Life expectancy in older adults with advanced cancer: Evaluation of a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model.

OBJECTIVES: Oncologists estimate patients' prognosis to guide care. Evidence suggests oncologists tend to overestimate life expectancy, which can lead to care with questionable benefits. Information obtained from geriatric assessment may improve prognostication for older adults. In this study, we created a geriatric assessment-based prognostic model for older adults with advanced cancer and compared its performance to alternative models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a trial (URCC 13070; PI: Mohile) capturing geriatric assessment and vital status up to one year for adults age ≥ 70 years with advanced cancer. Oncologists estimated life expectancy as 0-6 months, 7-12 months, and > 1 year. Three statistical models were developed: (1) a model including age, sex, cancer type, and stage (basic model), (2) basic model + Karnofsky Performance Status (≤50, 60-70, and 80+) (KPS model), and (3) basic model +16 binary indicators of geriatric assessment impairments (GA model). Cox regression was used to model one-year survival; c-indices and time-dependent c-statistics assessed model discrimination and stratified survival curves assessed model calibration. RESULTS: We included 484 participants; mean age was 75; 48% had gastrointestinal or lung cancer. Overall, 43% of patients died within one year. Oncologists classified prognosis accurately for 55% of patients, overestimated for 35%, and underestimated for 10%. C-indices were 0.61 (basic model), 0.62 (KPS model), and 0.63 (GA model). The GA model was well-calibrated. CONCLUSIONS: The GA model showed moderate discrimination for survival, similar to alternative models, but calibration was improved. Further research is needed to optimize geriatric assessment-based prognostic models for use in older adults with advanced cancer.

Psychological predictors of chemotherapy-induced nausea in women with breast cancer: Expectancies and perceived susceptibility.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea is challenging to predict and treat. Research indicates that pretreatment psychological variables including patients' perceptions of their susceptibility to nausea, expectancies of treatment-related nausea and nausea history (i.e., motion sickness, morning sickness and baseline levels of nausea) may aid in predicting nausea severity during chemotherapy. However, this research is dated and limited in quantity. We investigated whether psychological variables could improve prediction of nausea severity to inform interventions targeting chemotherapy-induced nausea. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, a subgroup of women receiving chemotherapy (for the first time) for breast cancer completed pretreatment measures: perceived nausea susceptibility, nausea expectancies, nausea history and baseline nausea. They rated subsequent nausea severity across 4-days, during treatment and posttreatment in a self-report diary. Structural Equation Modelling was used to explore associations. RESULTS: Across the women (N = 481), perceived nausea susceptibility predicted subsequent nausea severity (ß = 0.16), but nausea expectancies did not (ß = 0.05). Nausea history variables demonstrated small-moderate associations with perceived susceptibility (ß = 0.21-0.32) and negligible-small associations with nausea expectancies (ß = 0.07-0.14). CONCLUSION: Perceived nausea susceptibility appears to capture patients' nausea history, to a degree, and is related to nausea severity during treatment. This is an important variable to include in pretreatment prediction of patients at risk of severe nausea.

Associations of inflammation with frailty in patients with breast cancer aged 50 and over receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Chronic inflammation is a significant physiologic feature of frailty; however, its role and clinical utility in cancer-related frailty remains unknown. We sought to determine if pre-chemotherapy inflammation is predictive of frailty after chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Female patients (N = 144; age ≥ 50) with stage I-III breast cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy and age-matched non-cancer controls (N = 142) were included in this secondary analysis and assessed pre- and post-chemotherapy. Controls were assessed at equivalent time-points. Frailty was assessed using a modified Fried's score (0-4) using self-reported measures of weakness, exhaustion, walking speed, and physical activity. Serum levels of interleukin (IL) 6, and soluble tumor necrosis factor-alpha (sTNFR) I and II were measured. Associations between pre-chemotherapy cytokine and receptors level (median as cutoff) and post-chemotherapy frailty were evaluated using t-tests. RESULTS: Pre-chemotherapy, patients with breast cancer were more frail than non-cancer controls (mean score: 1.17 vs 0.65; p < .01). Patients also became more frail post-chemotherapy (mean score: 1.17 vs 2.08; p < .01). Patients with pre-chemotherapy serum levels of IL-6, sTNFRI, and sTNFRII above the median were more frail after chemotherapy than those with levels below the median [IL-6 (2.31 vs. 1.86; p = .03), sTNFRI (2.30 vs. 1.88; p = .04), and sTNFRII (2.30 vs. 1.88; p = .04)]. No differences were observed in non-cancer controls within the same timeframe. CONCLUSIONS: Both cancer and chemotherapy were associated with frailty. Higher pre-chemotherapy inflammatory cytokine levels were associated with post-chemotherapy frailty. This supports the utility of inflammatory cytokines to identify patients who develop worsening of frailty characteristics with chemotherapy.

