Breast Cancer Index and Prediction of Extended Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy Benefit in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42 Trial.

PURPOSE: BCI (H/I) has been shown to predict extended endocrine therapy (EET) benefit. We examined BCI (H/I) for EET benefit prediction in NSABP B-42, which evaluated extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of ET. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A stratified Cox model was used to analyze RFI as the primary endpoint, with DR, BCFI, and DFS as secondary endpoints. Because of a nonproportional effect of ELT on DR, time-dependent analyses were performed. RESULTS: The translational cohort included 2,178 patients (45% BCI (H/I)-High, 55% BCI (H/I)-Low). ELT showed an absolute 10-year RFI benefit of 1.6% (P = 0.10), resulting in an underpowered primary analysis (50% power). ELT benefit and BCI (H/I) did not show a significant interaction for RFI (BCI (H/I)-Low: 10 years absolute benefit 1.1% [HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13]; BCI (H/I)-High: 2.4% [HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.55-1.26; P = 0.38]; Pinteraction = 0.56). Time-dependent DR analysis showed that after 4 years, BCI (H/I)-High patients had significant ELT benefit (HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69; P < 0.01), whereas BCI (H/I)-Low patients were less likely to benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33-1.39; P = 0.29; Pinteraction = 0.14). Prediction of ELT benefit by BCI (H/I) was more apparent in the HER2- subset after 4 years (ELT-by-BCI (H/I) Pinteraction = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: BCI (H/I)-High versus BCI (H/I)-Low did not show a statistically significant difference in ELT benefit for the primary endpoint (RFI). However, in time-dependent DR analysis, BCI (H/I)-High patients experienced statistically significant benefit from ELT after 4 years, whereas (H/I)-Low patients did not. Because BCI (H/I) has been validated as a predictive marker of EET benefit in other trials, additional follow-up may enable further characterization of BCI's predictive ability.

Ten-year update: NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 randomized trial: extended letrozole therapy in early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 trial evaluated extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor (AI)-based therapy. Seven-year results demonstrated a nonstatistically significant trend in disease-free survival (DFS) in favor of ELT. We present 10-year outcome results. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase III trial, patients with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, disease free after 5 years of an AI or tamoxifen followed by an AI, were randomly assigned to 5 years of letrozole or placebo. Primary endpoint was DFS, defined as time from random assignment to breast cancer recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death. All statistical tests are 2-sided. RESULTS: Between September 2006 and January 2010, 3966 patients were randomly assigned (letrozole: 1983; placebo: 1983). Median follow-up time for 3923 patients included in efficacy analyses was 10.3 years. There was statistically significant improvement in DFS in favor of letrozole compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.96; P = .01; 10-year DFS: placebo = 72.6%, letrozole = 75.9%, absolute difference = 3.3%). There was no difference in the effect of letrozole on overall survival (HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.15; P = .74). Letrozole statistically significantly reduced breast cancer-free interval events (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.91; P = .003; absolute difference in cumulative incidence = 2.7%) and distant recurrences (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.92; P = .01; absolute difference = 1.8%). The rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of ELT on DFS persisted at 10 years. Letrozole also improved breast cancer-free interval and distant recurrences without improving overall survival. Careful assessment of potential risks and benefits is necessary for selecting appropriate candidates for ELT.

Induction versus no induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicentre randomised phase II trial (NCCTG N0849 [Alliance]).

AIM: report primary results from the first multicentre randomised trial evaluating induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy in patients with oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Notably, recent data from a single-institution randomised trial reported that induction chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial (28 centres in the U.S. NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group [Alliance]), trimodality-eligible patients (T3-4N0, TanyN+) were randomised to receive induction (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; Arm A) or no induction chemotherapy (Arm B) followed by oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/radiation and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). Secondary/exploratory endpoints were OS and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of 55 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, the pathCR rate was 28.6% (8/28) in A versus 40.7% (11/27) in B (P = .34). Given interim results indicating futility, accrual was terminated, but patients were followed. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, a longer median OS in Arm A versus B was unexpectedly observed (3-year rates 57.1% versus 41.7%, respectively) driven by longer DFS after margin-free surgery. In posthoc analysis, induction (versus no induction) chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS and DFS among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours, but not among patients with poorly/undifferentiated tumours (Pinteraction = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Adding induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy did not improve the primary endpoint, pathCR. However, induction chemotherapy was associated with longer median OS, particularly among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. These findings may inform further development of curative-intent trials in this disease.

Use of letrozole after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer (NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors in patients with postmenopausal breast cancer is unknown. In the NSABP B-42 study, we aimed to determine whether extended letrozole treatment improves disease-free survival after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in women with postmenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 158 centres in the USA, Canada, and Ireland. Postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, who were disease-free after about 5 years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen followed by an aromatase inhibitor, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 years of letrozole (2·5 mg orally per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by pathological node status, previous tamoxifen use, and lowest bone mineral density T score in the lumbosacral spine, total hip, or femoral neck. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, defined as time from randomisation to breast cancer recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death, and was analysed by intention to treat. To adjust for previous interim analyses, the two-sided statistical significance level for disease-free survival was set at 0·0418. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00382070, is active, and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2006, and Jan 6, 2010, 3966 patients were randomly assigned to receive letrozole (n=1983) or placebo (n=1983). Follow-up information was available for 3903 patients for the analyses of disease-free survival. Median follow-up was 6·9 years (IQR 6·1-7·5). Letrozole treatment did not significantly improve disease-free survival (339 disease-free survival events were reported in the placebo group and 292 disease-free survival events were reported in the letrozole group; hazard ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·999; p=0·048). 7-year disease-free survival estimate was 81·3% (95% CI 79·3-83·1) in the placebo group and 84·7% (82·9-86·4) in the letrozole group. The most common grade 3 adverse events were arthralgia (47 [2%] of 1933 patients in the placebo group vs 50 [3%] of 1941 patients in the letrozole group) and back pain (44 [2%] vs 38 [2%]). The most common grade 4 adverse event in the placebo group was thromboembolic event (eight [<1%]) and the most common grade 4 adverse events in the letrozole group were urinary tract infection, hypokalaemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (four [<1%] each). INTERPRETATION: After 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, 5 years of letrozole therapy did not significantly prolong disease-free survival compared with placebo. Careful assessment of potential risks and benefits is required before recommending extended letrozole therapy to patients with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Korea Health Technology R&D Project, Novartis.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results of PrE0102.

Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Comparative effectiveness of sphincter-sparing surgery versus abdominoperineal resection in rectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized trial R-04.

OBJECTIVE: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 was a randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-III rectal cancer. We hypothesized that patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) would have a poorer quality of life than those who underwent sphincter-sparing surgery (SSS). METHODS: To obtain patient-reported outcomes (PROs) we administered two symptom scales at baseline and 1 year postoperatively: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer module for patients with Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-CR38). Scoring was stratified by nonrandomly assigned definitive surgery (APR vs SSS). Analyses controlled for baseline scores and stratification factors: age, sex, stage, intended surgery, and randomly assigned chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 1,608 randomly assigned patients, 987 had data for planned analyses; 62% underwent SSS; 38% underwent APR. FACT-C total and subscale scores were not statistically different by surgery at 1 year. For the EORTC QLQ-CR38 functional scales, APR patients reported worse body image (70.3 vs 77.0, P = 0.0005) at 1 year than did SSS patients. Males undergoing APR reported worse sexual enjoyment (43.7 vs 54.7, P = 0.02) at 1 year than did those undergoing SSS. For the EORTC QLQ-CR38 symptom scale scores, APR patients reported worse micturition symptoms than the SSS group at 1 year (26.9 vs 21.5, P = 0.03). SSS patients reported worse gastrointestinal tract symptoms than did the APR patients (18.9 vs 15.2, P < 0.0001), as well as weight loss (10.1 vs 6.0, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms and functional problems were detected at 1 year by EORTC QLQ-CR38, reflecting different symptom profiles in patients who underwent APR than those who underwent SSS. Information from these PROs may be useful in counseling patients anticipating surgery for rectal cancer.

Comparative economics of a 12-gene assay for predicting risk of recurrence in stage II colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior economic analysis that compared the 12-gene assay to published patterns of care predicted the assay would improve outcomes while lowering medical costs for stage II, T3, mismatch-repair-proficient (MMR-P) colon cancer patients. This study assessed the validity of those findings with real-world adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) recommendations from the US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for stage II, T3, MMR-P colon cancer patients using guideline-compliant, state-transition probability estimation methods in a Markov model. A study of 141 patients from 17 sites in the Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium provided aCT recommendations before and after knowledge of the 12-gene assay results. Progression and adverse events data with aCT regimens were based on published literature. Drug and administration costs for aCT were obtained from 2014 Medicare Fee Schedule. Sensitivity analyses evaluated the drivers and robustness of the primary outcomes. RESULTS: After receiving the 12-gene assay results, physician recommendations in favor of aCT decreased 22 %; fluoropyrimidine monotherapy and FOLFOX recommendations each declined 11 %. Average per-patient drugs, administration, and adverse events costs decreased $US2,339, $US733, and $US3,211, respectively. Average total direct medical costs decreased $US991. Average patient well-being improved by 0.114 QALYs. Savings are expected to persist even if the cost of oxaliplatin drops by >75 % due to generic substitution. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that real-world changes in aCT recommendations due to the 12-gene assay are likely to reduce direct medical costs and improve well-being for stage II, T3, MMR-P colon cancer patients.

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment of rectal cancer: surgical end points from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial R-04.

PURPOSE: The optimal chemotherapy regimen administered concurrently with preoperative radiation therapy (RT) for patients with rectal cancer is unknown. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial R-04 compared four chemotherapy regimens administered concomitantly with RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer who were undergoing preoperative RT (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks plus a boost of 5.4 Gy to 10.8 Gy in three to six daily fractions) were randomly assigned to one of the following chemotherapy regimens: continuous intravenous infusional fluorouracil (CVI FU; 225 mg/m(2), 5 days per week), with or without intravenous oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) once per week for 5 weeks) or oral capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) twice per day, 5 days per week), with or without oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) once per week for 5 weeks). Before random assignment, the surgeon indicated whether the patient was eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery based on clinical staging. The surgical end points were complete pathologic response (pCR), sphincter-sparing surgery, and surgical downstaging (conversion to sphincter-sparing surgery). RESULTS: From September 2004 to August 2010, 1,608 patients were randomly assigned. No significant differences in the rates of pCR, sphincter-sparing surgery, or surgical downstaging were identified between the CVI FU and capecitabine regimens or between the two regimens with or without oxaliplatin. Patients treated with oxaliplatin experienced significantly more grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Administering capecitabine with preoperative RT achieved similar rates of pCR, sphincter-sparing surgery, and surgical downstaging compared with CVI FU. Adding oxaliplatin did not improve surgical outcomes but added significant toxicity. The definitive analysis of local tumor control, disease-free survival, and overall survival will be performed when the protocol-specified number of events has occurred.

Prospective multicenter study of the impact of oncotype DX colon cancer assay results on treatment recommendations in stage II colon cancer patients.

The Oncotype DX colon cancer assay is a clinically validated predictor of recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer patients. This prospective study evaluated the impact of recurrence score (RS) results on physician recommendations regarding adjuvant chemotherapy in T3, mismatch repair-proficient (MMR-P) stage II colon cancer patients. Patients and Methods. Stage IIA colon cancer patients were enrolled in 17 centers. Patient tumor specimens were assessed by the RS test (quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) and mismatch repair (immunohistochemistry). For each patient, the physician's recommended postoperative treatment plan of observation, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, or combination therapy with oxaliplatin was recorded before and after the RS and mismatch repair results were provided. Results. Of 221 enrolled patients, 141 patients had T3 MMR-P tumors and were eligible for the primary analysis. Treatment recommendations changed for 63 (45%; 95% confidence interval: 36%-53%) of these 141 T3 MMR-P patients, with intensity decreasing for 47 (33%) and increasing for 16 (11%). Recommendations for chemotherapy decreased from 73 patients (52%) to 42 (30%), following review of RS results by physician and patient. Increased treatment intensity was more often observed at higher RS values, and decreased intensity was observed at lower values (p = .011). Conclusion. Compared with traditional clinicopathological assessment, incorporation of the RS result into clinical decision making was associated with treatment recommendation changes for 45% of T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer patients in this prospective multicenter study. Use of the RS assay may lead to overall reduction in adjuvant chemotherapy use in this subgroup of stage II colon cancer patients.

Further data supporting that paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome is associated with development of peripheral neuropathy: North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N08C1.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel causes an acute pain syndrome (P-APS), occurring within days after each dose and usually abating within days. Paclitaxel also causes a more classic peripheral neuropathy, which steadily increases in severity with increasing paclitaxel total doses. Little detail is available regarding the natural history of these 2 syndromes, or any relationship between them, although a recent publication does provide natural history data about weekly paclitaxel, supporting an association between the severity of P-APS and eventual peripheral neuropathy symptoms. METHODS: Patients entering this study were about to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin every 3 weeks. Daily questionnaires were completed for the first week after every chemotherapy dose, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire, Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20-item instruments were completed weekly. RESULTS: The P-APS severity peaked on day 4 after the initial chemotherapy dose, with 12%, 29%, 23%, and 36% of patients having maximal pain scores of 0, 1 to 4, 5 or 6, or 7 to 10 during the first week after the first dose of therapy, respectively. Patients with P-APS scores of 0 to 4 with the first dose of chemotherapy had less eventual sensory neuropathy than did patients with P-APS scores of 5 to 10 (P = 0.001). With regard to the more peripheral neuropathy, sensory neuropathy was more problematic than was either motor or autonomic neuropathy. Numbness and tingling were more common components of the sensory neuropathy than was pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with worse P-APS severities appear to have more eventual chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. This provides support for the concept that P-APS is a form of nerve pathology.

Epratuzumab with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Approximately 60% of patients with diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (DLBCL) are curable with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemoimmunotherapy. Epratuzumab (E) is an unlabeled anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody with efficacy in relapsed DLBCL. This phase 2 trial tested the safety and efficacy of combining E with R-CHOP (ER-CHOP) in untreated DLBCL. A secondary aim was to assess the efficacy of interim positron emission tomography (PET) to predict outcome in DLBCL. Standard R-CHOP with the addition of E 360 mg/m(2) intravenously was administered for 6 cycles. A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the study. Toxicity was similar to standard R-CHOP. Overall response rate in the 81 eligible patients was 96% (74% CR/CRu) by computed tomography scan and 88% by PET. By intention to treat analysis, at a median follow-up of 43 months, the event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) at 3 years in all 107 patients were 70% and 80%, respectively. Interim PET was not associated with EFS or OS. Comparison with a cohort of 215 patients who were treated with R-CHOP showed an improved EFS in the ER-CHOP patients. ER-CHOP is well tolerated and results appear promising as a combination therapy. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00301821.

Natural history of paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome: prospective cohort study NCCTG N08C1.

PURPOSE: The characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. METHODS: Patients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m(2)) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) -20 instruments during the entire course of therapy. RESULTS: P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: These data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.

Pilot study of Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng) to improve cancer-related fatigue: a randomized, double-blind, dose-finding evaluation: NCCTG trial N03CA.

PURPOSE: This pilot trial sought to investigate whether any of three doses of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) might help cancer-related fatigue. A secondary aim was to evaluate toxicity. METHODS: Eligible adults with cancer were randomized in a double-blind manner, to receive American ginseng in doses of 750, 1,000, or 2,000 mg/day or placebo given in twice daily dosing over 8 weeks. Outcome measures included the Brief Fatigue Inventory, vitality subscale of the Medical Outcome Scale Short Form-36 (SF-36), and the Global Impression of Benefit Scale at 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety patients were accrued to this trial. Nonsignificant trends for all outcomes were seen in favor of the 1,000- and 2,000-mg/day doses of American ginseng. Area under the curve analysis of activity interference from the Brief Fatigue Inventory was 460-467 in the placebo group and 750 mg/day group versus 480-551 in the 1,000- and 2,000-mg/day arms, respectively. Change from baseline in the vitality subscale of the SF-36 was 7.3-7.8 in the placebo and the 750-mg/day arm, versus 10.5-14.6 in the 1,000- and 2,000-mg/day arms. Over twice as many patients on ginseng perceived a benefit and were satisfied with treatment over those on placebo. There were no significant differences in any measured toxicities between any of the arms. CONCLUSION: There appears to be some activity and tolerable toxicity at 1,000-2,000 mg/day doses of American ginseng with regard to cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further study of American ginseng is warranted.

Pretreatment quality of life is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer.

HYPOTHESIS: We conducted this pooled analysis to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment Quality of Life (QOL) assessments on overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Four hundred twenty patients with advanced NSCLC (stages IIIB with pleural effusion and IV) from six North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials were included in this study. QOL assessments included the single-item Uniscale (355 patients), Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (217 patients), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (197 patients). QOL scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale with higher scores representing better status and categorized using the sample median or clinically deficient score (CDS, 50). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by study were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of QOL on OS alone and in the presence of other prognostic factors such as performance status, age, gender, body mass index, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Pretreatment QOL accessed by Uniscale was significantly associated with OS univariately (p < 0.0001). Uniscale (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio = 1.6 for the sample median and 2.0 for the CDS categorization) and body mass index were the only significant predictors of OS multivariately. The median survival of patients who had a Uniscale score less than or equal to the CDS (50 group; and 7.8 versus 13 months for the less than or equal to sample median (83 group, respectively. The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung total scores were not significant predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment QOL measured by Uniscale is a significant and an independent prognostic factor for OS, and QOL should be routinely integrated as a stratification factor in advanced NSCLC trials.

Is social support associated with improved clinical outcomes in geriatric lung cancer patients? Observations from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Studies N9921 and N0222.

BACKGROUND: Social support is defined as a network of family/friends who provide practical and emotional help. A sizable literature describes a direct relationship between social support and improved cancer clinical outcomes. This study explored the extent of social support and its potential association with survival and adverse events in geriatric lung cancer patients. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients, who were aged 65 years or older, had incurable cancer, and were enrolled in one of two chemotherapy trials, completed the Lubben Social Network Scale, a validated instrument that measures social support. All were followed for survival and chemotherapy-related adverse events. RESULTS: The median age (range) of the cohort was 74 years (65-91), and performance scores of 0, 1, or 2 were observed in 29%, 55%, and 16%, respectively. Forty-two percent were women. This cohort had a high level of social support: 81% reported they "always" had someone to take them to medical appointments. However, there were no gender-based differences in social support and no associations between social support and either survival or adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of geriatric lung cancer patients - all of whom were treated during a clinical trial - there was a high level of social support. However, there were no gender-based differences in extent of social support, and the latter did not predict clinical outcomes.

A phase 2 study of gemcitabine and epirubicin for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Study, N0021.

BACKGROUND: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) conducted a phase 2 study to evaluate the antitumor activity of the combination of gemcitabine and epirubicin in patients with pleural mesothelioma who received no more than 1 prior chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: A total of 23 patients were accrued between August 2001 and April 2002 and received gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 minutes weekly every 2 weeks and epirubicin at a dose of 90 mg/m(2) intravenously on Day 1 on an every-21-days cycle (high-dose patient group). Between August 2002 and April 2004, an additional 45 patients were treated at a reduced dose of gemcitabine of 750 mg/m(2) and epirubicin at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) with the same schedule (low-dose patient group). RESULTS: In the high-dose patient group, the confirmed response rate was 13% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3-34%). The median survival was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.4-10.7 months) and the median time to disease progression was 6.3 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.6 months). In the low-dose patient group, the confirmed response rate was 7% (95% CI, 0-28%). The median survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.7 months) and the median time to disease progression was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.7-5.6 months). Toxicity was moderate to severe. In the high-dose and low-dose groups, 87% and 60% of patients, respectively, experienced at least 1 adverse event of grade 4 or higher (according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]). The quality of life remained similar from baseline to the end of the 2 cycles of treatment in the high-dose group but worsened in the low-dose group. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the combination regimen of gemcitabine and epirubicin was found to demonstrate minimal antitumor activity against pleural mesothelioma.

Phase III randomized, double-blind study of maintenance CAI or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after completion of initial therapy (NCCTG 97-24-51).

PURPOSE: This study assessed whether maintenance therapy with carboxyaminoimidazole (CAI), compared to placebo, prolonged overall survival in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients who had tumour regression or stable disease after treatment with one chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: After completion of chemotherapy, patients were randomized to receive daily oral CAI at 250mg or placebo. Treatment continued until patient refusal, disease progression or unacceptable adverse event (AE). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by UNISCALE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Lung Cancer (FACT-L). RESULTS: Registration was halted early for slow accrual (targeted 360, randomized 186: 94 CAI, 92 placebo). All patients were off active treatment at time of analyses. Non-haematologic AEs (primarily grade 1, 2) observed significantly more often in the CAI group included fatigue (54.5% versus 29.3%), anorexia (31.1% versus 13.0%), nausea (62.2% versus 30.4%), vomiting (32.2% versus 14.1%), neurosensory (60.0% versus 44.6%) and ataxia (33.3% versus 16.3%). Patients discontinued treatment for AEs, death on study or refusal more often in the CAI group (36.0% versus 8.7%, p<0.0001). No significant differences in survival or time to progression were observed (median: CAI versus placebo: 11.4 months versus 10.5 months, log rank p=0.54; 2.8 months versus 2.4 months, log rank p=0.50). More patients receiving CAI reported a clinically significant (10-point) decline in QOL particularly on the functional (58% versus 37%, p=0.05) construct of FACT-L and UNISCALE (72% versus 51%, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: The addition of CAI following chemotherapy does not provide clinical benefit or improvement in QOL over placebo in advanced NSCLC.

Efficacy of gabapentin in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (N00C3).

BACKGROUND: The antiepileptic agent, gabapentin, has been demonstrated to relieve symptoms of peripheral neuropathy due to various etiologies. On the basis of these data, a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of gabapentin on symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). METHODS: Patients with symptomatic CIPN who complained of 'average' daily pain scores of either 1) >/=4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS); or 2) >/=1 on the 0-3 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group neuropathy scale (ENS) were eligible (higher numbers indicate greater severity of symptoms in both scales). Patients were randomized to receive gabapentin (target dose, 2700 mg) or placebo for 6 weeks. Crossover occurred after a 2-week washout period. CIPN-related symptoms were evaluated weekly by questionnaires. Statistical methods followed established methods for crossover designs, including Student t tests to compare average intrapatient differences between treatments and linear models to adjust for potential concomitant covariates. RESULTS: There were 115 patients who were randomly assigned to the treatment or control arm. Both groups were well matched by symptoms at study entry. Changes in symptom severity were statistically similar between the 2 groups during the study. Adverse events were mild and similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial failed to demonstrate any benefit to using gabapentin to treat symptoms caused by CIPN.