Comparing patients' and their partners' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Preferences of women who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer were compared with those of their partners by determining the smallest benefits they judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. METHODS: Forty-six women and their partners were interviewed separately, 3-34 months after completing adjuvant chemotherapy. Preferences were elicited using four sets of validated, hypothetical trade-off scenarios about the possible benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival times (5 and 15 years) and survival rates (65% and 85% at 5 years). Agreement within couples was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Associations between baseline characteristics, preferences, and agreement within couples were assessed with linear regression after normal score transformation. RESULTS: The mean age of the women was 57 years and of their partners' was 60. Most couples were married (91%). Benefits of an extra 1 day or 0.1% were judged sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile by 59-72% of women and 54-59% of partners. Agreement was exact in 35-41% of couples and approximate in 59-83%. Agreement was better for scenarios with a worse prognosis (ICC 0.67 and 0.35) than for scenarios with a better prognosis (ICC 0.13 and 0.05). Having dependent children was associated with partners requiring larger benefits but patients requiring smaller benefits to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile (interaction P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients' and partners' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy differed and were influenced by considerations other than length and quality of life. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians who are aware of these differences can tailor discussions to ensure that all interested parties understand and agree on the goals and benefits of treatment.

The median informs the message: accuracy of individualized scenarios for survival time based on oncologists' estimates.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy and usefulness of oncologists' estimates of survival time in individual patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one oncologists estimated the "median survival of a group of identical patients" for each of 114 patients with advanced cancer. Accuracy was defined by the proportions of patients with an observed survival time bounded by prespecified multiples of their estimated survival time. We expected 50% to live longer (or shorter) than their oncologist's estimate (calibration), 50% to live from half to double their estimate (typical scenario), 5% to 10% to live ≤ one quarter of their estimate (worst-case scenario), and 5% to 10% to live three or more times their estimate (best-case scenario). Estimates within 0.67 to 1.33 times observed survival were deemed precise. Discriminative value was assessed with Harrell's C-statistic and prognostic significance with proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Median survival time was 11 months. Oncologists' estimates were relatively well-calibrated (61% shorter than observed), imprecise (29% from 0.67 to 1.33 times observed), and moderately discriminative (Harrell C-statistic 0.63; P = .001). The proportion of patients with an observed survival half to double their oncologist's estimate was 63%, ≤ one quarter of their oncologist's estimate was 6%, and three or more times their oncologist's estimate was 14%. Independent predictors of observed survival were oncologist's estimate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92; P = .004), dry mouth (HR = 5.1; P < .0001), alkaline phosphatase more than 101 U/L (HR = 2.8; P = .0002), Karnofsky performance status ≤ 70 (HR = 2.3; P = .007), prostate primary (HR = 0.23; P = .002), and steroid use (HR = 2.4; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Oncologists' estimates of survival time were relatively well-calibrated, moderately discriminative, independently associated with observed survival, and a reasonable basis for estimating worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival.

Cancer-related fatigue in women with breast cancer: outcomes of a 5-year prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Prolonged and disabling fatigue is prevalent after cancer treatment, but the early natural history of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) has not been systematically examined to document consistent presence of symptoms. Hence, relationships to cancer, surgery, and adjuvant therapy are unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study of women receiving adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer was conducted. Women (n = 218) were enrolled after surgery and observed at end treatment and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months as well as 5 years. Structured interviews and self-report questionnaires were used to record physical and psychologic health as well as disability and health care utilization. Patients with CRF persisting for 6 months were assessed to exclude alternative medical and psychiatric causes of fatigue. Predictors of persistent fatigue, mood disturbance, and health care utilization were sought by logistic regression. RESULTS: The case rate for CRF was 24% (n = 51) postsurgery and 31% (n = 69) at end of treatment; it became persistent in 11% (n = 24) at 6 months and 6% (n = 12) at 12 months. At each time point, approximately one third of the patients had comorbid mood disturbance. Persistent CRF was predicted by tumor size but not demographic, psychologic, surgical, or hematologic parameters. CRF was associated with significant disability and health care utilization. CONCLUSION: CRF is common but generally runs a self-limiting course. Much of the previously reported high rates of persistent CRF may be attributable to factors unrelated to the cancer or its treatment.

Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared oral capecitabine, administered intermittently or continuously, versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line chemotherapy for women with advanced breast cancer unsuited to more intensive regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three eligible women were randomly assigned to capecitabine administered intermittently (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 of every 21 days; n = 107) or continuously (650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 21 of every 21 days; n = 107), or to classical CMF (oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) days 1 to 14 with intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 28 days; n = 109). The primary end point was quality-adjusted progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included PFS, overall survival (OS), objective tumor response, and adverse events. Intermittent and continuous capecitabine were to be compared first and, if similar (P > .05), combined for definitive comparisons versus CMF. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted PFS (P = .2), objective tumor response rate (20%; P = .8), and PFS (median, 6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10; P = .2) were similar in women assigned capecitabine versus CMF. OS was longer in women assigned capecitabine rather than CMF (median, 22 v 18 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; P = .02). Febrile neutropenia, infection, stomatitis, and serious adverse events were more common with CMF; hand-foot syndrome was more common with capecitabine. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine improved OS by being similarly active, less toxic, and more tolerable than CMF. Capecitabine is a good first-line chemotherapy option for women with advanced breast cancer who are unsuited to more intensive regimens.