Longitudinal Relationship Between Frailty and Cognition in Patients 50 Years and Older with Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate relationships between frailty and cognition longitudinally in adults 50 years and older with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: University of Rochester NCI Community Oncology Research Program community oncology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with breast cancer age 50 and older receiving adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 376) and age-matched controls without cancer (n = 234). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was assessed using a modified frailty score from self-reported assessments (weakness, exhaustion, physical activity, and gait speed). Cognition was assessed by patient report (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognition [FACT-Cog]) and objective measures. Frailty and cognition were measured at three time points (prechemotherapy [A1], postchemotherapy [A2], and 6 months postchemotherapy [A3]; similar time interval for controls). Linear regression models evaluated associations between frailty and cognition adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The average age was 59 years (standard deviation = 6.4 y). At baseline, patients with cancer had a higher mean frailty score (1.21 vs .73; P < .001) and lower mean FACT-Cog score (158.4 vs 167.3; P < .001) compared with controls. Objective cognitive measures were not statistically different. Longitudinal decline in FACT-Cog between A1 and A2 (P < .05) and between A1 and A3 (P < .01) was associated with increased frailty score in patients compared with controls. Longitudinal worsening in Controlled Oral Word Association (P < .05) and Trail-Making Test (P < .01) were associated with an increase in frailty between A1 and A2 in patients compared with controls; longitudinal decline in the Delayed Match to Sample test was associated with an increase in frailty between A1 and A3 (P < .05) in patients compared with controls. This finding remained significant for a subset analysis of those aged 65 and older. CONCLUSION: In patients with breast cancer aged 50 and older, longitudinal decline in FACT-Cog and objective measures of attention and memory were associated with increased frailty during treatment and up to 6 months posttreatment. Overall, our study suggests cognition and frailty are both important factors to assess in breast cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:928-936, 2019.

Multimedia psychoeducation for patients with cancer who are eligible for clinical trials: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Supporting patients' decision making about clinical trials may enhance trial participation. To date, few theory-based interventions have been tested to address this issue. The objective of the current study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a multimedia psychoeducation (MP) intervention, relative to a print education (PE) intervention, on patients' decision support needs and attitudes about clinical trials. METHODS: Patients with cancer who were eligible for participation in a National Cancer Institute therapeutic cancer clinical trial were recruited through the nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from 2014 to 2016 and were randomized to the MP or PE intervention. Assessments at baseline (before intervention), postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up visit included patients' decision support needs, attitudes regarding clinical trials, and clinical trial participation. RESULTS: In total, 418 patients with various types of cancer were recruited (ages 26-89 years). Relative to the PE intervention, the MP intervention did not significantly affect decision support needs. However, patients in the MP arm reported significantly more positive attitudes about clinical trials and were more likely to participate in a clinical trial than those in the PE arm (69% vs 62%; P = .01). Furthermore, an improvement in attitudes about clinical trials significantly mediated the effect of the intervention on participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: The MP intervention was able to improve patient attitudes toward clinical trials compared with the PE intervention, and this improvement led to increased rates of participation in trials. The MP intervention could be disseminated to improve attitudes about clinical trials among patients with cancer.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from phase 2 and 3 trials in patients with advanced melanoma have shown significant improvements in the proportion of patients achieving an objective response and prolonged progression-free survival with the combination of nivolumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) plus ipilimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 antibody) compared with ipilimumab alone. We report 2-year overall survival data from a randomised controlled trial assessing this treatment in previously untreated advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial (CheckMate 069) we recruited patients from 19 specialist cancer centres in two countries (France and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg plus placebo, every 3 weeks for four doses. Subsequently, patients assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipilimumab alone received placebo every 2 weeks during this phase. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by BRAF mutation status. The study funder, patients, investigators, and study site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint, which has been reported previously, was the proportion of patients with BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma achieving an investigator-assessed objective response. Overall survival was an exploratory endpoint and is reported in this Article. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all treated patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01927419, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2013, and Feb 6, 2014, we screened 179 patients and enrolled 142, randomly assigning 95 patients to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 47 to ipilimumab alone. In each treatment group, one patient no longer met the study criteria following randomisation and thus did not receive study drug. At a median follow-up of 24·5 months (IQR 9·1-25·7), 2-year overall survival was 63·8% (95% CI 53·3-72·6) for those assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 53·6% (95% CI 38·1-66·8) for those assigned to ipilimumab alone; median overall survival had not been reached in either group (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·43-1·26; p=0·26). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 51 (54%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nine (20%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were colitis (12 [13%] of 94 patients) and increased alanine aminotransferase (ten [11%]) in the combination group and diarrhoea (five [11%] of 46 patients) and hypophysitis (two [4%]) in the ipilimumab alone group. Serious grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 34 (36%) of 94 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab (including colitis in ten [11%] of 94 patients, and diarrhoea in five [5%]) compared with four (9%) of 46 patients who received ipilimumab alone (including diarrhoea in two [4%] of 46 patients, colitis in one [2%], and hypophysitis in one [2%]). No new types of treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this updated analysis. INTERPRETATION: Although follow-up of the patients in this study is ongoing, the results of this analysis suggest that the combination of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab might lead to improved outcomes compared with first-line ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The results suggest encouraging survival outcomes with immunotherapy in this population of patients. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Alone Versus Lenalidomide Plus Rituximab in Patients With Recurrent Follicular Lymphoma: CALGB 50401 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Lenalidomide and rituximab (LR) are active agents in follicular lymphoma (FL). Combination regimens have not been previously assessed in randomized studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) 50401 trial is a randomized phase II trial studying rituximab (375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks), lenalidomide (15 mg per day on days 1 to 21, followed by 7 days of rest, in cycle 1 and then 20 mg per day on days 1 to 21, followed by 7 days of rest, in cycles 2 to 12), or LR. The rituximab-alone arm was discontinued as a result of poor accrual. Eligibility included recurrent FL and prior rituximab with time to progression of ≥ 6 months from last dose. Aspirin or heparin was recommended for patients at high thrombosis risk. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients (lenalidomide, n = 45; LR, n = 46) received treatment; median age was 63 years (range, 34 to 89 years), and 58% were intermediate or high risk according to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index. In the lenalidomide and LR arms, grade 3 to 4 adverse events occurred in 58% and 53% of patients, with 9% and 11% of patients experiencing grade 4 toxicity, respectively; grade 3 to 4 adverse events included neutropenia (16% v 20%, respectively), fatigue (9% v 13%, respectively), and thrombosis (16% [n = 7] v 4% [n = 2], respectively; P = .157). Thirty-six percent of lenalidomide patients and 63% of LR patients completed 12 cycles. Lenalidomide alone was associated with more treatment failures, with 22% of patients discontinuing treatment as a result of adverse events. Dose-intensity exceeded 80% in both arms. Overall response rate was 53% (20% complete response) and 76% (39% complete response) for lenalidomide alone and LR, respectively (P = .029). At the median follow-up of 2.5 years, median time to progression was 1.1 year for lenalidomide alone and 2 years for LR (P = .0023). CONCLUSION: LR is more active than lenalidomide alone in recurrent FL with similar toxicity, warranting further study in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a platform for addition of novel agents.

Donepezil for Irradiated Brain Tumor Survivors: A Phase III Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Neurotoxic effects of brain irradiation include cognitive impairment in 50% to 90% of patients. Prior studies have suggested that donepezil, a neurotransmitter modulator, may improve cognitive function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 198 adult brain tumor survivors ≥ 6 months after partial- or whole-brain irradiation were randomly assigned to receive a single daily dose (5 mg for 6 weeks, 10 mg for 18 weeks) of donepezil or placebo. A cognitive test battery assessing memory, attention, language, visuomotor, verbal fluency, and executive functions was administered before random assignment and at 12 and 24 weeks. A cognitive composite score (primary outcome) and individual cognitive domains were evaluated. RESULTS: Of this mostly middle-age, married, non-Hispanic white sample, 66% had primary brain tumors, 27% had brain metastases, and 8% underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. After 24 weeks of treatment, the composite scores did not differ significantly between groups (P = .48); however, significant differences favoring donepezil were observed for memory (recognition, P = .027; discrimination, P = .007) and motor speed and dexterity (P = .016). Significant interactions between pretreatment cognitive function and treatment were found for cognitive composite (P = .01), immediate recall (P = .05), delayed recall (P = .004), attention (P = .01), visuomotor skills (P = .02), and motor speed and dexterity (P < .001), with the benefits of donepezil greater for those who were more cognitively impaired before study treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment with donepezil did not significantly improve the overall composite score, but it did result in modest improvements in several cognitive functions, especially among patients with greater pretreatment impairments.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, combined inhibition of T-cell checkpoint pathways by nivolumab and ipilimumab was associated with a high rate of objective response, including complete responses, among patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this double-blind study involving 142 patients with metastatic melanoma who had not previously received treatment, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) combined with either nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram) or placebo once every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) or placebo every 2 weeks until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response among patients with BRAF V600 wild-type tumors. RESULTS: Among patients with BRAF wild-type tumors, the rate of confirmed objective response was 61% (44 of 72 patients) in the group that received both ipilimumab and nivolumab (combination group) versus 11% (4 of 37 patients) in the group that received ipilimumab and placebo (ipilimumab-monotherapy group) (P<0.001), with complete responses reported in 16 patients (22%) in the combination group and no patients in the ipilimumab-monotherapy group. The median duration of response was not reached in either group. The median progression-free survival was not reached with the combination therapy and was 4.4 months with ipilimumab monotherapy (hazard ratio associated with combination therapy as compared with ipilimumab monotherapy for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.68; P<0.001). Similar results for response rate and progression-free survival were observed in 33 patients with BRAF mutation-positive tumors. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 54% of the patients who received the combination therapy as compared with 24% of the patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy. Select adverse events with potential immunologic causes were consistent with those in a phase 1 study, and most of these events resolved with immune-modulating medication. CONCLUSIONS: The objective-response rate and the progression-free survival among patients with advanced melanoma who had not previously received treatment were significantly greater with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab than with ipilimumab monotherapy. Combination therapy had an acceptable safety profile. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927419.).

Feasibility of implementing a community-based randomized trial of yoga for women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-related symptoms and decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) frequently occur during chemotherapy for breast cancer. Although research findings suggest that yoga can reduce symptoms and Improve HRQoL after treatment, potential benefits of yoga during chemotherapy have received minimal attention. OBJECTIVE: To estimate accrual, adherence, study retention, and preliminary efficacy of a yoga intervention compared with an active control group for breast cancer patients during chemotherapy. METHODS: Women with stage I-III breast cancer were recruited from 3 community cancer clinics and randomized to 10 weeks of gentle yoga or wellness education. Depressive symptoms, fatigue, sleep, and HRQoL were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention (Week 5), and after intervention (Week 10). RESULTS: 40 women aged 29-83 years (median, 48 years; 88% white) were randomized to yoga (n = 22) or wellness education (n = 18). The groups did not differ significantly on baseline characteristics, adherence, or study retention. Participant feedback was positive and comparable between groups. Meaningful within-group differences were identified For sleep adequacy and quantity in yoga participants and for somnolence in wellness-education participants. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and lack of a usual-care control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study established Feasibility of a community-based randomized trial of yoga and an active comparison group for women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. Preliminary efficacy estimates suggest that yoga improves sleep adequacy Symptom severity and interference remained stable during chemotherapy for the yoga group and snowed a trend toward increasing in the control group. The study highlighted obstacles to multisite yoga research during cancer treatment. FUNDING/SPONSORSHIP: National Cancer Institute (3U10 CA081851, PI; Shaw; R25 CA122061, PI: Avis); Translational Science Institute, Wake Forest School of Medicine.

A phase 2 trial of ixabepilone plus cetuximab in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this phase 2 study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ixabepilone plus cetuximab in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma that was metastatic or not amenable to resection, a Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and no prior therapy for advanced disease. Patients received ixabepilone 32 mg/m(2) (3-hour IV infusion) every 3 weeks and cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) (1-hour IV infusion) weekly. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month survival rate. Secondary end points included tumor response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were enrolled on this study. The 6-month survival rate was 57% (31/54: 95% CI: 43-71%) with a median overall survival of 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.5-12.2 months). Patients who developed acneiform rash (n = 36) had a median survival of 8.8 months, compared with 2.6 months for those without rash (n = 18). Of 31 patients with measurable disease (defined as response-evaluable), 4 had confirmed partial responses and an additional 24 had stable disease. The combination was generally well-tolerated with the most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities being leucopenia (39%) and neutropenia (33%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicity was fatigue (17%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ixabepilone and cetuximab was active and had acceptable toxicity. The efficacy results are similar to single-agent ixabepilone and gemcitabine-based combination therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Exploratory analyses suggest a trend toward improved survival for patients who experienced rash.

Primary mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab without resection of the primary tumor for patients presenting with surgically unresectable metastatic colon cancer and an intact asymptomatic colon cancer: definitive analysis of NSABP trial C-10.

PURPOSE: Major concerns surround combining chemotherapy with bevacizumab in patients with colon cancer presenting with an asymptomatic intact primary tumor (IPT) and synchronous yet unresectable metastatic disease. Surgical resection of asymptomatic IPT is controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility for this prospective, multicenter phase II trial included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 1, asymptomatic IPT, and unresectable metastases. All received infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) combined with bevacizumab. The primary end point was major morbidity events, defined as surgical resection because of symptoms at or death related to the IPT. A 25% major morbidity rate was considered acceptable. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and minor morbidity related to IPT requiring hospitalization, transfusion, or nonsurgical intervention. RESULTS: Ninety patients registered between March 2006 and June 2009: 86 were eligible with follow-up, median age was 58 years, and 52% were female. Median follow-up was 20.7 months. There were 12 patients (14%) with major morbidity related to IPT: 10 required surgery (eight, obstruction; one, perforation; and one, abdominal pain), and two patients died. The 24-month cumulative incidence of major morbidity was 16.3% (95% CI, 7.6% to 25.1%). Eleven IPTs were resected without a morbidity event: eight for attempted cure and three for other reasons. Two patients had minor morbidity events only: one hospitalization and one nonsurgical intervention. Median OS was 19.9 months (95% CI, 15.0 to 27.2 months). CONCLUSION: This trial met its primary end point. Combining mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab did not result in an unacceptable rate of obstruction, perforation, bleeding, or death related to IPT. Survival was not compromised. These patients can be spared initial noncurative resection of their asymptomatic IPT.

Colorectal Chemoprevention Pilot Study (SWOG-9041), randomized and placebo controlled: the importance of multiple luminal lesions.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is common worldwide and chemoprevention has the potential of reducing the number of individuals who may suffer and perish from this disease. METHODS: A randomized placebo controlled pilot study in colorectal cancer patients was performed using calcium carbonate as the test agent in a multi-institutional oncology study group. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty volunteers were randomized in the study. The primary goals of compliance, accrual, and toxicity monitoring are presented. Presence of multiple adenomas at study entry and subsequent development of metachronous adenomas were recorded and found to be associated with synchronous adenomas. The secondary endpoint of recurrent adenomas indicated lower rates of new adenoma in the volunteers randomized to the calcium group. CONCLUSION: This pilot study indicates the feasibility of enrolling survivors of colorectal cancer as study volunteers in a colorectal neoplasm chemoprevention clinical trial and oral calcium continues to be a potentially effective drug in reducing colorectal adenomas.

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ≥ 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected] RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs. CONCLUSION: The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Routine preventive care and cancer surveillance in long-term survivors of colorectal cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol LTS-01.

PURPOSE: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) protocol LTS-01 examines routine preventive care and cancer surveillance in long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors previously treated in NSABP adjuvant trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Long-term CRC survivors (≥5 years) from five completed NSABP trials (Protocols C-05, C-06, C-07, R-02, and R-03) at 60 study sites were recruited and surveyed using preventive health care items from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). A 3:1 comparison cohort case-matched by age, sex, race, and education was created from the 2005 NHIS. Contingency tables and multivariate models were used to compare cohorts and determine predictors of preventive care and cancer surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 708 patients in protocol LTS-01 (681 patients with colon cancer, 27 patients with rectal cancer) completed the interview: 57.1% male, mean age 66.2 years (standard deviation=10.6), median survival 8 years. Patients in the LTS-01 protocol were more likely to have a usual source of health care (97.7% v 93.8%, P<.0001), have received a flu shot in the past 12 months (67.5% v 44.3%, P<.0001), and have undergone cancer screening by Pap smear (67.3% v 54.8%, P<.0001), mammogram (80.4% v 70.7%, P<.0001), and prostate-specific antigen test (84.5% v 74.5%, P<.0001) than patients in the NHIS cohort. For CRC surveillance, 96.5% of patients in protocol LTS-01 had a colonoscopy, 88.2% had a carcinoembryonic antigen test, and 66.4% had a computed tomography scan in the previous 5 years. Health insurance was the best predictor of cancer screening for all three methods (odds ratio=2.6 to 4.5). No factor was uniformly associated with CRC surveillance. CONCLUSION: This select population of long-term CRC survivors who participated in clinical trials achieved better routine preventive care and cancer screening than the general population and high rates of cancer surveillance.

