Next Article in Journal
Development of a New Ankle Joint Hybrid Assistive Limb
Previous Article in Journal
Orthodontic Adolescent Patients’ Attitudes toward Protective Face Mask Wearing during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 58
Issue 3
10.3390/medicina58030394
medicina-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ameliorative Potential of L-Alanyl L-Glutamine Dipeptide in Colon Cancer Patients Receiving Modified FOLFOX-6 Regarding the Incidence of Diarrhea, the Treatment Response, and Patients’ Survival: A Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Nesreen M. Sabry
1,
Tamer M. Naguib
2,
Ahmed M. Kabel
3,*,
El-Sayed Khafagy
4,5,
Hany H. Arab
6 and
Walid A. Almorsy
1
1
Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
2
Anesthesia and ICU Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
3
Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt
4
Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Pharmaceutics and Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
6
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2022, 58(3), 394; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030394
Submission received: 11 January 2022 / Revised: 2 March 2022 / Accepted: 4 March 2022 / Published: 7 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Oncology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: Diarrhea induced by chemotherapy may represent a life-threatening adverse effect in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. FOLFOX, an effective treatment for colon cancer, has been associated with diarrhea with high severity, particularly with higher doses. Management of diarrhea is crucial to increase the survival of cancer patients and to improve the quality of life. Glutamine is an abundant protein peptide found in blood and has a crucial role in boosting immunity, increasing protein anabolism, and decreasing the inflammatory effects of chemotherapy on the mucosal membranes, including diarrhea. This study aimed to provide evidence that parenteral L-alanyl L-glutamine dipeptide may have a positive influence on the incidence of diarrhea, treatment response, and the overall survival in colon cancer patients treated with modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Materials and Methods: Forty-four stage II and III colon cancer patients were included in this study where they were treated with the standard colon cancer chemotherapy mFOLFOX-6 and were randomly allocated into glutamine group and placebo group, each of 22 patients. Results: L-alanyl L-glutamine dipeptide was found to be significantly effective in decreasing the frequency and severity of diarrhea when compared to the placebo group, particularly after four and six cycles of mFOLFOX-6. There was no significant difference between the studied groups regarding to the overall survival. Conclusion: L-alanyl L-glutamine dipeptide can be considered as an add-on with chemotherapy to improve the quality of life and the overall survival of colon cancer patients.

1. Introduction

L-alanyl L-glutamine dipeptide (DIP) is a water-soluble compound that is used for nutritional purposes where it acts locally in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to keep the integrity of the mucosa and preserve the intestinal functions [1]. Consequently, the use of DIP may help in reducing the incidence of bacterial infections and inflammation of the intestine and preventing related symptoms, such as diarrhea [2]. DIP enteral administration was found to increase the mucosal and plasma levels of reduced glutathione (GSH). It may act via stimulation of synthesis of the mucosal proteins and may recover the protein balance of the intestine during stress conditions, such as cancer [3]. The effect of glutamine on cancer cells had been extensively studied. Glutamine represents a crucial metabolic substrate that is proven to be dysregulated in cancer [4]. Multiple studies had demonstrated the effect of glutamine as a protective agent by enhancing the immunity and improving the overall survival in cancer patients [5,6]. Jiang et al. [7] revealed that L-glutamine may enhance redox homeostasis through adaptation to anchorage independence in lung cancer. Another study that was carried out by Anderson and Lalla [8] revealed the positive effect of glutamine in preventing chemotherapy and radiation-induced mucositis.
In Egypt, colorectal malignancies represent about 6.5% of all malignant tumors and were reported among the most prevalent tumors [9]. The crude incidence rate in males was 3.1 for colon carcinoma and 1 for rectal carcinoma. In females, the crude incidence rate was 2.3 for colon carcinoma and 0.8 for rectal carcinoma [10].
Chemotherapy-associated diarrhea is common among cancer patients, particularly those who are treated with fluoropyrimidines e.g., fluorouracil [FU], as well as capecitabine and irinotecan, and is usually dose dependent [11]. FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil (5FU)/leucovorin with oxaliplatin) is a chemotherapy regimen used for treatment of advanced colon cancer [12] and is usually associated with diarrhea [13]. This may be due to direct cytotoxic effects on the mucosal lining of the gastrointestinal tract together with alteration of the intestinal microflora [11]. A study by Bano and colleagues revealed a 42% incidence of grade 2 stomatitis in patients treated with FOLFOX (oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2). In addition, administration of oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2) was associated with severe GI symptoms. Twenty-five percent of patients had grade 3 diarrhea while grade 4 diarrhea was detected in 4% of patients [14]. The Canadian Working Group on Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea reported that high doses of FOLFOX were associated with 66% incidence of either grade 3 or 4 diarrhea compared to other regimens used for treatment of colon cancer [15].
The present study assessed the positive effect of glutamine on prevention of diarrhea and improvement of the overall survival and treatment response in patients with colon cancer who received mFOLFOX-6.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligible Patients

