Treatment with trastuzumab for 1 year after adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a 4-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We aimed to assess disease-free survival and overall survival after a median follow-up of 4 years for patients enrolled on the Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. METHODS: The HERA trial is an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing treatment with trastuzumab for 1 and 2 years with observation after standard neoadjuvant, adjuvant chemotherapy, or both in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. After a positive first interim analysis at a median follow-up of 1 year for the comparison of treatment with trastuzumab for 1 year with observation, event-free patients in the observation group were allowed to cross over to receive trastuzumab. We report trial outcomes for the 1-year trastuzumab and observation groups at a median follow-up of 48·4 months (IQR 42·0-56·5) and assess the effect of the extensive crossover to trastuzumab. Our analysis was by intention-to-treat. The HERA trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2005-002385-11. FINDINGS: The HERA trial population comprised 1698 patients randomly assigned to the observation group and 1703 to the 1-year trastuzumab group. Intention-to-treat analysis of disease-free survival showed a significant benefit in favour of patients in the 1-year trastuzumab group (4-year disease-free survival 78·6%) compared with the observation group (4-year disease-free survival 72·2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0·76; 95% CI 0·66-0·87; p<0·0001). Intention-to-treat analysis of overall survival showed no significant difference in the risk of death (4-year overall survival 89·3%vs 87·7%, respectively; HR 0·85; 95% CI 0·70-1·04; p=0·11). Overall, 885 patients (52%) of the 1698 patients in the observation group crossed over to receive trastuzumab, and began treatment at median 22·8 months (range 4·5-52·7) from randomisation. In a non-randomised comparison, patients in the selective-crossover cohort had fewer disease-free survival events than patients remaining in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·68; 95% CI 0·51-0·90; p=0·0077). Higher incidences of grade 3-4 and fatal adverse events were noted on 1-year trastuzumab than in the observation group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, each in less than 1% of patients, were congestive cardiac failure, hypertension, arthralgia, back pain, central-line infection, hot flush, headache, and diarrhoea. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year after chemotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefit at 4-year median follow-up. The substantial selective crossover of patients in the observation group to trastuzumab was associated with improved outcomes for this cohort. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche, Michelangelo Foundation.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with advanced breast cancer: long-term analysis of the previously published trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to perform an independent review of the efficacy data and to determine whether the efficacy difference observed in a phase III randomised clinical trial that compared doxorubicin plus paclitaxel (AT) versus fluorouracil/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (FAC) in first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer was maintained after a longer follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A blinded independent review of original radiological images and original case report forms (CRFs) was conducted by an expert radiologist and an expert medical oncologist, respectively. The analysis of the updated data included time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: CRFs for all 267 patients randomised in the study were available for medical review. The results of the independent review were consistent with the original analysis. At a median follow-up of 69 months, the difference in median TTP and OS in favour of the AT arm remained significant (median TTP 8.1 vs. 6.2 months, (p = 0.036); OS 23.0 vs. 18.3 months, (p = 0.005), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This blinded independent review and analysis of updated data confirmed the advantage for AT over FAC with regard to TTP and OS in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E. FINDINGS: 325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10.2 months vs 5.4 months; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; p=0.0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.

Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mitoxantrone plus prednisone reduces pain and improves the quality of life in men with advanced, hormone-refractory prostate cancer, but it does not improve survival. We compared such treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone in men with this disease. METHODS: From March 2000 through June 2002, 1006 men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer received 5 mg of prednisone twice daily and were randomly assigned to receive 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter of body-surface area every three weeks, 75 mg of docetaxel per square meter every three weeks, or 30 mg of docetaxel per square meter weekly for five of every six weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were pain, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and the quality of life. All statistical comparisons were against mitoxantrone. RESULTS: As compared with the men in the mitoxantrone group, men in the group given docetaxel every three weeks had a hazard ratio for death of 0.76 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.94; P=0.009 by the stratified log-rank test) and those given weekly docetaxel had a hazard ratio for death of 0.91 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.11; P=0.36). The median survival was 16.5 months in the mitoxantrone group, 18.9 months in the group given docetaxel every 3 weeks, and 17.4 months in the group given weekly docetaxel. Among these three groups, 32 percent, 45 percent, and 48 percent of men, respectively, had at least a 50 percent decrease in the serum PSA level (P<0.001 for both comparisons with mitoxantrone); 22 percent, 35 percent (P=0.01), and 31 percent (P=0.08) had predefined reductions in pain; and 13 percent, 22 percent (P=0.009), and 23 percent (P=0.005) had improvements in the quality of life. Adverse events were also more common in the groups that received docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: When given with prednisone, treatment with docetaxel every three weeks led to superior survival and improved rates of response in terms of pain, serum PSA level, and quality of life, as compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone.

Effect of chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer on patients' quality of life. A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) do not have curative treatment options; therefore, treatments should prolong survival and improve quality of life (QoL). We compared the effect on QoL of two docetaxel-platinum regimens with vinorelbine-cisplatin. METHODS: QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and the general EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) in 926 chemotherapy-naïve patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive: docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin 6 mg/ml min, every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2, every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Overall, patients treated with either docetaxel-containing regimen had better QoL than VC-treated patients (LCSS global item "QoL today": P=0.064 for DC and P=0.016 for DCb versus VC; EQ-5D global item "health state today": P=0.016 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC). DC-treated patients experienced improved pain relief compared with VC (P=0.033), whereas pain relief with DCb and VC was similar. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had more favorable changes in performance status (P=0.065 for DC and P<0.001 for DCb versus VC) and mean weight loss (0.06 kg, gain of 0.08 kg, and 2.27 kg for DC, DCb, and VC, respectively; P<0.001 for both DC versus VC and DCb versus VC). CONCLUSION: The TAX 326 study shows that docetaxel-platinum regimens relieve symptoms and improve QoL in patients with advanced NSCLC. DCb and DC were superior to VC in all QoL outcomes assessed except for the difference between DC and VC in LCSS "QoL today", which was not significant.

Amifostine improves hemodynamic parameters in doxorubicin-pretreated rabbits.

Amifostine reduces nephrotoxicity and myelotoxicity of alkylating agents. Little is known about its role in preventing cardiotoxicity. We studied if amifostine could affect the hemodynamic parameters in doxorubicin-pretreated rabbits. The animals were divided into six groups consisting of 6 rabbits each. Group 1--doxorubicin iv 2 mg/kg of body weight 4 times every 14 days (cumulative dose 8 mg/kg); group 2--a dose of doxorubicin was 3 mg/kg (cumulative dose 12 mg/kg); groups 3 and 4--amifostine iv 30 mg/kg 15 min prior to doxorubicin 2 and 3 mg/kg, respectively, groups 5 and 6--amifostine- and physiological saline-treated controls. Two-three weeks after the last dose the animals were anesthetized and cardiac index (CI) i.e. cardiac output/body weight, and total peripheral resistance (TPR) were calculated using the method of human I(125) albumin dilution. Mean CI was 71.4 +/- 40.5 ml/min/kg in group 2, 135.8 +/- 41.2 in group 5 (p < 0.001), and 116.4 +/- 47.8 in group 6 (p < 0.001), TPR was 4.7 +/- 3.3 kPa x s/l, 1.1 +/- 1.2 (p < 0.001), and 1.9 +/- 1.1 (p < 0.001), respectively. In group 4, CI was 135.4 +/- 33.2, and TPR was 1.1 +/- 0.6. The differences in CI and TPR between groups 2 and 4 were statistically significant (p < 0.001). In conclusion, pretreatment with doxorubicin at the total dose of 12 mg/kg significantly reduced CI and increased TPR. Amifostine improved CI and TPR in doxorubicin-pretreated rabbits.

Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus platinum combinations versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326 study group.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL * min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). RESULTS: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P =.044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P =.029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P =.657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P <.01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. CONCLUSION: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 1.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Phase III study of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19.

PURPOSE: N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m(2). Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P =.021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.

Phase III study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group.

PURPOSE: To analyze overall survival (OS) and update efficacy data for letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned 916 patients with hormone receptor-positive or unknown tumors letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 458) or tamoxifen 20 mg (n = 458) daily until disease progression. Optional cross-over was permitted at the treating physician's discretion. This report updates efficacy at a median follow-up of 32 months. RESULTS: The superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen was confirmed for time to progression (median, 9.4 v 6.0 months, respectively; P <.0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9 v 5.7 months, respectively; P <.0001), overall objective response rate (32% v 21%, respectively; P =.0002), and overall clinical benefit. Median OS was slightly prolonged for the randomized letrozole arm (34 v 30 months, respectively). Although this difference in OS is not significant, survival was improved in the randomized letrozole arm over the first 2 years of the study. Approximately one half of the patients in each arm crossed over. Total duration of endocrine therapy ("time to chemotherapy") was significantly longer (P =.005) for patients initially on letrozole (median, 16 months) than for patients initially on tamoxifen (median, 9 months). Time to worsening of Karnofsky performance score was significantly delayed with letrozole compared with tamoxifen (P =.001). CONCLUSION: This study documents the superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen in first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

The role of intratumoral therapy with cisplatin/epinephrine injectable gel in the management of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of targeted antitumor therapy with cisplatin/epinephrine injectable gel in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. DESIGN: Two prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trials of identical design. Crossover from blinded to open-label phase was permitted for patients with disease progression. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers in North America and Europe. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-nine intensively pretreated patients with recurrent or refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. INTERVENTION: Cisplatin/epinephrine injectable or placebo gel was administered by direct intratumoral injection; up to 6 weekly treatments. Dose was 0.25 mL of active or placebo gel per cubic centimeter of tumor up to 10 mL total. Patient benefit after local tumor control of the most symptomatic tumor was assessed by patients and physicians using the Treatment Goals Questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local tumor response and patient benefit attributable to improvements in tumor-related symptoms. RESULTS: Combined results for the 178 patients with evaluable data in the 2 trials confirmed objective tumor responses in 35 (29%) of 119 patients, including 23 (19%) complete responses achieved with cisplatin/epinephrine gel, vs 1 (2%) of 59 for placebo (P<.001). Tumor response and patient benefit were significantly correlated (P=.006): 47% (17/36) of patients with target tumor responses achieved a rigorously defined benefit based on a prospectively selected treatment goal vs 15% (22/142) of nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin/epinephrine injectable gel reduces tumor burden, ameliorates tumor symptoms, and provides a new therapeutic option for treating patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Multipeptide immune response to cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide associates with longer patient survival.

IMA901 is the first therapeutic vaccine for renal cell cancer (RCC) consisting of multiple tumor-associated peptides (TUMAPs) confirmed to be naturally presented in human cancer tissue. We treated a total of 96 human leukocyte antigen A (HLA-A)*02(+) subjects with advanced RCC with IMA901 in two consecutive studies. In the phase 1 study, the T cell responses of the patients to multiple TUMAPs were associated with better disease control and lower numbers of prevaccine forkhead box P3 (FOXP3)(+) regulatory T (T(reg)) cells. The randomized phase 2 trial showed that a single dose of cyclophosphamide reduced the number of T(reg) cells and confirmed that immune responses to multiple TUMAPs were associated with longer overall survival. Furthermore, among six predefined populations of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, two were prognostic for overall survival, and among over 300 serum biomarkers, we identified apolipoprotein A-I (APOA1) and chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) as being predictive for both immune response to IMA901 and overall survival. A randomized phase 3 study to determine the clinical benefit of treatment with IMA901 is ongoing.

Gemcitabine plus Paclitaxel versus Paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment.

PURPOSE: The objective of this phase III global study was to compare the efficacy of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel (GT) versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. It was designed as a pivotal study for the approval of G for a breast cancer treatment indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who relapsed after adjuvant anthracyclines were randomly assigned to gemcitabine,1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2) on day 1; or, to paclitaxel at same dose on day 1 (both arms administered every 21 days, unblinded). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progression-free survival, response duration, and toxicity. This final OS analysis was planned at 380 deaths. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were randomly assigned to GT and 263 to paclitaxel. Median survival on GT was 18.6 months versus 15.8 months on paclitaxel (log-rank P = . 0489), with an adjusted Cox hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0187). The TTP was longer (6.14 v 3.98 months; log-rank P = .0002) and the RR was better (41.4% v 26.2%; P = .0002) on GT. There was more grade 3 to 4 neutropenia on GT and grade 2 to 4 fatigue and neuropathy were slightly more prevalent on GT. CONCLUSION: This phase III study documents a role for gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy. The results establish GT as a reasonable choice for women who require cytoreduction with manageable toxicities and validate ongoing testing of GT in the adjuvant setting.

Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). CONCLUSION: Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Physical performance, toxicity, and quality of life as assessed by the physician and the patient.

The aim of this study was to study the relationship between physician-assessed quality of life parameters, i.e., toxicity and physical performance, and patients' self-reports of their quality of life (QoL). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. The WHO performance score (PS) and toxicity were assessed in physician interviews. The correlations between the WHO PS and the QLQ-C30 functioning scale scores varied from weak to moderate, depending on the scale. Strongest associations were found in physical-, social-, and role functioning, and in the global QoL. The QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea scales correlated moderately to corresponding WHO scores. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the contribution of WHO PS and toxicity variables to the global QoL. The best model explained only 16% of the variance of the global QoL score. The present findings highlight the importance of independent QoL assessments focused on those aspects of QoL not captured in clinical interviews with the physician.

Hereditary ovarian cancer in Poland.

There is increasing evidence that hereditary factors play a greater role in ovarian cancer than in any of the other common cancers of adulthood. This is attributable, to a large extent, to a high frequency of mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. In Poland, 3 common founder mutations in BRCA1 account for the majority of families with identified BRCA mutations. Our study was conducted in order to estimate the prevalence of any of 3 founder BRCA1 mutations (5382insC, C61G and 4153delA) in 364 unselected women with ovarian cancer, and among 177 women with ovarian cancer and a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. A mutation was identified in 49 out of 364 unselected women with ovarian cancer (13.5%) and in 58 of 177 women with familial ovarian cancer (32.8%). The majority of women with ovarian cancer and a BRCA1 mutation have no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The high frequency of BRCA1 mutations in Polish women with ovarian cancer supports the recommendation that all Polish women with ovarian cancer should be offered testing for genetic susceptibility, and that counseling services be made available to them and to their relatives. It is important that mutation surveys be conducted in other countries prior to the introduction of national genetic screening programs.