How do patient expectancies, quality of life, and postchemotherapy nausea interrelate?

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests a relation between patient expectancies and chemotherapy-induced nausea. However, this research has often failed to adequately control for other possible contributing factors. In the current study, the contribution of patient expectancies to the occurrence and severity of postchemotherapy nausea was examined using more stringent statistical techniques (namely hierarchical regression) than other similar studies that have relied on bivariate correlations, chi-square tests, and stepwise regression, and further extended upon previous research by including quality of life (QoL) in the analysis. METHODS: In all, 671 first-time chemotherapy patients taking part in a trial comparing antiemetic regimens answered questions regarding their expectancies for experiencing nausea. Patients then completed a diary assessing both the occurrence and severity of their nausea in the 4 days after their first infusion. RESULTS: Stronger expectancies for nausea corresponded with greater average and peak nausea after chemotherapy and this was after controlling for age, sex, susceptibility to motion sickness, diagnosis, and QoL. Interestingly, patients classified as highly expectant (first quartile) experienced significantly greater average and peak nausea than those classified as somewhat expectant, slightly expectant, and not expectant (second, third, and fourth quartiles, respectively), whereas there were no significant differences between these lower levels of expectancy. Furthermore, increases in average nausea led to a significant reduction in QoL after chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patient expectancies appear to contribute to postchemotherapy nausea and patients that are highly expectant of experiencing nausea appear to be at particular risk. Interventions that target these patients should reduce the burden of nausea and may also improve QoL.

Results of a diet/exercise feasibility trial to prevent adverse body composition change in breast cancer patients on adjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Patients with breast cancer on adjuvant chemotherapy can experience weight gain and concurrent losses in muscle mass. Exercise interventions can prevent these changes, but time and travel pose barriers to participation. The Survivor Training for Enhancing Total Health (STRENGTH) trial assessed the feasibility and impact of 2 home-based interventions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety premenopausal patients with breast cancer on adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized to a calcium-rich diet (CA) intervention (attention control) or to 2 experimental arms: a CA + exercise (EX) arm or a CA + EX and high fruit and vegetable, low-fat diet (FVLF) arm. Exercise arms included aerobic and strength-training exercises. Body composition, weight status, waist circumference, dietary intake, physical activity, quality of life, anxiety, depression, serum lipids, sex hormone binding globulin, insulin, proinsulin, C-reactive protein, interleukin-1B, and tumor-necrosis factor receptor-II were measured at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Accrual targets were achieved and modest attrition was observed (8.8%). Self-reports suggest increased calcium intakes in all arms, and higher fruit and vegetable and lower fat intake in the CA + EX + FVLF arm; no differences in physical activity were observed. While measures of adiposity were generally lower in the CA + EX + FVLF arm, the only significant difference was in percentage of body fat (arms and legs); change in scores (mean +/- standard deviation) were +0.7% +/- 2.3% (CA); +1.2% +/- 2.7% (CA + EX); and +0.1% +/- 2% (CA + EX + FVLF; P = .047). Lean body mass was largely preserved, even in the control arm (net gain of 452 g +/- 2395 g). No differences were observed in other endpoints. CONCLUSION: Diet and exercise interventions can prevent weight gain and adverse body composition changes, but more research is needed to determine optimally effective interventions that can be implemented during active treatment and that promote adherence.

Phase III randomized placebo-controlled trial of two doses of megestrol acetate as treatment for menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Study 9626.

PURPOSE: Prior progestin studies treating hot flashes in women have been short duration and single dose. This study tests the progestin megestrol acetate (MA) at two doses versus placebo over 6 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with T1-3, N0-1, M0 breast cancer were eligible after completion of surgery and chemotherapy and at least 4 months of tamoxifen (if prescribed). Women were required to have at least 10 hot flashes of any severity or at least five severe episodes per week. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo, MA 20 mg, or MA 40 mg for 3 months. Success at 3 months was defined as completion of treatment with a >or= 75% reduction in hot flashes from baseline. If success was achieved, drug treatment for another 3 months was given on the same blinded arm; if not, open-label MA 20 mg was added to blinded study drug and continued for 3 months. Other menopausal symptoms were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty eight eligible women were randomly assigned (286 eligible), of whom 85% were on tamoxifen, 40% had over 63 hot flashes/week, and 75% had vasomotor symptoms for >or= 6 months. Success at 3 months was 14% on placebo, 65% on 20 mg, and 48% on 40 mg (both MA doses superior to placebo; P < .0001). Most successes at 3 months were maintained at 6 months (77% on 20 mg and 81% on 40 mg). CONCLUSION: MA significantly reduced vasomotor symptoms with durable benefit over 6 months. MA 20 mg/d is the preferred dose. There was no significant impact on other menopausal symptoms.

Late cardiac effects of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors treated on Southwest Oncology Group protocol s8897.

PURPOSE: The late cardiac effects of adjuvant anthracycline therapy in survivors of early-stage breast cancer have had limited study. Subclinical and clinical cardiac late effects may contribute to added comorbidity over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited patients treated on Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) protocol S8897 who had been randomly assigned to adjuvant chemotherapy with or without doxorubicin. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was evaluated at 5 to 8 years and 10 to 13 years after treatment randomization. Cardiac risk factors and events were reported by clinicians annually between the two assessments. RESULTS: A total of 180 breast cancer survivors from a potential sample of 1,176 patients were entered, 163 patients at 5 to 8 years and 17 additional patients at 10 to 13 years, with 93 longitudinal assessments of LVEF. There was no significant difference in the proportion of women with an LVEF less than 50% at 5 to 8 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil [CAF] v cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil [CMF]: 5% v 7%; P = .68) or 10 to 13 years (CAF v CMF: 3% v 0%; P = .16); however, in an exploratory analysis, the mean LVEF in the doxorubicin group was statistically significantly lower in the 5- to 8-year sample (64.8% v 61.4%; P = .01) but not in the 10- to 13-year sample. In the longitudinal analysis, there was no significant deterioration in LVEF. CONCLUSION: Women enrolled onto an adjuvant chemotherapy treatment clinical trial for breast cancer were successfully recruited to participate in a research study of the late effects of treatment, although many SWOG institutions and potentially eligible patients chose not to participate. In this selected sample, with up to 13 years of follow-up, exposure to doxorubicin did not increase the likelihood of adverse cardiac effects.

Oral uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin compared with intravenous fluorouracil and leucovorin in stage II and III carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol C-06.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of oral uracil and tegafur (UFT) plus leucovorin (LV) with the efficacy of weekly intravenous fluorouracil (FU) plus LV in prolonging disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) after primary surgery for colon carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between February 1997 and March 1999, 1,608 patients with stage II and III carcinoma of the colon were randomly assigned to receive either oral UFT+LV or intravenous FU+LV. RESULTS: Of the total patients, 47% had stage II colon cancer, and 53% had stage III colon cancer. Median follow-up time was 62.3 months. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for OS of patients who received UFT+LV versus that of patients who received FU+LV was 1.014 (95% CI, 0.825 to 1.246). The estimated HR for DFS was 1.004 (95% CI, 0.847 to 1.190). Cox proportional hazards model analyses with regard to age (< 60 v > or = 60 years), stage, or number of involved nodes (none v one to three v > or = four nodes) revealed no interaction with OS or DFS. Toxicity was similar in the two groups. In the UFT+LV arm, 38.2% of patients experienced any grade 3 or 4 toxic event compared with 37.8% of patients in the FU+LV arm. Primary quality-of-life end points did not differ between the two regimens, although convenience of care analysis favored UFT+LV. CONCLUSION: UFT+LV achieved similar DFS and OS when compared with an intravenous, weekly, bolus FU+LV regimen. The two regimens were equitoxic and generally well tolerated.