This randomized controlled trial was registered on the ISRCTN registry with trial ID ISRCTN13489936 and was conducted in Clinical Oncology Department Tanta University, Egypt, after approval of the Research Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University (Approval code 34918/3; Date of approval 8 March 2019). The written informed consents were obtained from all the participants before being included in this study. The experimental protocol was carried out according to Helsinki declaration. A total of 44 colon cancer patients were included and randomly allocated into two equal groups; glutamine group and placebo group between April 2019 to April 2021.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

Patients of both genders, aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed colon adenocarcinoma; stage II, and III according to American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC-UICC); 7th Edition [16] were enrolled. ECOG performance state, adequate hematological (evidenced by white blood cell count ≥ 4000/μL and platelet count ≥ 100,000/μL), renal (creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL) and hepatic functions (serum total bilirubin < 1.5 mg/dL).

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

Patients with stage IV, second primary, or any other comorbidity were excluded from this study.

2.4. Treatment Plan (Chemotherapy)

All patients were treated with the standard mFOLFOX-6 consisting of 2 h intravenous (IV) infusion of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) on day 1, and 2 h IV drip infusion of calcium folinate (400 mg/m2) on day 1, followed by IV injection of 5-FU (400 mg/m2) and continuous infusion of 5-FU (1200 mg/m2) on days 1–2 (Total 2400 mg/m2 over 46–48 h). The intravenous infusion was continued every 2 weeks. Patients were randomized to receive glutamine dipeptide (Dipeptiven) n = 22; glutamine dipeptide group) or not receiving glutamine dipeptide (n = 22; control group). In the glutamine dipeptide group, (N(2)-L-Alanyl-L-Glutamine Dipeptide, (Dipeptiven), by Fresenius Laboratories, Bad Homburg, Germany) was given IV in a dose of 20 gm/100 mL on the day 1–2 regimen every 2 weeks.

2.5. Follow Up

The included patients enrolled in both groups were evaluated at the baseline (prior to chemotherapy) and after two, four and six cycles of treatment. Treatment response to chemotherapy was assessed every two cycles according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [17]. Treatment-related toxicities were estimated according to standard World Health Organization (WHO) criteria [18]. Diarrhea was graded according to the National cancer institute [19]. In case of diarrhea grades I and II, only supportive therapy was considered. Grade III diarrhea was managed with supportive therapy, IV fluids and hospitalization. Chemotherapy was postponed till complete recovery and the dose of chemotherapy was reduced. Regarding patients with grade IV diarrhea, they were admitted in the ICU and given IV fluids, supportive care, monitoring of electrolytes and chemotherapy was stopped until complete recovery with dose reduction in case of reinfusion.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was done by SPSS version 26 (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Quantitative variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Comparison between the two groups was carried out utilizing unpaired Student’s t-tests. Qualitative variables were presented as frequency and percentage (%) and were analyzed utilizing the chi-square test when appropriate. Kaplan–Meier curves and hazard ratios were used to compare the survival rate between both groups. A two-tailed p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

In the present study, 67 patients were assessed for eligibility. Sixteen patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and seven patients refused to participate in the study. Forty-four patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups: the glutamine group and placebo group. The patients were followed up and analyzed statistically as presented in Figure 1.
According to Table 1, patients in the glutamine group were significantly younger compared to the placebo group (p-value < 0.001). However, gender, physical status, carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA), and the stage of cancer were insignificantly different between both groups. All the studied patients had adenocarcinoma of the colon, underwent surgery and were subjected to mFOLFOX-6 chemotherapy.
Treatment response evaluation in both groups didn’t reveal any significant differences between both groups as presented in Table 2.
After two cycles of treatment with mFOLFOX-6, diarrhea was insignificantly different between both groups. After four and six cycles, diarrhea was significantly lower in glutamine group compared to placebo group (p-value < 0.001) as presented in Table 3.
The overall survival in glutamine group was insignificantly different between glutamine and placebo groups. The hazard ratio of mortality in glutamine group was 0.56 times (95% CI: 0.18–1.76) lower than placebo group. The mortality rate was insignificantly different between glutamine group and placebo group (22.7% vs. 36.4% respectively, p-value = 0.509) as presented in Table 4 and Figure 2.

4. Discussion

Diarrhea associated with cancer chemotherapy may be severe enough to cause serious negative consequences such as malnutrition, dehydration, cardiovascular events, and even death. Additionally, diarrhea can cause chemotherapeutic dosing delays or reductions which may have an impact on the patient’s survival [11]. Since 2001, FOLFOX was presented as a new and the most effective treatment for malignancies of the colon and rectum [20]. A number of studies assessed the efficacy as well as the potential tolerability associated with different concentrations of FOLFOX such as FOLFOX-4, modified FOLFOX-4, FOLFOX-6, and modified FOLFOX-6 in colon cancer patients [21].
DIP has been widely introduced to cancer patients as a nutritional supplement to upsurge proliferation and survival under metabolic stress [6]. Additionally, glutamine was proven to be effective when used in combination with the immunosuppressive agents after bone marrow transplantation to compensate for the body protein waste and mucosal injury as well as, after high-dose chemotherapy [22]. As well, glutamine anabolic effect was found to fight against weight loss or sarcopenia to improve survival, increase lymphocytes, and prevent infection of the mucosa [23]. This may explain our study findings regarding the overall survival in patients who were administered glutamine. The mortality rate was insignificantly different between glutamine group and placebo group (22.7% vs. 36.4% respectively, p-value = 0.322).
On the contrary, glutamine, as the most abundant amino acid in plasma [6], is largely utilized by cancer cells for energy production and as a source of nitrogen for nucleic acid and amino acids synthesis as well [24]. This process which is known as glutaminolysis was investigated in clinical trials to understand cancer proliferation and progression [25] and to delineate its effect on cancer survival [26,27].
The incidence of diarrhea induced by chemotherapy is well established, particularly in patients on 5-fluorouracil. The rate of all grades of diarrhea during chemotherapy has been detected as high as 82% where about one third of the patients had diarrhea of the third or fourth grade [15]. In a phase II trial, a dose of intravenous oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 (1 h infusion), Leucovorin 100 mg/m2 (1 h infusion) and 5-FU 2100 mg/m2 (24 h infusion) until disease progression was given for a total of eight cycles. They detected grade III diarrhea in about 66% of patients [28]. This comes in the same line with the results of the current study where grade II and grade III diarrhea were significantly detected more frequently in patients on placebo compared to those on glutamine supplementation after two and four cycles of chemotherapy. In addition, grade IV diarrhea was detected in patients on placebo and completely disappeared in glutamine group after six cycles of chemotherapy, as well as grade III. This was in agreement with Widjaja et al. [23] and Altman et al. [24] who reported that glutamine decreases the severity of diarrhea and mucositis associated with chemotherapy particularly with high doses via elevation of the lymphocytic count, reduction of gut permeability, changing the inflammatory pathways such as nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) and STAT signaling, augmentation of the defense mechanisms against apoptosis and oxidative stress, and preservation of tight-junction proteins [29,30].
Comparison of the treatment response in both groups didn’t reveal any significant differences. This may be explained by the controversial modulatory effect of glutamine on cancer cells since glutamine showed heterogenous metabolism in animals and tissue cultures [31]. Suzanne Klimberg and McClellan [32] recommended more trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of glutamine in cancer patients. Further, enhanced healing evidenced by the use of glutamine was reported to improve the quality of life and enable appropriate cancer treatment with lower incidence of associated adverse effects [23].

5. Conclusions

This study recommends the utilization of L-alanyl L-glutamine dipeptide as a supplementary treatment in colon cancer patients to decrease the severity of diarrhea and to improve the overall survival of these patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: N.M.S. and W.A.A.; formal analysis, N.M.S., T.M.N., A.M.K., H.H.A. and W.A.A.; funding acquisition, H.H.A.; investigation, N.M.S., T.M.N., A.M.K., H.H.A., E.-S.K. and W.A.A.; methodology, N.M.S., T.M.N., A.M.K., H.H.A., E.-S.K. and W.A.A.; validation, N.M.S., T.M.N., A.M.K., H.H.A., E.-S.K. and W.A.A.; writing—original draft, N.M.S. and W.A.A.; writing—review and editing, N.M.S., E.-S.K. and A.M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/29), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Egypt (Approval code 34918/3; Date of approval 8 March 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Also, a written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data used and/or analyzed during this study are not available for public access because of patient privacy but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The current work was supported by Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/29), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors had no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Freitas, A.; Silva, M.; Silva, C.; Prata, M.; Rodrigues, F.; Siqueira, R.; Lima, A.; Santos, A.A.; Havt, A. Alanyl-glutamine protects the intestinal barrier function in trained rats against the impact of acute exhaustive exercise. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. Rev. Bras. Pesqui. Med. E Biol. 2020, 53, e9211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alaa el-Din, A.K.; Labib, H.A.; Salah, D. Studying the Effect of Parenterally Administered l-Alanyl l-Glutamine Dipeptide in Diabetes and New Onset Diabetes in Liver Transplantation. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2016, 32, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Krishna Rao, R. Role of Glutamine in Protection of Intestinal Epithelial Tight Junctions. J. Evid. Based Psychother. 2012, 5, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jiang, H.; Zhang, N.; Tang, T.; Feng, F.; Sun, H.; Qu, W. Target the human Alanine/Serine/Cysteine Transporter 2(ASCT2): Achievement and Future for Novel Cancer Therapy. Pharmacol. Res. 2020, 158, 104844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kim, M.H.; Kim, H. Oncogenes and Tumor Suppressors Regulate Glutamine Metabolism in Cancer Cells. J. Cancer Prev. 2013, 18, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Choi, Y.-K.; Park, K.-G. Targeting Glutamine Metabolism for Cancer Treatment. Biomol. Ther. 2018, 26, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Jiang, L.; Shestov, A.A.; Swain, P.; Yang, C.; Parker, S.J.; Wang, Q.A.; Terada, L.S.; Adams, N.D.; McCabe, M.T.; Pietrak, B.; et al. Reductive Carboxylation Supports Redox Homeostasis during Anchorage-Independent Growth. Nature 2016, 532, 255–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anderson, P.M.; Lalla, R.V. Glutamine for Amelioration of Radiation and Chemotherapy Associated Mucositis during Cancer Therapy. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hassan, A.; Khalaf, A.; Elias, A. Colorectal Cancer in Egypt: Clinical, Life-Style, and Socio-Demographic Risk Factors. Al-Azhar Int. Med. J. 2021, 2, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Makhlouf, N.A.; Abdel-Gawad, M.; Mahros, A.M.; Lashen, S.A.; Zaghloul, M.; Eliwa, A.; Elshemy, E.E.; Ali-Eldin, Z.; Abdeltawab, D.; El-Raey, F.; et al. Colorectal cancer in Arab world: A systematic review. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2021, 13, 1791–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Okunaka, M.; Kano, D.; Matsui, R.; Kawasaki, T.; Uesawa, Y. Evaluation of the Expression Profile of Irinotecan-Induced Diarrhea in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abraham, J.P.; Magee, D.; Cremolini, C.; Antoniotti, C.; Halbert, D.D.; Xiu, J.; Stafford, P.; Berry, D.A.; Oberley, M.J.; Shields, A.F.; et al. Clinical Validation of a Machine-learning-derived Signature Predictive of Outcomes from First-line Oxaliplatin-based Chemotherapy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 1174–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wagner, A.D.; Grothey, A.; Andre, T.; Dixon, J.G.; Wolmark, N.; Haller, D.G.; Allegra, C.J.; de Gramont, A.; VanCutsem, E.; Alberts, S.R.; et al. Sex and Adverse Events of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: An Analysis of 34640 Patients in the ACCENT Database. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 113, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bano, N.; Najam, R.; Qazi, F.; Mateen, A. Gastrointestinal Adverse Effects in Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma Patients Treated with Different Schedules of FOLFOX. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 8089–8093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Maroun, J.A.; Anthony, L.B.; Blais, N.; Burkes, R.; Dowden, S.D.; Dranitsaris, G.; Samson, B.; Shah, A.; Thirlwell, M.P.; Vincent, M.D.; et al. Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Consensus Statement by the Canadian Working Group on Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea. Curr. Oncol. 2007, 14, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Edge, S.B.; Compton, C.C. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: The 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 1471–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (Version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. World Health Organization. Guidelines on Evaluation of Similar Biotherapeutic Products (SBPs); World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  19. Basch, E.; Reeve, B.B.; Mitchell, S.A.; Clauser, S.B.; Minasian, L.M.; Dueck, A.C.; Mendoza, T.R.; Hay, J.; Atkinson, T.M.; Abernethy, A.P.; et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014, 106, dju244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sun, Z.; Zhu, R.-J.; Yang, G.-F.; Li, Y. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 Regimen to Treat Advanced Gastric Cancer Improves Survival without Increasing Adverse Events: A Retrospective Cohort Study from a Chinese Center. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 418694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Salehifar, E.; Avan, R.; Janbabaei, G.; Mousavi, S.K.; Faramarzi, F. Comparison the Incidence and Severity of Side Effects Profile of FOLFOX and DCF Regimens in Gastric Cancer Patients. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2019, 18, 1032–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pandey, M.; Goel, R.; Gaurav, K.; Shukla, M. Glutamine: A Novel Approach to Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity. Indian J. Med. Paediatr. Oncol. 2012, 33, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Widjaja, N.A.; Pratama, A.; Prihaningtyas, R.; Irawan, R.; Ugrasena, I. Efficacy Oral Glutamine to Prevent Oral Mucositis and Reduce Hospital Costs During Chemotherapy in Children with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2020, 21, 2117–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Altman, B.J.; Stine, Z.E.; Dang, C.V. From Krebs to Clinic: Glutamine Metabolism to Cancer Therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2016, 16, 619–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, T.; Copeland, C.; Le, A. Glutamine Metabolism in Cancer. In The Heterogeneity of Cancer Metabolism; Le, A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 17–38. ISBN 978-3-030-65768-0. [Google Scholar]
  26. Commisso, C.; Davidson, S.M.; Soydaner-Azeloglu, R.G.; Parker, S.J.; Kamphorst, J.J.; Hackett, S.; Grabocka, E.; Nofal, M.; Drebin, J.A.; Thompson, C.B.; et al. Macropinocytosis of Protein Is an Amino Acid Supply Route in Ras-Transformed Cells. Nature 2013, 497, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kamphorst, J.J.; Nofal, M.; Commisso, C.; Hackett, S.R.; Lu, W.; Grabocka, E.; Vander Heiden, M.G.; Miller, G.; Drebin, J.A.; Bar-Sagi, D.; et al. Human Pancreatic Cancer Tumors Are Nutrient Poor and Tumor Cells Actively Scavenge Extracellular Protein. Cancer Res. 2015, 75, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Chiara, S.; Nobile, M.T.; Gozza, A.; Taveggia, P.; Heouaine, A.; Pastrone, I.; Percivale, P.L.; Lionetto, R.; Sanguineti, O.; Rosso, R. Phase II Study of Weekly Oxaliplatin and High-Dose Infusional 5-Fluorouracil plus Leucovorin in Pretreated Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2004, 24, 355–360. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yoshida, S.; Matsui, M.; Shirouzu, Y.; Fujita, H.; Yamana, H.; Shirouzu, K. Effects of Glutamine Supplements and Radiochemotherapy on Systemic Immune and Gut Barrier Function in Patients with Advanced Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg. 1998, 227, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, M.-H.; Kim, H. The Roles of Glutamine in the Intestine and Its Implication in Intestinal Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cluntun, A.A.; Lukey, M.J.; Cerione, R.A.; Locasale, J.W. Glutamine Metabolism in Cancer: Understanding the Heterogeneity. Trends Cancer 2017, 3, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Suzannec Klimberg, V.; McClellan, J.L. Glutamine, Cancer, and Its Therapy. Am. J. Surg. 1996, 172, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Medicina 58 00394 g001 550
Figure 1. The randomized trial flow diagram, including enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
Figure 1. The randomized trial flow diagram, including enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis.
Medicina 58 00394 g001
Medicina 58 00394 g002 550
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve for overall survival.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve for overall survival.
Medicina 58 00394 g002
Table
Table 1. Patient characteristics of the studied groups.
Table 1. Patient characteristics of the studied groups.
Glutamine Group
(n = 22)		Placebo Group
(n = 22)		p-Value
Age (years)Mean ± SD45.41 ± 5.7253.09 ± 7.19<0.001 *
Range35–6144–66
GenderMale7 (31.82%)10 (45.45%)0.390
Female15 (68.18%)12 (54.55%)
ECOG performance status08 (36.36%)4 (18.18%)0.189
19 (40.91%)15 (68.18%)
25 (22.73%)3 (13.64%)
SiteColon22 (100%)22 (100%)-
PathologyAdenocarcinoma22 (100%)22 (100%)-
CEAMean ± SD3.54 ± 1.824.18 ± 2.060.284
Range1–91–9
SurgeryYes22 (100%)22 (100%)-
StageStage II5 (22.73%)8 (36.36%)0.322
Stage III17 (77.27%)14 (36.64%)
TreatmentChemotherapy22 (100%)22 (100%)-
ChemotherapymFOLFOX-622 (100%)22 (100%)-
CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen, *: significant as p-value ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Response to treatment in the studied groups.
Table 2. Response to treatment in the studied groups.
Glutamine Group
(n = 22)		Placebo Group
(n = 22)		p-Value
Partial response7 (31.82%)6 (27.27%)0.892
Complete response15 (68.18%)16 (72.73%)
Data are presented as frequency (%).
Table
Table 3. The incidence of diarrhea in the studied groups.
Table 3. The incidence of diarrhea in the studied groups.
Glutamine Group
(n = 22)		Placebo Group
(n = 22)		p-Value
After Two Cycles
No diarrhea12 (54.55%)8 (36.36%)0.066
Grade 18 (36.36%)5 (22.73%)
Grade 22 (9.09%)7 (31.82%)
Grade 30 (0%)2 (9.09%)
After Four Cycles
No diarrhea8 (36.36%)1 (4.55%)< 0.001 *
Grade 111 (50%)2 (9.09%)
Grade 22 (9.09%)11 (50%)
Grade 31 (4.55%)8 (36.36%)
After Six Cycles
No diarrhea12 (54.55%)1 (4.55%)< 0.001 *
Grade 16 (27.27%)3 (13.6%)
Grade 24 (18.18%)9 (40.91%)
Grade 30 (0%)5 (22.73%)
Grade 40 (0%)4 (18.18%)
Data are presented as frequency (%), *: significant as p-value ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Kaplan–Meier survival curve for overall survival.
Table 4. Kaplan–Meier survival curve for overall survival.
MeanSD95% CI for
the Mean		Mortalityp-Value
Glutamine group (n = 22)22.093.10820.51–23.675 (22.7%)0.322
Placebo group (n = 22)20.732.98618.21–23.258 (36.4%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sabry, N.M.; Naguib, T.M.; Kabel, A.M.; Khafagy, E.-S.; Arab, H.H.; Almorsy, W.A. Ameliorative Potential of L-Alanyl L-Glutamine Dipeptide in Colon Cancer Patients Receiving Modified FOLFOX-6 Regarding the Incidence of Diarrhea, the Treatment Response, and Patients’ Survival: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicina 2022, 58, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030394

AMA Style

Sabry NM, Naguib TM, Kabel AM, Khafagy E-S, Arab HH, Almorsy WA. Ameliorative Potential of L-Alanyl L-Glutamine Dipeptide in Colon Cancer Patients Receiving Modified FOLFOX-6 Regarding the Incidence of Diarrhea, the Treatment Response, and Patients’ Survival: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicina. 2022; 58(3):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sabry, Nesreen M., Tamer M. Naguib, Ahmed M. Kabel, El-Sayed Khafagy, Hany H. Arab, and Walid A. Almorsy. 2022. "Ameliorative Potential of L-Alanyl L-Glutamine Dipeptide in Colon Cancer Patients Receiving Modified FOLFOX-6 Regarding the Incidence of Diarrhea, the Treatment Response, and Patients’ Survival: A Randomized Controlled Trial" Medicina 58, no. 3: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030394

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop