual analogue scale from 0–10 with 0 representing no symptom and 10 representing a symptom as bad as imaginable. Constipation and abdominal symptoms were assessed using modified versions of modules 1 and 2 of a validated bowel function diary [48]. Pain and analgesic use were assessed via a self-report daily medication/pain diary that patients were asked to complete every day at home. All of these questionnaires were to be completed every 3 weeks for the first year, then every 3 months during year 2 of study treatment.
The study was designed as a three-arm parallel group design with neither crossover nor interim analysis. The criteria for safety and feasibility were evaluated as follows:
(i)
The observed accrual rate was calculated as the total number of patients accrued to the study over two years divided by 184, the total expected accrual of patients evaluable for the primary endpoint.
(ii)
The proportion of patients alive at 6 months who continued the study drug and completed the HRQoL and other forms for at least 6 months was calculated by arm and compared to the anticipated success rate of 60% of all patients enrolled (the equivalent threshold for success in terms of the patients enrolled on the trial; that is, 80% of the patients remaining alive at 6 months continuing on study medication and completing the HRQoL and other forms, and the expectation that 75% of the patients enrolled on the study were alive at 6 months. Therefore, 80% × 75% = 60%).
(iii)
The frequency of adverse events was summarized by arm and differences were compared between each treatment arm vs. the placebo arm using Fisher’s exact test or a Kruskal–Wallis test.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. van den Beuken-van Everdingen, M.H.; de Rijke, J.M.; Kessels, A.G.; Schouten, H.C.; van Kleef, M.; Patijn, J. Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: A systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann. Oncol. 2007, 18, 1437–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Farooqui, M.; Li, Y.; Rogers, T.; Poonawala, T.; Griffin, R.J.; Song, C.W.; Gupta, K. COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib prevents chronic morphine-induced promotion of angiogenesis, tumour growth, metastasis and mortality, without compromising analgesia. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 97, 1523–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gupta, K.; Kshirsagar, S.; Chang, L.; Schwartz, R.; Law, P.Y.; Yee, D.; Hebbel, R.P. Morphine stimulates angiogenesis by activating proangiogenic and survival-promoting signaling and promotes breast tumor growth. Cancer Res. 2002, 62, 4491–4498. Available online: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/62/15/4491/509076/Morphine-Stimulates-Angiogenesis-by-Activating (accessed on 4 August 2025). [PubMed]
  5. Singleton, P.A.; Lingen, M.W.; Fekete, M.J.; Garcia, J.G.; Moss, J. Methylnaltrexone inhibits opiate and VEGF-induced angiogenesis: Role of receptor transactivation. Microvasc. Res. 2006, 72, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fujioka, N.; Nguyen, J.; Chen, C.; Li, Y.; Pasrija, T.; Niehans, G.; Johnson, K.N.; Gupta, V.; Kratzke, R.A.; Gupta, K. Morphine-induced epidermal growth factor pathway activation in non-small cell lung cancer. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 113, 1353–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Madar, I.; Bencherif, B.; Lever, J.; Heitmiller, R.F.; Yang, S.C.; Brock, M.; Brahmer, J.; Ravert, H.; Dannals, R.; Frost, J.J. Imaging delta- and mu-opioid receptors by PET in lung carcinoma patients. J. Nucl. Med. 2007, 48, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Mathew, B.; Lennon, F.E.; Siegler, J.; Mirzapoiazova, T.; Mambetsariev, N.; Sammani, S.; Gerhold, L.M.; LaRiviere, P.J.; Chen, C.T.; Garcia, J.G.; et al. The novel role of the mu opioid receptor in lung cancer progression: A laboratory investigation. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 558–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zylla, D.; Gourley, B.L.; Vang, D.; Jackson, S.; Boatman, S.; Lindgren, B.; Kuskowski, M.A.; Le, C.; Gupta, K.; Gupta, P. Opioid requirement, opioid receptor expression, and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Cancer 2013, 119, 4103–4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akin, S.; Can, G.; Aydiner, A.; Ozdilli, K.; Durna, Z. Quality of life, symptom experience and distress of lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2010, 14, 400–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Argoff, C.E. Opioid-induced Constipation: A Review of Health-related Quality of Life, Patient Burden, Practical Clinical Considerations, and the Impact of Peripherally Acting mu-Opioid Receptor Antagonists. Clin. J. Pain 2020, 36, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nguyen, J.; Luk, K.; Vang, D.; Soto, W.; Vincent, L.; Robiner, S.; Saavedra, R.; Li, Y.; Gupta, P.; Gupta, K. Morphine stimulates cancer progression and mast cell activation and impairs survival in transgenic mice with breast cancer. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 113, i4–i13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cata, J.P.; Keerty, V.; Keerty, D.; Feng, L.; Norman, P.H.; Gottumukkala, V.; Mehran, J.R.; Engle, M. A retrospective analysis of the effect of intraoperative opioid dose on cancer recurrence after non-small cell lung cancer resection. Cancer Med. 2014, 3, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Halabi, S.; Lin, C.Y.; Kelly, W.K.; Fizazi, K.S.; Moul, J.W.; Kaplan, E.B.; Morris, M.J.; Small, E.J. Updated prognostic model for predicting overall survival in first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 671–677, Erratum in J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1387. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lillemoe, K.D.; Cameron, J.L.; Kaufman, H.S.; Yeo, C.J.; Pitt, H.A.; Sauter, P.K. Chemical splanchnicectomy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. A prospective randomized trial. Ann. Surg. 1993, 217, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maher, D.P.; Wong, W.; White, P.F.; McKenna, R., Jr.; Rosner, H.; Shamloo, B.; Louy, C.; Wender, R.; Yumul, R.; Zhang, V. Association of increased postoperative opioid administration with non-small-cell lung cancer recurrence: A retrospective analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 113, i88–i94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Novy, D.M.; Nelson, D.V.; Koyyalagunta, D.; Cata, J.P.; Gupta, P.; Gupta, K. Pain, opioid therapy, and survival: A needed discussion. Pain 2020, 161, 496–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramirez, M.F.; Gorur, A.; Cata, J.P. Opioids and cancer prognosis: A summary of the clinical evidence. Neurosci. Lett. 2021, 746, 135661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smith, T.J.; Staats, P.S.; Deer, T.; Stearns, L.J.; Rauck, R.L.; Boortz-Marx, R.L.; Buchser, E.; Catala, E.; Bryce, D.A.; Coyne, P.J.; et al. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: Impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002, 20, 4040–4049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zylla, D.; Kuskowski, M.A.; Gupta, K.; Gupta, P. Association of opioid requirement and cancer pain with survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 113, ii109–ii116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zylla, D.M.; Richter, S.; Shapiro, A.; Gupta, P. Impact of opioid use on survival in patients with newly diagnosed stage IV non-hematologic malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, abstr188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lennon, F.E.; Mirzapoiazova, T.; Mambetsariev, B.; Salgia, R.; Moss, J.; Singleton, P.A. Overexpression of the mu-opioid receptor in human non-small cell lung cancer promotes Akt and mTOR activation, tumor growth, and metastasis. Anesthesiology 2012, 116, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Singleton, P.A.; Mirzapoiazova, T.; Hasina, R.; Salgia, R.; Moss, J. Increased mu-opioid receptor expression in metastatic lung cancer. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 113, i103–i108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singleton, P.A.; Mirzapoiazova, T.; Salgia, R.; Moss, J. Morphine increases multidrug resistance in human lung cancer through regulation of ABCC3 in caveolin-enriched microdomains. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2015, 191, A2424. Available online: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2015.191.1_MeetingAbstracts.A2424 (accessed on 4 August 2025).
