Survival and toxicity in patients with disseminated germ cell cancer aged 40 years and older.

BACKGROUND: Germ-cell cancer (GCC) patients aged ≥40 years have a two-fold higher GCC-specific mortality. It has been hypothesized that reduced treatment intensity combined with increased treatment related toxicity could be the explanation. The objective was to analyze chemotherapy intensity, treatment related toxicity and survival in patients aged ≥40 years treated with standard chemotherapy for GCC compared with a younger control group that received similar treatment during the same period. METHODS: From 1984 to 2011, 135 patients aged ≥40 years with disseminated GCC treated with bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP). A control-group of 135 patients aged 18-35 years was randomly selected matched on year of BEP treatment. Cumulated doses of BEP as well as bone marrow toxicity, renal- and lung functions were recorded before, during and after termination of treatment. All patients were followed until death or October 1, 2011. RESULTS: The cumulated doses of BEP were comparable between the two groups, however, more patients aged ≥40 years were reduced in bleomycin doses based on a decrease in carbon monoxide diffusion capacity corrected for haemoglobin (P = 0.03). No differences between the two groups were found regarding bone marrow toxicity or mean percentage changes in lung- or renal function. Patients aged ≥40 year had increased cancer specific mortality, HR = 4.8 (P = 0.005). In particular patients with disease progression after first line chemotherapy had increased mortality (P = 0.015). Moreover, the 5-year overall survival for patients aged ≥40 years was 82.5% compared to the expected 5-year survival of the background population of 96.3% (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment related toxicity could not explain the increased cancer specific mortality in patients aged ≥40 years compared to a younger control-group, and while there were no differences in the administrated doses of cisplatin/etoposide, a decreased number of bleomycin doses were administered in the older patients. Apart from this, the inferior prognosis could be related to tumour biology, increased co-morbidity, or more severe toxicity in relation to second line treatment.

Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. DESIGN: Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. DATA SOURCES: For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. RESULTS: Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening--overdiagnosis and false positive findings--were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.