Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

Use of pegfilgrastim support on day 9 to maintain relative dose intensity of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients receiving a day 1 and 8 CMF regimen

AIM: In several commonly used regimens, chemotherapy doses are split across different days of the cycle. We aimed to determine the feasibility of growth factor support with once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim in this setting. METHODS: This phase II study in breast cancer patients assessed the utility of a single 6 mg subcutaneous dose of pegfilgrastim administered on day 9 of an intravenous (IV) "split" CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy regimen administered on days 1 and 8 and repeated every 28 days for 6 cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled, with 49 completing the study. For the primary endpoint, 48 patients (83%) received >or=85% of the relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy over all 6 cycles (95% confidence interval [CI], 71-91%). Across all chemotherapy cycles, 41 patients (71%) received all scheduled cycles on time and most patients (n=49, 84%) received >or=85% of the planned dose of all chemotherapy agents in all cycles. In total, 295/319 cycles (92%) were delivered on schedule and >or=85% of the planned dose of all chemotherapy agents were administered in 309/319 cycles (97%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in only 2 patients (3%). There were no grade 4 adverse events related to pegfilgrastim. DISCUSSION: Day 9 pegfilgrastim administration was well tolerated and provided effective protection against neutropenia in patients receiving IV CMF on days 1 and 8, allowing chemotherapy to be delivered on time and at the scheduled dose in most patients (AU)

No disponible