  25. Taniguchi, Y.; Tamiya, A.; Matsuda, Y.; Adachi, Y.; Enomoto, T.; Azuma, K.; Kouno, S.; Tokoro, A.; Atagi, S. Opioids impair Nivolumab outcomes: A retrospective propensity score analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2023, 13, e185–e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Candy, B.; Jones, L.; Vickerstaff, V.; Larkin, P.J.; Stone, P. Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 9, CD006332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Horrigan, J.; Bhumi, S.; Miller, D.; Jafri, M.; Tadros, M. Management of Opioid-induced Constipation in Older Adults. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2023, 57, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Braun, U.K.; Jackson, L.K.; Garcia, M.A.; Imam, S.N. A Systematic Review of Naldemedine and Naloxegol for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Cancer Patients. Pharmacy 2024, 12, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cobo Dols, M.; Beato Zambrano, C.; Cabezon Gutierrez, L.; Chicas Sett, R.; Blancas Lopez-Barajas, M.I.; Garcia Navalon, F.; Firvida Perez, J.L.; Serrano Bermudez, G.; Togores Torres, P.; Delgado Mingorance, I.; et al. Efficacy of naloxegol on symptoms and quality of life related to opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer: A 3-month follow-up analysis. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2021, 11, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cobo Dols, M.; Beato Zambrano, C.; Cabezon-Gutierrez, L.; Chicas-Sett, R.; Blancas Lopez-Barajas, M.I.; Garcia Navalon, F.J.; Firvida Perez, J.L.; Serrano Bermudez, G.; Togores Torres, P.; Delgado Mingorance, I.; et al. One-year efficacy and safety of naloxegol on symptoms and quality of life related to opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer: KYONAL study. BMJ Support. Palliat. Care 2023, 13, e318–e326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. ASCO. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J. Clin. Oncol. 1996, 14, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Beitz, J.; Gnecco, C.; Justice, R. Quality of life endpoints in cancer clinical trials: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1996, 20, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Galetta, D.; Cinieri, S.; Pisconti, S.; Gebbia, V.; Morabito, A.; Borsellino, N.; Maiello, E.; Febbraro, A.; Catino, A.; Rizzo, P.; et al. Cisplatin/Pemetrexed Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel/Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Advanced Nonsquamous Lung Cancer: The GOIM (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale) ERACLE Phase III Randomized Trial. Clin. Lung Cancer 2015, 16, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gronberg, B.H.; Bremnes, R.M.; Flotten, O.; Amundsen, T.; Brunsvig, P.F.; Hjelde, H.H.; Kaasa, S.; von Plessen, C.; Stornes, F.; Tollali, T.; et al. Phase III study by the Norwegian lung cancer study group: Pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 3217–3224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chey, W.D.; Webster, L.; Sostek, M.; Lappalainen, J.; Barker, P.N.; Tack, J. Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 2387–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Davies, A.; Cinieri, S.; Dupoiron, D.; Espana Fernandez, S.; Leclerc, J.; Montesarchio, V.; Mystakidou, K.; Serna, J.; Tack, J.; on behalf of the NACASY Study Group. A Prospective, Real-World, Multinational Study of Naloxegol for Patients with Cancer Pain Diagnosed with Opioid-Induced Constipation-The NACASY Study. Cancers 2022, 14, 1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garnock-Jones, K.P. Naloxegol: A review of its use in patients with opioid-induced constipation. Drugs 2015, 75, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lemaire, A.; Pointreau, Y.; Narciso, B.; Piloquet, F.X.; Braniste, V.; Sabate, J.M. Effectiveness of naloxegol in patients with cancer pain suffering from opioid-induced constipation. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 7577–7586, Erratum in Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 7587–7589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06455-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ostan, R.; Gambino, G.; Malavasi, I.; Ronga, G.; Solipaca, M.; Spunghi, M.; Varani, S.; Pannuti, R.; Ruggeri, E. Can Naloxegol Therapy Improve Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Cancer? Cancers 2021, 13, 5736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Webster, L.; Chey, W.D.; Tack, J.; Lappalainen, J.; Diva, U.; Sostek, M. Randomised clinical trial: The long-term safety and tolerability of naloxegol in patients with pain and opioid-induced constipation. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2014, 40, 771–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice. Schedules of controlled substances: Removal of naloxegol from control. Final rule. Fed. Regist. 2015, 80, 3468–3470. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Streicher, J.M.; Bilsky, E.J. Peripherally Acting mu-Opioid Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Opioid-Related Side Effects: Mechanism of Action and Clinical Implications. J. Pharm. Pract. 2018, 31, 658–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Costanzini, A.; Ruzza, C.; Neto, J.A.; Sturaro, C.; Malfacini, D.; Sternini, C.; De Giorgio, R.; Calo, G. Pharmacological characterization of naloxegol: In vitro and in vivo studies. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2021, 903, 174132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kanemasa, T.; Koike, K.; Takase, K.; Arai, T.; Nakamura, A.; Morioka, Y.; Hasegawa, M. Pharmacological Profile of Naldemedine, a Peripherally Acting mu-Opioid Receptor Antagonist: Comparison with Naloxone and Naloxegol. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2020, 373, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Janku, F.; Johnson, L.K.; Karp, D.D.; Atkins, J.T.; Singleton, P.A.; Moss, J. Treatment with methylnaltrexone is associated with increased survival in patients with advanced cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 2032–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cella, D.F.; Bonomi, A.E.; Lloyd, S.R.; Tulsky, D.S.; Kaplan, E.; Bonomi, P. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer 1995, 12, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cella, D.F.; Tulsky, D.S.; Gray, G.; Sarafian, B.; Linn, E.; Bonomi, A.; Silberman, M.; Yellen, S.B.; Winicour, P.; Brannon, J.; et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 1993, 11, 570–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Camilleri, M.; Rothman, M.; Ho, K.F.; Etropolski, M. Validation of a bowel function diary for assessing opioid-induced constipation. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 106, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 18 00373 g001
Figure 1. Consort Diagram.
Figure 1. Consort Diagram.
Cancers 18 00373 g001
Cancers 18 00373 g002
Figure 2. (A): Progression-free survival. (B): Overall survival.
Figure 2. (A): Progression-free survival. (B): Overall survival.
Cancers 18 00373 g002
Table 1. Patient characteristics and stratification factors, including all patients evaluable for the 6-month primary endpoint analysis.
Table 1. Patient characteristics and stratification factors, including all patients evaluable for the 6-month primary endpoint analysis.
Placebo
(N = 13)		Naloxegol
(N = 30)		Total
(N = 43)
Age (In Years)
Mean (SD)63.2 (7.54)66.7 (7.87)65.6 (7.86)
Median (IQR)62.0 (60.0, 67.0)66.5 (62.0, 73.0)66.0 (60.0, 71.0)
Race
White12 (92.3%)23 (76.7%)35 (81.4%)
Black or African American1 (7.7%)4 (13.3%)5 (11.6%)
American Indian or Alaskan Native0 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
Asian0 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
Unknown: Patient unsure0 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
Sex
Female4 (30.8%)12 (40.0%)16 (37.2%)
Male9 (69.2%)18 (60.0%)27 (62.8%)
Ethnicity
Not Hispanic or Latino12 (92.3%)29 (96.7%)41 (95.3%)
Hispanic or Latino0 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
Not reported1 (7.7%)0 (0.0%)1 (2.3%)
Planned use of Bevacizumab
No13 (100.0%)28 (93.3%)41 (95.3%)
Yes0 (0.0%)2 (6.7%)2 (4.7%)
ECOG Performance Score
0–111 (84.6%)22 (73.3%)33 (76.7%)
22 (15.4%)8 (26.7%)10 (23.3%)
Smoking Status
Current smoker8 (61.5%)10 (33.3%)18 (41.9%)
Former smoker (no smoking for ≥1 year)4 (30.8%)19 (63.3%)23 (53.5%)
Never smoked (<100 cigarettes in lifetime)1 (7.7%)1 (3.3%)2 (4.7%)
Table 2. Reasons for discontinuation of study treatment, including all 50 randomized patients.
Table 2. Reasons for discontinuation of study treatment, including all 50 randomized patients.
Placebo
(N = 17)		Naloxegol
(N = 33)		Total
(N = 50)
Treatment Completed Per Protocol1 (5.9%)3 (9.1%)4 (8.0%)
Patient Withdrawal/Refusal After Beginning Treatment5 (29.4%)8 (24.2%)13 (26.0%)
Adverse Events/Side Effects/Complications1 (5.9%)2 (6.1%)3 (6.0%)
Off Treatment For Other Complicating Diseases0 (0.0%)1 (3.0%)1 (2.0%)
Death On Study4 (23.5%)8 (24.2%)12 (24.0%)
Other3 (17.6%)9 (27.3%)12 (24.0%)
Patient Withdrawal/Refusal Prior To Beginning Treatment3 (17.6%)2 (6.1%)5 (10.0%)
Table 3. Adverse events at least possibly related to study treatment.
Table 3. Adverse events at least possibly related to study treatment.
Placebo vs. Naloxegol CombinedPlacebo
(N = 13)		Naloxegol Combined
(N = 30)		Total
(N = 43)		p-Value
Hematologic (grade) 0.2430 1
013 (100.0%)27 (90.0%)40 (93.0%)
10 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
20 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
30 (0.0%)1 (3.3%)1 (2.3%)
Non-Hematologic (grade) 0.4581 1
07 (53.8%)14 (46.7%)21 (48.8%)
14 (30.8%)8 (26.7%)12 (27.9%)
22 (15.4%)4 (13.3%)6 (14.0%)
30 (0.0%)4 (13.3%)4 (9.3%)
1 Kruskal–Wallis p-value.
Table 4. Quality of life (FACT-L) at 6 months.
Table 4. Quality of life (FACT-L) at 6 months.
Placebo
(N = 5)		Naloxegol
(N = 14)		Total
(N = 19)		p-Value
Trial Outcome Index 0.0505 1
N51217
Median (IQR)53.0 (40.0, 60.0)65.0 (58.0, 69.5)64.0 (54.0, 66.0)
Range38.0, 65.043.0, 82.038.0, 82.0
Physical Well-Being 0.0628 1
N51217
Median (IQR)22.0 (15.2, 25.7)28.0 (22.5, 28.0)25.7 (21.0, 28.0)
Range14.0, 25.714.0, 28.014.0, 28.0
Social Function Well-Being 0.1006 1
N51217
Median (IQR)18.0 (15.0, 18.0)23.0 (21.0, 26.0)22.0 (18.0, 24.0)
Range8.0, 24.014.0, 28.08.0, 28.0
Emotional Well-Being 0.0113 1
N51318
Median (IQR)17.0 (13.0, 18.0)23.0 (21.0, 24.0)21.5 (17.0, 23.0)
Range11.0, 19.012.0, 24.011.0, 24.0
Functional Well-Being 0.1250 1
N51318
Median (IQR)16.0 (14.0, 18.0)21.0 (17.0, 24.0)19.5 (15.0, 24.0)
Range11.0, 22.013.0, 28.011.0, 28.0
Lung Cancer Subscale 0.2747 1
N51318
Median (IQR)19.0 (16.0, 21.0)21.0 (19.0, 26.0)20.5 (16.0, 24.0)
Range12.0, 24.015.0, 28.012.0, 28.0
1 Wilcoxon rank sum p-value. Higher scores are better on all the scales.
Table 5. Bowel function diary at 6 months.
Table 5. Bowel function diary at 6 months.
