Racial Differences in Information Needs During and After Cancer Treatment: a Nationwide, Longitudinal Survey by the University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

Before treatment, cancer patients need information about side effects and prognosis, while after treatment they need information to transition to survivorship. Research documenting these needs is limited, especially among racial and ethnic minorities. This study evaluated cancer patients' needs according to race both before and after treatment. We compared white (n = 904) to black (n = 52) patients receiving treatment at 17 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites on their cancer-related concerns and need for information before and after cancer treatment. Two-sample t test and chi-squared analyses were used to assess group differences. Compared to white patients, black patients reported significantly higher concerns about diet (44.3 vs. 25.4 %,) and exercise (40.4 vs. 19.7 %,) during the course of treatment. Compared to whites, blacks also had significantly higher concern about treatment-related issues (white vs. black mean, 25.52 vs. 31.78), self-image issues (7.03 vs. 8.60), family-related issues (10.44 vs. 12.84), and financial concerns (6.42 vs. 8.90, all p < 0.05). Blacks, compared to whites, also had significantly greater post-treatment information needs regarding follow-up tests (8.17 vs. 9.44), stress management (4.12 vs. 4.89), and handling stigma after cancer treatment (4.21 vs. 4.89) [all p < 0.05]. Pre-treatment concerns and post-treatment information needs differed by race, with black patients reporting greater information needs and concerns. In clinical practice, tailored approaches may work particularly well in addressing the needs and concerns of black patients.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) provides a modest survival benefit. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against VEGF, improves outcomes when added to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced-stage non-squamous NSCLC. We aimed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage resected NSCLC. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and who had completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA (defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition) NSCLC. We enrolled patients from across the US National Clinical Trials Network, including patients from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) affiliates in Europe and from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, within 6-12 weeks of surgery. The chemotherapy regimen for each patient was selected before randomisation and administered intravenously; it consisted of four 21-day cycles of cisplatin (75 mg/m2 on day 1 in all regimens) in combination with investigator's choice of vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8), or pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1). Patients in the bevacizumab group received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days starting with cycle 1 of chemotherapy and continuing for 1 year. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to group A (chemotherapy alone) or group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), centrally, using permuted blocks sizes and stratified by chemotherapy regimen, stage of disease, histology, and sex. No one was masked to treatment assignment, except the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00324805. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2007, and Sept 20, 2013, 1501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 749 to group A (chemotherapy alone) and 752 to group B (chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). 383 (26%) of 1458 patients (with complete staging information) had stage IB, 636 (44%) had stage II, and 439 (30%) had stage IIIA disease (stage of disease data were missing for 43 patients). Squamous cell histology was reported for 422 (28%) of 1501 patients. All four cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens were used: 377 (25%) patients received vinorelbine, 343 (23%) received docetaxel, 283 (19%) received gemcitabine, and 497 (33%) received pemetrexed. At a median follow-up of 50·3 months (IQR 32·9-68·0), the estimated median overall survival in group A has not been reached, and in group B was 85·8 months (95% CI 74·9 to not reached); hazard ratio (group B vs group A) 0·99 (95% CI 0·82-1·19; p=0·90). Grade 3-5 toxicities of note (all attributions) that were reported more frequently in group B (the bevacizumab group) than in group A (chemotherapy alone) were overall worst grade (ie, all grade 3-5 toxicities; 496 [67%] of 738 in group A vs 610 [83%] of 735 in group B), hypertension (60 [8%] vs 219 [30%]), and neutropenia (241 [33%] vs 275 [37%]). The number of deaths on treatment did not differ between the groups (15 deaths in group A vs 19 in group B). Of these deaths, three in group A and ten in group B were considered at least possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Addition of bevacizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall survival for patients with surgically resected early-stage NSCLC. Bevacizumab does not have a role in this setting and should not be considered as an adjuvant therapy for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Rituximab extended schedule or retreatment trial for low tumour burden non-follicular indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol E4402.

The rituximab extended schedule or retreatment trial (RESORT; E4402) was a phase 3 randomized prospective trial comparing maintenance rituximab (MR) versus a retreatment (RR) dosing strategy in asymptomatic, low tumour burden indolent lymphoma. A planned exploratory sub-study compared the two strategies for small lymphocytic (SLL) and marginal zone lymphomas (MZL). Patients responding to rituximab weekly × 4 were randomized to MR (single dose rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure) or RR (rituximab weekly × 4) at the time of each progression until treatment failure. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTTF). Patients with SLL (n = 57), MZL (n = 71) and unclassifiable small B-cell lymphoma (n = 3) received induction rituximab. The overall response rate (ORR) was 40% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31-49%; SLL ORR 22·8%; MZL ORR 52·1%]; all 52 responders were randomized. At a median of 4·3 years from randomization, treatment failure occurred in 18/23 RR and 15/29 MR. The median TTTF was 1·4 years for RR and 4·8 years for MR (P = 0·012); median time to first cytotoxic therapy was 6·3 years for RR and not reached for MR (P = 0·0002). Survival did not differ (P = 0·72). In low tumour burden SLL and MZL patients responding to rituximab induction, MR significantly improved TTTF as compared with RR.

Exploring therapeutic decisions in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results and conclusions from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0222.

How do oncologists choose therapy for the elderly? Oncologists assigned patients aged 65 years or older with incurable non-small cell lung cancer to: (a) carboplatin (AUC = 2) + paclitaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 (28-day cycle × 4) followed by gefitinib; or (b) gefitinib 250 mg/day. With (a), 12 of 34 were progression-free at 6 months; median time to cancer progression was 3.9 months. With (b), the same occurred in 11 of 28 patients with the latter being 4.9 months. The most common reason for conventional chemotherapy was oncologists' opinion that the cancer was aggressive, and for gefitinib alone, patients' reluctance to receive chemotherapy. Interestingly, age had no influence.

The effect of tamoxifen or exemestane on bone mineral density during the first 2 years of adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors is associated with increased bone loss in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. We assessed changes in bone mineral density (BMD) from baseline to 24 months in patients receiving either tamoxifen (T) or exemestane (E). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 578 women randomly assigned to T 20 mg per day orally or E 25 mg/day orally enrolled in this substudy; baseline, 12-month, and 24-month BMD measurements of the femur and lumbar spine by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry were planned. Women receiving bone antiresorptive agents were excluded. Mean BMD changes from baseline to 12 and 24 months were tested between the treatment groups using 2-sample t tests and both g/cm2 (as percent changes) and T scores (as differences from baseline). RESULTS: A total of 167 women with all 3 imaging studies were evaluable and form the basis of this report (T=89, E=78). Using T scores, the mean difference from baseline was significant between the 2 groups at 12 months at both the spine (P=.0002) and the hip (P=.0004), and at 24 months only at the hip (P=.02). CONCLUSION: More bone loss occurred during the first 12 months of treatment with E compared with T, but by 2 years the differences were less apparent and bone loss with E had slowed.

Rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial for low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma: eastern cooperative oncology group protocol e4402.

PURPOSE: In low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL), maintenance rituximab (MR) has been shown to improve progression-free survival when compared with observation. It is not known whether MR provides superior long-term disease control compared with re-treatment rituximab (RR) administered on an as-needed basis. E4402 (RESORT) was a randomized clinical trial designed to compare MR against RR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with previously untreated low-tumor burden FL received four doses of rituximab, and responding patients were randomly assigned to either RR or MR. Patients receiving RR were eligible for re-treatment at each disease progression until treatment failure. Patients assigned to MR received a single dose of rituximab every 3 months until treatment failure. The primary end point was time to treatment failure. Secondary end points included time to first cytotoxic therapy, toxicity, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were randomly assigned to RR or MR. With a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.9 years for patients receiving RR and 4.3 years for those receiving MR (P = .54). Three-year freedom from cytotoxic therapy was 84% for those receiving RR and 95% for those receiving MR (P = .03). The median number of rituximab doses was four patients receiving RR and 18 for those receiving MR. There was no difference in HRQOL. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were infrequent in both arms. CONCLUSION: In low-tumor burden FL, a re-treatment strategy uses less rituximab while providing disease control comparable to that achieved with a maintenance strategy.