Brief Hospital Supervision of Exercise and Diet During Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy Is Not Enough to Relieve Fatigue: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Supervised exercise dietary programs are recommended to relieve cancer-related fatigue and weight increase induced by adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer (EBC). As this recommendation lacks a high level of evidence, we designed a multicenter randomized trial to evaluate the impact of an Adapted Physical Activity Diet (APAD) education program on fatigue. We randomized 360 women with EBC who were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy to APAD or usual care at eight French cancer institutions. Data were collected at baseline, end of chemotherapy, end of radiotherapy, and 6 months post-treatment. The primary endpoint was the general cancer-related fatigue score using the MFI-20 questionnaire. Fatigue correlated with the level of precariousness, but we found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of general fatigue (p = 0.274). The APAD arm has a smaller proportion of patients with confirmed depression at the end of follow-up (p = 0.052). A transient modification in physical activity levels and dietary intake was reported in the experimental arm. However, a mixed hospital- and home-based APAD education program is not enough to improve fatigue caused by adjuvant treatment of EBC. Cancer care centers should consider integrating more proactive diet-exercise supportive care in this population, focusing on precarious patients.

Quality of life and cost of strategies of two chemotherapy lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the FFCD 2000-05 trial.

Objectives: This study compared the cost and quality of life (QoL) of 407 advanced colorectal cancer patients, randomly assigned to receive LV5FU2 followed by FOLFOX6 (sequential strategy) or FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI (combination strategy). Methods: Costs were compared from the French health insurance perspective, until the end of the second line of treatment. Consumed resources, collected during the trial, included medicines, hospitalizations, examinations, and transportation. Valuations were made using 2009 and 2016 tariffs. QoL was assessed using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire and clinically significant variations were searched. Results: In 2009, the mean cost per patient was significantly lower for the sequential strategy compared to the combination strategy (18,061€ and 23,119€, p = 0.001). In 2016, the difference was no longer significant (16,876€ and 18,090€, p = 0.41) because oxaliplatin and irinotecan became generics. The QoL analysis (292 patients) showed that there was significantly less improvement of global health status in the sequential strategy than in the combination strategy (29% and 42%; p = 0.02) during first-line therapy. No significant differences were observed for emotional functioning (p = 0.45) and physical functioning (p = 0.07) or during second-line therapy. Conclusion: The choice to treat patients with advanced colorectal cancer using one or the other strategy cannot be based on costs or QoL.

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, phase III study of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a French intergroup (Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive, Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, and Groupe Coopérateur Multidisciplinaire en Oncologie) study.

PURPOSE: To compare epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatments in patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open, randomized, phase III study was carried out in 71 centers. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or EGJ cancer were randomly assigned to receive either ECX as first-line treatment (ECX arm) or FOLFIRI (FOLFIRI arm). Second-line treatment was predefined (FOLFIRI for the ECX arm and ECX for the FOLFIRI arm). The primary criterion was time-to-treatment failure (TTF) of the first-line therapy. Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: In all, 416 patients were included (median age, 61.4 years; 74% male). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median TTF was significantly longer with FOLFIRI than with ECX (5.1 v 4.2 months; P = .008). There was no significant difference between the two groups in median PFS (5.3 v 5.8 months; P = .96), median OS (9.5 v 9.7 months; P = .95), or response rate (39.2% v 37.8%). First-line FOLFIRI was better tolerated (overall rate of grade 3 to 4 toxicity, 69% v 84%; P < .001; hematologic adverse events [AEs], 38% v 64.5%; P < .001; nonhematologic AEs: 53% v 53.5%; P = .81). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and EGJ cancer demonstrated significantly better TTF than did ECX. Other outcome results indicate that FOLFIRI is an acceptable first-line regimen in this setting and should be explored as a backbone regimen for targeted agents.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0-2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m(2)) and infusional (2400 mg/m(2)) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256. FINDINGS: 205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6-11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0-11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3-4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p<0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p<0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis France.