Prognostic impact of education level of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status can potentially affect prognosis of cancer patients. Our aim was to describe potential differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment, and survival by education level in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) enrolled in clinical trials of first-line treatment. METHODS: Individual data of Italian patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IV, or IIIB with supraclavicular nodes or malignant pleural effusion), ECOG performance status (PS) 0-2, enrolled in four phase III randomized trials conducted between 1996 and 2005 were pooled. Information about education was available for 1680 of 1709 patients (98.3%). Patients were divided in two groups according to education level: high (patients with at least high school diploma) or low (those with less than high school diploma). Survival analyses were stratified by treatment arm within trial. RESULTS: There were 312 (19%) and 1368 (81%) patients with high and low education, respectively. Education level was significantly different among birth cohorts, with a time-trend toward higher education level. Patients with high education were significantly younger (median age 65 vs. 70), were less frequently unfit at diagnosis (ECOG PS2 5% vs. 16%), and their tumor type was more frequently adenocarcinoma (47% vs. 37%). Number of treatment cycles received was not significantly different between education groups. Median survival was 9.4 and 7.6 months in high and low education, respectively (p=0.012). At multivariable analysis, female sex, better PS and high education level (Hazard Ratio 0.85, 95%CI 0.73-0.99, p=0.03) were independently associated with longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: In Italian patients enrolled in four randomized trials of first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC, high education was significantly more frequent among younger patients, and was associated with lower proportion of PS2 patients. Education level did not significantly affect number of chemotherapy cycles received. Overall survival was longer in patients with high education, after adjustment for PS and other prognostic factors. The exact underlying mechanisms of the independent prognostic role of education level are substantially unknown, but lead-time bias (anticipation in diagnosis and time to inclusion in the trial), differences in adherence to care outside the trial procedures, differences in comorbidities and life-style factors may all contribute.

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine for elderly patients with advanced non small-cell lung cancer: the MILES-2P studies.

PURPOSE: Two phase I/II trials were done to evaluate the feasibility of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine or vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than 70 years of age and who had a performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. Cisplatin was given on day 1 (a starting dose of 50 mg/m2 with increasing increments of 10 mg/m2 at each level) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or vinorelbine (25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. A two-stage flexible optimal design was applied in the phase II study, and unacceptable toxicity was the primary end point. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients were enrolled: 38 in phase I and 121 in phase II studies. Cisplatin was feasible at 60 mg/m2 with gemcitabine and at 40 mg/m2 with vinorelbine. With the former combination, 50 of 60 (83.3%) patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 26 of 60 patients (43.5%; 95% CI, 30.6 to 56.8); median progression-free and overall survivals were 25.3 and 43.6 weeks, respectively. With the latter combination, 50 (82.0%) of 61 patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 22 of 61 patients (36.1%; 95% CI, 24.2 to 49.4); median progression-free and overall survivals were 21.1 and 33.1 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (40 mg/m2) plus vinorelbine are feasible and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. The former combination, which provides a higher dose of cisplatin, deserves comparison versus single-agent chemotherapy in this setting of patients.

Pretreatment quality of life and functional status assessment significantly predict survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy: a prognostic analysis of the multicenter Italian lung cancer in the elderly study.

PURPOSE: To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm. RESULTS: Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of three randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and myelosuppression is a common side-effect. We aimed to assess whether haematological toxic effects could be a biological measure of drug activity and a marker of efficacy. METHODS: We analysed data for 1265 patients who received chemotherapy (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine, cisplatin and vinorelbine, or cisplatin and gemcitabine) within three randomised trials. Primary landmark analyses were restricted to 436 patients who received all six planned chemotherapy cycles and who were alive 180 days after randomisation. Neutropenia was categorised on the basis of worst WHO grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). All statistical analyses were stratified by treatment allocation. Analyses were repeated in the out-of-landmark group (829 patients), stratifying by treatment allocation and number of chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS: In the landmark group, hazard ratios of death were 0.65 (0.46-0.93) for patients with severe neutropenia and 0.74 (0.56-0.98) for those with mild neutropenia. Median survival after the landmark time of 180 days was 31.4 weeks (95% CI 25.7-39.6) for patients without neutropenia compared with 42.0 weeks (32.7-59.7) for patients with severe neutropenia, and with 43.7 weeks (36.6-66.0) for those with mild neutropenia (severe vs mild vs no neutropenia p=0.0118). Findings were much the same for the out-of-landmark group. INTERPRETATION: Neutropenia during chemotherapy is associated with increased survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and its absence might be a result of underdosing. Prospective trials are needed to assess whether drug dosing guided by the occurrence of toxic effects could improve efficacy of standard regimens.

Supportive care in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

The present study describes supportive care (SC) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), evaluating whether it is affected by concomitant chemotherapy, patient's performance status (PS) and age. Data of patients enrolled in three randomised trials of first-line chemotherapy, conducted between 1996 and 2001, were pooled. The analysis was limited to the first three cycles of treatment. Supportive care data were available for 1185 out of 1312 (90%) enrolled patients. Gastrointestinal drugs (45.7%), corticosteroids (33.4%) and analgesics (23.8%) were the most frequently observed categories. The mean number of drugs per patient was 2.43; 538 patients (45.4%) assumed three or more supportive drugs. Vinorelbine does not produce substantial variations in the SC pattern, while cisplatin-based treatment requires an overall higher number of supportive drugs, with higher use of antiemetics (41 vs 27%) and antianaemics (10 vs 4%). Patients with worse PS are more exposed to corticosteroids (42 vs 30%). Elderly patients require drugs against concomitant diseases significantly more than adults (20 vs 7%) and are less frequently exposed to antiemetics (12 vs 27%). In conclusion, polypharmacotherapy is a relevant issue in patients with advanced NSCLC. Chemotherapy does not remarkably affect the pattern of SC, except for some drugs against side effects. Elderly patients assume more drugs for concomitant diseases and receive less antiemetics than adults.

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient's quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.

Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) phase III randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Vinorelbine prolongs survival and improves quality of life in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Some studies have also suggested that gemcitabine is well tolerated and effective in such patients. We compared the effectiveness and toxicity of the combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine with those of each drug given alone in an open-label, randomized phase III trial in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older, enrolled between December 1997 and November 2000, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) of body surface area), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m(2)), or vinorelbine (25 mg/m(2)) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)). All treatments were delivered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoint was survival. Survival curves were drawn using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel test. Secondary endpoints were quality of life and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 698 patients available for intention-to-treat analysis, 233 were assigned to receive vinorelbine, 233 to gemcitabine, and 232 to vinorelbine plus gemcitabine. Compared with each single drug, the combination treatment did not improve survival. The hazard ratio of death for patients receiving the combination treatment was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.44) that of patients receiving vinorelbine and 1.06 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.29) that of patients receiving gemcitabine. Although quality of life was similar across the three treatment arms, the combination treatment was more toxic than the two drugs given singly. CONCLUSION: The combination of vinorelbine plus gemcitabine is not more effective than single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.