Supporting treatment decision making in advanced cancer: a randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with advanced colorectal cancer considering chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Decision making in advanced cancer is increasingly complex. We developed a decision aid (DA) for patients with advanced colorectal cancer who are considering first-line chemotherapy and reviewing treatment options, prognostic information, and toxicities. We examined its impact on patient understanding, treatment decisions, decisional conflict, decision making, consultation satisfaction, anxiety, and quality of life by using a randomized trial design. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 207 patients with colorectal cancer who were considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive a standard medical oncology consultation or a consultation in which the DA (take-home booklet with audio recording, reviewed by an oncologist) was used. Participants completed questionnaires postconsultation, postdecision, and 1 month later. RESULTS: In this study, 100 patients were randomly assigned to the control arm, and 107 received the DA. Median age of the sample was 62 years, 58% were male, 89% had a performance status of 0 or 1, and 36% had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receiving the DA demonstrated a greater increase in understanding of prognosis, options, and benefits, with higher overall understanding (P < .001). Decisional conflict, treatment decisions, and achievement of involvement preferences were similar between the groups. Anxiety was similar across groups and decreased over time. Most patients were confident in a decision during the first consultation; 74% chose chemotherapy, 7% supportive care alone, and 10% observation. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial of a decision aid in advanced cancer showed that its use in advanced colorectal cancer improved patient understanding of prognosis, treatment options, risks, and benefits without increasing anxiety. DAs can improve informed consent and can be tested through randomized trials even in the advanced cancer setting.

Psychosocial factors and patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Many women who have had adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer judge small benefits sufficient to make it worthwhile despite significant side effects and inconvenience. The rationality of these preferences has been questioned. We sought to better understand such preferences by assessing associations between preferences and psychosocial factors, and by asking women who judged negligible benefits sufficient to explain why. METHODS: We recruited 83 consecutive consenting women who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer 3-34 months earlier. Preferences were elicited during a structured, scripted interview using four sets of validated, hypothetical trade-off scenarios about the possible benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival times (5 and 15 years) and rates (65 and 85% at 5 years). Women completed questionnaires measuring anxiety, depression, optimism, quality and quantity of social support, and illness perceptions. RESULTS: More than half the women judged benefits of 1 day or 0.1% sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. The most important factors in multivariable models were whether the woman had dependants and number of non-specific symptoms attributed to breast cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy since completing treatment. The proportion of variance explained was modest. Preferences were not associated with: scores for anxiety, optimism, and perceived quality and quantity of social support. Explanations for judging negligible benefits sufficient included minimising regret, parenting concerns, doubts about the information provided and feeling that they had no choice. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences were highly variable and influenced by women's unique circumstances and attitudes, but not by their anxiety or optimism scores.

Effect of sertraline on symptoms and survival in patients with advanced cancer, but without major depression: a placebo-controlled double-blind randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression, anxiety, fatigue, and impaired wellbeing are common, important, and closely related in advanced cancer. We aimed to identify the effects of an established antidepressant on these symptoms and survival in patients with advanced cancer who did not have major depression as assessed by clinicians. METHODS: Between July, 2001, and February, 2006, 189 patients with advanced cancer were randomly assigned sertraline 50 mg (n=95), or placebo (n=94), once per day. The primary outcome was depression as assessed by the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D); the main secondary outcomes were: anxiety as assessed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS-A); overall quality of life and fatigue as assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General and Fatigue scales (FACT-G and FACT-F, respectively); and clinicians' ratings of quality of life by use of Spizter's Quality of Life Index (SQLI). Multiple measures were used for corroboration of the most important outcomes. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on scale scores at 4 weeks and 8 weeks. The benefits of sertraline compared with placebo are expressed on a range from +100 (ie, maximum benefit) to -100 (ie, maximum harm); a difference of 10 was deemed clinically significant. This clinical trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN72466475. FINDINGS: Sertraline had no significant effect (scale, benefit over placebo [95% CI]) on depression (CES-D 0.4 [-2.6 to 3.4]), anxiety (HADS-A 2.0 [-1.5 to 5.5]), fatigue (FACT-F 0.3 [-4.3 to 4.9]), overall quality of life (FACT-G 1.7 [-1.3 to 4.7]), or clinicians' ratings (SQLI 2.0 [-2.5 to 6.5]), and the 95% CI ruled out a clinically significant benefit for all main outcomes. Sertraline was discontinued more often and earlier than was placebo (hazard ratio 1.46 [1.03-2.06], p=0.03). Recruitment was stopped after the first planned interim analysis in February 2006 (n=150) showed that survival was longer in patients assigned placebo than in patients assigned sertraline (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.60 [95% CI 1.04-2.45], log-rank p=0.04; adjusted hazard ratio 1.62 [1.06-2.41], Cox model p=0.02). However, at the final analysis in July 2006 of all patients (n=189) and with longer follow-up, survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.35 [0.95-1.91], log-rank p=0.09; adjusted hazard ratio 1.27 [0.87-1.84], Cox model p=0.20). The trial was closed because it had ruled out a significant benefit of sertraline. INTERPRETATION: Sertraline did not improve symptoms, wellbeing, or survival in patients with advanced cancer who do not have major depression, and should be reserved for those with a proven indication.