Placebo
(N = 5)		Naloxegol
(N = 14)		Total
(N = 19)		p-Value
During this bowel movement, how would you describe the shape and consistency of your stool? 0.7833 1
Like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft3 (60.0%)5 (35.7%)8 (42.1%)
Like sausage but with cracks on its surface0 (0.0%)3 (21.4%)3 (15.8%)
Sausage-like but lumpy2 (40.0%)3 (21.4%)5 (26.3%)
Separate hard lumps, like nuts (hard to pass)0 (0.0%)1 (7.1%)1 (5.3%)
Soft blobs with clear-cut edges (passed easily)0 (0.0%)2 (14.3%)2 (10.5%)
How much did you have to strain during this bowel movement? 0.1219 2
N51419
Median (IQR)2.0 (2.0, 3.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)2.0 (1.0, 2.0)
Range1.0, 4.01.0, 3.01.0, 4.0
During this bowel movement, how much did you feel that you were able to fully empty your bowels? 0.0223 2
N51419
Median (IQR)3.0 (3.0, 4.0)5.0 (4.0, 5.0)4.0 (3.0, 5.0)
Range3.0, 4.01.0, 5.01.0, 5.0
How much pain did you have around your rectum during this bowel movement? 0.0075 2
N51419
Median (IQR)2.0 (2.0, 2.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)
Range1.0, 3.01.0, 2.01.0, 3.0
In the past 24 h, how often were you unable to have a bowel movement even though you felt like you had to? 0.5097 2
N51419
Median (IQR)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)
Range1.0, 3.01.0, 3.01.0, 3.0
In the past 24 h, how much bloating did you feel because of constipation? 0.3376 2
N51419
Median (IQR)1.0 (1.0, 4.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)
Range1.0, 4.01.0, 4.01.0, 4.0
In the past 24 h, how much pain did you feel in your abdomen because of constipation? 0.0113 2
N51419
Median (IQR)3.0 (1.0, 4.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)
Range1.0, 4.01.0, 2.01.0, 4.0
In the past 24 h, how much were you bothered by gas? 0.3966 2
N51419
Median (IQR)1.0 (1.0, 3.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)
Range1.0, 3.01.0, 2.01.0, 3.0
In the past 24 h, how much were you bothered by a lack of appetite because of constipation? 0.2691 2
N51419
Median (IQR)1.0 (1.0, 2.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)1.0 (1.0, 1.0)
Range1.0, 3.01.0, 3.01.0, 3.0
1 Fisher Exact p-value; 2 Wilcoxon rank sum p-value. Except for the question about the shape and consistency of the stools, all responses were on a 1–5 scale, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest score.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gupta, P.; Gupta, K.; Dockter, T.; Harlos, E.; Chow, S.; Subbiah, N.; Ruddy, K.J.; Bazhenova, L.; Terstriep, S.; Huang, C.H.; et al. Naloxegol, an Oral Peripherally Acting Opioid Receptor Antagonist, Administered Concurrently with First-Line Systemic Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma (Alliance A221504): A Feasibility and Safety Study. Cancers 2026, 18, 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030373

AMA Style

Gupta P, Gupta K, Dockter T, Harlos E, Chow S, Subbiah N, Ruddy KJ, Bazhenova L, Terstriep S, Huang CH, et al. Naloxegol, an Oral Peripherally Acting Opioid Receptor Antagonist, Administered Concurrently with First-Line Systemic Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma (Alliance A221504): A Feasibility and Safety Study. Cancers. 2026; 18(3):373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gupta, Pankaj, Kalpna Gupta, Travis Dockter, Elizabeth Harlos, Selina Chow, Niveditha Subbiah, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Lyudmila Bazhenova, Shelby Terstriep, Chao H. Huang, and et al. 2026. "Naloxegol, an Oral Peripherally Acting Opioid Receptor Antagonist, Administered Concurrently with First-Line Systemic Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma (Alliance A221504): A Feasibility and Safety Study" Cancers 18, no. 3: 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030373

APA Style

Gupta, P., Gupta, K., Dockter, T., Harlos, E., Chow, S., Subbiah, N., Ruddy, K. J., Bazhenova, L., Terstriep, S., Huang, C. H., Kratzke, R. A., Vokes, E. E., & Loprinzi, C. L. (2026). Naloxegol, an Oral Peripherally Acting Opioid Receptor Antagonist, Administered Concurrently with First-Line Systemic Therapy for Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma (Alliance A221504): A Feasibility and Safety Study. Cancers, 18(3), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030373

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop