Research priorities in mesothelioma: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, despite the import and use of all forms of asbestos being banned more than 15 years ago, the incidence of mesothelioma continues to rise. Mesothelioma is almost invariably fatal, and more research is required, not only to find more effective treatments, but also to achieve an earlier diagnosis and improve palliative care. Following a debate in the House of Lords in July 2013, a package of measures was agreed, which included a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The partnership brought together patients, carers, health professionals and support organisations to agree the top 10 research priorities relating to the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients with mesothelioma. METHODS: Following the established James Lind Alliance priority setting process, mesothelioma patients, current and bereaved carers, and health professionals were surveyed to elicit their concerns regarding diagnosis, treatment and care. Research questions were generated from the survey responses, and following checks that the questions were currently unanswered, an interim prioritisation survey was conducted to identify a shortlist of questions to take to a final consensus meeting. FINDINGS: Four hundred and fifty-three initial surveys were returned, which were refined into 52 unique unanswered research questions. The interim prioritisation survey was completed by 202 responders, and the top 30 questions were taken to a final meeting where mesothelioma patients, carers, and health professionals prioritised all the questions, and reached a consensus on the top 10. INTERPRETATION: The top 10 questions cover a wide portfolio of research (including assessing the value of immunotherapy, individualised chemotherapy, second-line treatment and immediate chemotherapy, monitoring patients with pleural thickening, defining the management of ascites in peritoneal mesothelioma, and optimising follow-up strategy). This list is an invaluable resource, which should be used to inform the prioritisation and funding of future mesothelioma research.

Interim results in clinical trials: do we need to keep all interim randomised clinical trial results confidential?

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials emphasize the importance of keeping the interim results from the main endpoints confidential, in order to maintain the integrity of the trial and to safeguard patients' interests. However, is this essential in every situation? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We review the evidence for these guidelines and consider recent randomised trials that have released interim results, to assess their impact on the success of the trial. However, because the strength of opinion to keep interim results confidential is so strong, there are limited examples of such trials. RESULTS: In the QUARTZ trial (which is assessing the value of whole brain radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer) the decision to release interim results was taken in response to threatened closure due to poor accrual, whereas in the GRIT trial (which compared two obstetric strategies for the delivery of growth retarded pre-term fetuses) the regular release of interim results was pre-planned. Nevertheless there are a number of common factors between these two trials. In particular, the trial treatments were already in wide use, with no reliable randomised evidence on which treatment should be used for which patients, and there was diverse clinical opinion, which meant that accrual was likely to be challenging. In a situation where a quarter to a third of trials do not accrue their required number of patients, the QUARTZ trial continues to accrue patients, and the GRIT trial successfully accrued its target of nearly 600 babies. CONCLUSIONS: This article therefore argues that there is a need to re-consider whether it is always essential to keep the interim results of randomized clinical trials confidential, and suggests some criteria that may help groups planning or running challenging trials decide whether releasing interim results would be a useful strategy.

Interim data from the Medical Research Council QUARTZ Trial: does whole brain radiotherapy affect the survival and quality of life of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer?

AIMS: Over 30% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop brain metastases. If inoperable, optimal supportive care (OSC), including steroids, and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) are generally considered to be standard care, although there is no randomised evidence demonstrating that the addition of WBRT to OSC improves survival or quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: QUARTZ is a randomised, non-inferiority, phase III trial comparing OSC + WBRT versus OSC in patients with inoperable brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QUARTZ was threatened with both loss of funding and early closure due to poor accrual. A lack of preliminary randomised data supporting the trial's hypotheses was thought to underlie the poor accrual, so, with no knowledge of the data, the independent trial steering committee agreed to the unusual step of releasing interim data. RESULTS: Between March 2007 and April 2010, 151 (of the planned 534) patients were randomised (75 OSC + WBRT, 76 OSC). Participants' baseline demographics included median age 67 years (interquartile range 62-73), 60% male, 50% with a Karnofsky performance status <70; steroid usage was similar in the two groups; 64/75 (85%) received WBRT (20 Gy in five fractions). Median survival was: OSC + WBRT 49 days (95% confidence interval 39-61), OSC 51 days (95% confidence interval 27-57) - hazard ratio 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53) in favour of WBRT. Quality of life assessed using EQ-5D showed no evidence of a difference. The estimated mean QALYs was: OSC + WBRT 31 days and OSC 30 days, difference -1 day (95% confidence interval -12.0 to +13.2 days). CONCLUSION: These interim data indicate no early evidence of detriment to quality of life, overall survival or QALYs for patients allocated to OSC alone. They provide key information for discussing the trial with patients and strengthen the argument for continuing QUARTZ to definitively answer this important clinical question.

Chemotherapy dose reductions in obese patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In cancer patients with a large Body Surface Area, chemotherapy drug doses are often reduced, as studies have suggested that their pharmacokinetics may be altered. However, this strategy may result in underdosing obese patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In three Medical Research Council trials of chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer, dose reductions were not mandated. This provided the opportunity to compare the toxicity levels in those obese patients fully dosed and to investigate if those under dosed experienced a worse survival. Body Mass Index (BMI) was used to classify patients as normal weight (BMI < 25), overweight (BMI 25-29), or obese (BMI 30+). RESULTS: Of the 4781 patients, 2158 (45%) were classified as normal weight, 1753 (37%) as overweight, and 870 (18%) as obese. There was no evidence that, in those patients fully dosed, obese patients experienced more toxicity or that dose-reducing obese patients resulted in less toxicity. However, there was a suggestion that those obese patients who were given reduced doses had a worse progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.39, P = 0.006] and a slightly worse overall survival (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96-1.30, P = 0.152). CONCLUSION: These results, although not a randomised comparison, do not support the policy of reducing chemotherapy doses for obese patients with colorectal cancer.

Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Many randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook two comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analyses to establish the effects of adding adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery, or to surgery plus radiotherapy. METHODS: We included randomised trials, not confounded by additional therapeutic differences between the two groups and that started randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1965, which compared surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone, or surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy. Updated individual patient data were collected, checked, and included in meta-analyses stratified by trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death by any cause. All analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: The first meta-analysis of surgery plus chemotherapy versus surgery alone was based on 34 trial comparisons and 8447 patients (3323 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.92, p<0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% (95% CI 3-6) at 5 years (from 60% to 64%). The second meta-analysis of surgery plus radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy was based on 13 trial comparisons and 2660 patients (1909 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.97, p=0.009), representing an absolute improvement in survival of 4% (95% CI 1-8) at 5 years (from 29% to 33%). In both meta-analyses we noted little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics, or patient subgroup. INTERPRETATION: The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer improves survival, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was adjuvant to surgery alone or adjuvant to surgery plus radiotherapy. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (AOM 05 209), Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

The strength of female sex as a prognostic factor in small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of chemotherapy trials from the Manchester Lung Group and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported that women survive longer than men, but experience greater toxicity, when treated for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: Individual patient data from six randomized phase II/III chemotherapy trials, from the Manchester Lung Group and UK Medical Research Council, were pooled for analysis. End points included overall survival, response rate, toxicity, dose intensity (DI) and transfusion rates. RESULTS: Of 1707 patients analyzed, 44% were women. At baseline, women had poorer performance status (PS) (57% versus 67% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0-1/Karnofsky PS 80-100, P = 0.0004) and more were of normal weight or underweight (57% versus 48%, P = 0.003), but fewer were anemic (25% versus 62%, P < 0.0001). Response rates between women and men were similar (77% versus 76%, P = 0.64). In univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.96, P = 0.006] and multivariate (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99, P = 0.04) analyses, female sex predicted for longer survival. Women experienced more grade 3/4 emesis (18% versus 9%, P < 0.0001) and grade 3/4 mucositis (13% versus 8%, P = 0.005) than men. There were no differences in DI, infections, transfusions or treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Data from >1700 patients in randomized SCLC chemotherapy trials confirm that women survive modestly longer than men but may experience greater toxicity.

Assessment of quality of life in the supportive care setting of the big lung trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Big Lung Trial (BLT) was a large, pragmatic trial to evaluate the addition of chemotherapy to primary treatment (ie, surgery, radical radiotherapy, or supportive care) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the supportive care group, there was a small but significant survival benefit in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone (no chemotherapy). A substudy was undertaken to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) implications of the treatment options. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and LC17, and daily diary cards. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC17 were collected at 0, 6 to 8, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Diary cards were completed during the first 12 weeks of the study. The primary end point was global QoL at 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were randomly assigned: 138 to no chemotherapy and 135 to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of a large detrimental effect on QoL of chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in global QoL or physical/emotional functioning, fatigue and dyspnea, and pain were detected at 12 weeks. Higher rates of palliative radiotherapy in the no chemotherapy arm may have lessened differences in QoL. Global QoL, role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and constipation were prognostic indicators of survival at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: There were no important adverse effects of chemotherapy on QoL.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). RESULTS: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Identification of genes regulated by leukemia-inhibitory factor in the mouse uterus at the time of implantation.

The endometrium is prepared for implantation by the actions of estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4). In mice the luminal epithelium (LE) only becomes fully receptive to the attaching blastocyst in response to the nidatory estrogen surge on d 4 of pregnancy. The cytokine leukemia-inhibitory factor (LIF) is rapidly induced by nidatory estrogen and has been shown to be the primary mediator of its action. Implantation fails in the absence of LIF, and injection of LIF on d 4 of pregnancy can substitute for the nidatory estrogen. In this study, we sought to identify genes regulated by LIF in the uterine epithelium. We used oligonucleotide microarrays to compare the transcript profiles of paired uterine horns from LIF-deficient MF1 mice after intraluminal injection of LIF or PBS on d 4 of pseudopregnancy. IGF-binding protein 3 was identified as a gene up-regulated by LIF; this was confirmed by RT-PCR. In situ hybridization showed that the primary site of IGF-binding protein 3 expression is the luminal epithelium (LE), the known site of LIF action in the uterus. We identified two other genes: amphiregulin and immune response gene-1, the expression of which were also up-regulated by LIF. Immune response gene 1 has recently been shown to be essential for implantation. Expression of all three of these genes in the LE is known to be regulated by P4. The expression of osteoblast-specific factor 2 and leukocyte 12/15 lipoxygenase, which are also expressed in LE under the control of P4, were not increased by LIF. This suggests that one of the actions of LIF on LE may be to enhance the expression of a subset of P4-regulated genes.

Chemotherapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: the surgical setting of the Big Lung Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) meta-analysis suggested a survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy when given in addition to surgery, radical radiotherapy or 'best supportive care'. However, it included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. The aim of the Big Lung Trial was therefore to run a large pragmatic trial to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis. METHODS: In the surgery setting, a total of 381 patients were randomised to chemotherapy (C, 192 patients) or no chemotherapy (NoC, 189 patients). C was three 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin/vindesine, mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin, mitomycin/vinblastine/cisplatin or vinorelbine/cisplatin. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was given before surgery in 3% of patients whilst 97% received adjuvant chemotherapy. Baseline characteristics were: median age 61 years, 69% male, 48% squamous cell, 93% WHO PS 0-1, 27% stage I, 38% stage II, and 34% stage III. Complete resection was achieved in approximately 95% of patients. In the C group, 13% received no chemotherapy, 21% one or two cycles, and 64% all three cycles of their prescribed chemotherapy (60% of the latter with no delays or modification). 30% had grade 3/4 toxicity, mainly haematological, nausea/vomiting and neutropenic fever, and six patients were reported as having a treatment-related death. 198 (52%) of patients have died, but there is currently no evidence of a benefit in overall survival to the C group: HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.77-1.35), P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: This trial has failed to observe a survival benefit with adjuvant chemotherapy following complete resection of stage I-III NSCLC. However, the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are consistent with the previously reported meta-analysis and two large recently reported trials, which suggest a small survival benefit with cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Comparison of intermittent and continuous palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Policies of UK clinicians regarding the duration of chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer are not consistent. We aimed to compare effectiveness of continuous and intermittent chemotherapy in such patients. METHODS: Patients who responded or had stable disease after receiving 12 weeks of the regimens described by de Gramont and Lokich, or raltitrexed chemotherapy, were randomised to either intermittent (a break in chemotherapy, re-starting on the same drug on progression), or continuous chemotherapy until progression. FINDINGS: 354 patients (178 intermittent, 176 continuous) were enrolled from 42 UK centres. At randomisation, 41% of participants had part or complete response; 59% were stable. Only 66 (37%) patients allocated to intermittent treatment restarted as planned, after a median of 130 days. Median time on treatment after restarting was 84 days. Patients in the continuous group remained on treatment for a median of a further 92 days. Similar proportions of patients in both groups received second-line therapy. Patients on intermittent chemotherapy had significantly fewer toxic effects and serious adverse events than those in the continuous group. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.87 favouring intermittent, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p=0.23). INTERPRETATION: Our findings provided no clear evidence of a benefit in continuing therapy indefinitely until disease progression. They showed that it is safe to stop chemotherapy after 12 weeks and re-start the same treatment on progression in patients with chemosensitive advanced colorectal cancer.

Comparison of survival, palliation, and quality of life with three chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomised trial compared three chemotherapy regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, in terms of their effect on overall and progression-free survival; other endpoints included toxicity, symptom palliation, and quality of life. METHODS: 905 patients were randomly assigned the de Gramont regimen (n=303; folinic acid 200 mg/m(2), fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2), and infusion 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days), the Lokich regimen (n=301; protracted venous infusion of fluorouracil 300 mg/m(2) daily), or raltitrexed (n=301; 3 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up of survivors was 67 weeks. For the de Gramont, Lokich, and raltitrexed groups, respectively, median survival was 294, 302, and 266 days. The hazard ratios for overall survival were 0.88 (95% CI 0.70-1.12, p=0.17) for de Gramont versus Lokich, and 0.99 (0.79-1.25, p=0.94) for de Gramont versus raltitrexed. An increase in treatment-related deaths was seen on raltitrexed (de Gramont one, Lokich two, raltitrexed 18) due to combined gastrointestinal and haematological toxicity. Patients' assessment of quality of life showed that raltitrexed was inferior to the fluorouracil-based regimens, especially in terms of palliation and functioning. INTERPRETATION: The deGramont and Lokich regimens were similar in terms of survival, quality of life, and response rates. The Lokich regimen was associated with more central line complications and hand-foot syndrome. Raltitrexed showed similar response rates and overall survival to the de Gramont regimen and was easier to administer, but resulted in greater toxicity and inferior quality of life.

Costs and consequences of different chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer.

An economic sub-study was run alongside a large multi-centre randomised trial (MRC-CR06) comparing three chemotherapy regimens; de Gramont, Lokich and raltitrexed in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients in six of 45 centres in the main trial were approached to take part in the sub-study. Chemotherapy delivery costs were assessed in each sub-study centre with external validity verified by questionnaire to all other centres. Patient representativeness was assessed. Stochastic resource use data, including patient borne costs and non-hospital health service resource use were monitored prospectively. Mean total societal costs were de Gramont= 5051 pounds sterling (s.d. 1910 pounds sterling ), raltitrexed= 2616 pounds sterling (s.d. 991 pounds sterling ) and Lokich= 2576 pounds sterling (s.d. 1711 pounds sterling ). In pairwise comparisons, statistically significant mean total cost differences were shown for de Gramont vs Lokich (mean difference= 2475 pounds sterling , 95%CI 914 pounds sterling - 4037 pounds sterling , P<0.01) and for de Gramont vs raltitrexed (mean difference= 2435 pounds sterling, 95%CI 922 pounds sterling - 2948 pounds sterling , P<0.01). Sensitivity analyses showed little effect on overall costs. The main trial showed de Gramont and Lokich to be equally effective in terms of survival, quality of life and response rates but Lokich had higher toxicity and hand-foot syndrome. Raltitrexed showed similar response rates and overall survival but increased toxicity and inferior quality of life making it a clinically inferior regimen despite its ease of administration and costs. For a comparable clinical outcome, Lokich can be administered for approximately half the cost of de Gramont.

Comparative mapping of the human 9q34 region in Fugu rubripes.

Twenty-seven genes have been cloned and mapped in Fugu which have orthologues within the human chromosome 9q34 region. The genes are arranged into five cosmid and BAC contigs which physically map to two different Fugu chromosomes. Considering the gene content of these contigs, it is more probable that a translocation event took place early in the Fugu lineage to split the ancestral 9q34 region onto two chromosomes rather than the alternative hypothesis of a large-scale duplication of the region into two chromosomes with subsequent rapid and dramatic gene loss. There are considerable differences in gene order between the two species, which would appear to be the result of a series of complex chromosome inversions; thus suggesting that there have been no positional constraints on this particular gene set.

Treatment and outcomes for elderly patients with small cell lung cancer.

It is estimated that approximately half of the 500 000 people diagnosed with lung cancer worldwide every year are aged >70 years. Thus, this disease represents a major problem in the elderly and one that will indeed increase as the median age of the population increases. For small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for approximately 20% of cases of lung cancer, the primary treatment is chemotherapy and in the majority of cases the primary aim is to control the disease which generally would have spread beyond the lungs at the time of presentation. A small number of 'standard' chemotherapy regimens (combined with radiotherapy for patients with limited disease) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life and are widely used. Much of the work investigating the relationship between age and treatment outcomes has been based on clinical trial data and may itself be inherently biased due to trial eligibility criteria excluding elderly patients. However, there is no good evidence that elderly patients fare worse with treatment than their younger counterparts in terms of response rates and survival. Nevertheless with increasing age comes increasing concomitant illnesses which may account for the widely observed increases in drug toxicity, and this may be the primary consideration in selecting the treatment option. Thus for many elderly patients, carboplatin/ etoposide may be the treatment of choice because it is perhaps the least toxic of the standard regimens. Whatever regimen is chosen, the key to treatment effectiveness seems to be to deliver the first 3 or 4 cycles without delay or dosage reduction. Although palliation of symptoms remains a major goal in the treatment of all patients with SCLC there is a dearth of data on whether elderly patients are equally well palliated as their younger counterparts. There is no good evidence that age per se should be a factor in deciding whether patients should receive standard treatment rather than a more gentle approach, and more elderly patients should be included in clinical trials. The key areas where more information is required regarding the treatment and outcomes of elderly patients with SCLC are the assessment of palliation, and comprehensive reviews of all patients diagnosed with the disease, not just those included in trials.

Analysis of messy longitudinal data from a randomized clinical trial. MRC Lung Cancer Working Party.

The randomized clinical trial, LU19, conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party, was designed to compare ACE (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide) chemotherapy plus G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) at 2-week intervals versus ACE chemotherapy alone at standard 3-week intervals in patients with small-cell lung cancer. This trial investigated whether more intensive administration of ACE would improve overall survival and affect the quality of life of patients. The report on overall survival and other outcome measures will be published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In this paper we focus on methods of analysing aspects of data reflecting quality of life. Twelve symptoms of lung cancer and its treatment - cough, haemoptysis, pain, nausea, vomiting, hoarse voice, sore mouth, rash, lethargy, lack of appetite, alopecia, and dysphagia - were scheduled to be assessed on seven occasions for the ACE arm and on eight occasions for the ACE+G-CSF arm by clinicians during the first 18 weeks of the treatment period. However, in practice the number of assessment forms completed per patient ranged from 1 to 9, and assessment time-points were very different from those planned. These 'messy' longitudinal data are explored by both a summary measure approach, in which experience of a symptom is summarized by a single value, and an extensive model-based statistical approach, which explicitly takes into account correlation within repeated measures. These analyses provide a clear picture of symptom comparisons between the two treatments. The application of various methods offers not only an approach to assessing the robustness of the results but also a basis for investigating reasons for inconsistency of results across methods. We conclude that except lethargy, which is worse in the ACE+G-CSF arm, all symptoms are similar across the two arms during the treatment period.

Gemcitabine plus best supportive care (BSC) vs BSC in inoperable non-small cell lung cancer--a randomized trial with quality of life as the primary outcome. UK NSCLC Gemcitabine Group. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Three hundred patients with symptomatic, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not requiring immediate radiotherapy were enrolled into this randomized multicentre trial comparing gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC alone. Patients allocated gemcitabine received 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of six cycles. The main aim of this trial was to compare patient assessment of a predefined subset of commonly reported symptoms (SS14) from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 scales. The primary end-points were defined as (1) the percentage change in mean SS14 score between baseline and 2 months and (2) the proportion of patients with a marked (> or = 25%) improvement in SS14 score between baseline and 2 months sustained for > or =4 weeks. The secondary objectives were to compare treatments with respect to overall survival, and multidimensional QL parameters. The treatment groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and disease stage (40% had metastatic disease). The percentage change in mean SS14 score from baseline to 2 months was a 10% decrease (i.e. improvement) for gemcitabine plus BSC and a 1% increase (i.e. deterioration) for BSC alone (P = 0.113, two-sample t-test). A sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement (> or =25%) on SS14 was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of gemcitabine + BSC patients (22%) than in BSC alone patients (9%) (P = 0.0014, Pearson's chi-squared test). The QLQ-C30 and L13 subscales showed greater improvement in the gemcitabine plus BSC arm (in 11 domains) than in the BSC arm (one symptom item). There was greater deterioration in the BSC alone arm (six domains/items) than in the gemcitabine + BSC arm (three QL domains). Tumour response occurred in 19% (95% CI 13-27) of gemcitabine patients. There was no difference in overall survival: median 5.7 months (95% CI 4.6-7.6) for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.0-7.9) (log-rank, P = 0.84) for BSC patients, and 1 -year survival was 25% for gemcitabine + BSC and 22% for BSC. Overall, 74 (49%) gemcitabine + BSC patients and 119 (79%) BSC patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median time to radiotherapy was 29 weeks for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 3.8 weeks for BSC. Patients treated with gemcitabine + BSC reported better QL and reduced disease-related symptoms compared with those receiving BSC alone. These improvements in patient-assessed QL were significant in magnitude and were sustained.

Depression in patients with lung cancer: prevalence and risk factors derived from quality-of-life data.

PURPOSE: To evaluate self-reported depression rates in patients with inoperable lung cancer and to explore demographic, clinical, and quality-of-life (QOL) factors associated with depression and thus identify patients at risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred eighty-seven patients from three palliative treatment trials conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party formed the study sample. 526 patients (53%) had poor prognosis small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 461 patients (47%) had good prognosis non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale data and QOL items from the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist were analyzed, together with relevant demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Depression was self-rated in 322 patients (33%) before treatment and persisted in more than 50% of patients. SCLC patients had a three-fold greater prevalence of case depression than those with NSCLC (25% v 9%; P <.0001). An increased rate for women was found for good performance status (PS) patients (PS of 0 or 1) but the sex difference reduced for poor PS patients (PS of 3 or 4) because of increased depression rates for men (chi(2) for trend, P <.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that functional impairment was the most important risk factor; depression increased by 41% for each increment on the impairment scale. Pretreatment physical symptom burden, fatigue, and clinician-rated PS were also independent predictors, but cell type was not. CONCLUSION: Depression is common and persistent in lung cancer patients, especially those with more severe symptoms or functional limitations. Psychologic screening and appropriate intervention is an essential part of palliative care.