Very Long-Term Complete Remission Can Be Achieved in Men With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer and a Very High PSA Value: An Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not fully established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events. CONCLUSIONS: Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy.

Impact of care pathway for nursing home residents treated for cancer: ONCO-EHPAD study.

PURPOSE: Few data are known about cancer management in frail nursing home residents. METHODS: Objective of our prospective, interventional study was to set up in the Marseille area, a care pathway for nursing homes residents with a suspected cancer. It combined cancer diagnosis procedures and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), both made in our geriatric oncology outpatient unit, before oncologic advice for treatment decision. In standard care, CGA is carried out after therapeutic decision, to determine whether the planned treatment is compatible with the patient's frailties. CGA and quality of life were performed at enrolment and at 6 months. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03103659). RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2020, 48 residents from 38 nursing homes were included: 24 had the care pathway (PP), and 24 the standard care (NPP). Six were excluded (no cancer). PP had more frailties than NPP. All PP and 75% of NPP had outpatient care. Curative treatment was given to 77% of NPP (including chemotherapy in 10 cases), and 25% of PP (surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy). A majority of PP (75%) had supportive care. At 6 months, 16 patients died (11 NPP, 5 PP). Quality of life evolution was available for 11 PP and 7NPP: it showed stability in PP and degradation in NPP. CONCLUSION: Even if part of residents were too frail to get curative treatment, the care pathway enabled them to benefit from oncologic advice and appropriate supportive care while preserving their quality of life. Further investigations are needed to confirm these findings.

Prognostic Value of the B12/CRP Index in Older Systemically Treatable Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: While comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in older patients treated for cancer assesses several related domains, it does not include standardized biological tests. The present study aimed to: (1) assess the prognosis value of the B12/CRP index (BCI) in a population of systemically treatable older patients with cancer and (2) analyze the association between BCI value and pre-existing geriatric frailty. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective observational study between January 2016 and June 2020 at Marseille University Hospital. All consecutive cancer patients aged 70 years and over before initiating systemic therapy were included. RESULTS: Of the 863 patients included, 60.5% were men and 42.5% had metastatic stage cancer. Mean age was 81 years. The low-BCI group (≤10,000) had a significantly longer survival time than the mid-BCI (10,000 < BCI ≤ 40,000) and high-BCI (BCI > 40,000) groups (HR = 0.327, CI95% [0.26-0.42], p-value = 0.0001). Mid- and high-BCI (BCI > 40,000) values were associated with impaired functional status and malnutrition. CONCLUSION: A BCI > 10,000 would appear to be a good biological prognostic factor for poor survival times and pre-existing geriatric impairment in older cancer patients before they initiate systemic treatment.

Illness representations and quality of life in French patients suffering from lung cancer.

Numerous studies have shown the impact of lung cancer disease on patient quality of life (QoL), but no research has yet examined the impact of illness representations (IR) in the assessment of QoL in lung cancer. Our goal is to explore the role of IR as adeterminant of QoL for lung cancer patients. Data were collected from 162 French patients who completed aself-administered questionnaire including ageneric measure of QoL. It also contains aspecific measure of psychological distress, mental adjustment to cancer, and socio-demographic and medical data. Regression analysis revealed that consequences, treatment control, identity and understanding predicted QoL and the activity dimension of QoL. Perceived consequences and identity seemed to have adeleterious impact on QoL, while treatment control predicted abetter QoL, related to the level of psychological distress and education level. The results suggest the importance of considering IR as adeterminant of QoL. They corroborate earlier findings on the relationship between IR and QoL associated with other pathologies. Psychosocial variables appeared to have more impact on QoL than socio-demographic and clinical variables, which shows the importance of considering IR in order to improve the QoL of patients.

Anticancer Activity and Tolerance of Treatments Received Beyond Progression in Men Treated Upfront with Androgen Deprivation Therapy With or Without Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-naïve Prostate Cancer in the GETUG-AFU 15 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6-7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3-4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Body image and psychological distress in women with breast cancer: a French online survey on patients' perceptions and expectations.

BACKGROUND: Altered body image caused by alopecia, loss of eyebrows or eyelashes, or mastectomy is a major source of psychological distress in women with breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To identify and to assess patients' perceptions and expectations regarding altered body image. METHOD: Opinion survey conducted among patients treated for breast cancer and member of French online support groups. Anonymous online self-administered survey sent to women with breast cancer. RESULTS: 85% of the women interviewed experienced alopecia during treatment and 67% of them loss of eyebrows or eyelashes. About half of patients suffering alopecia and loss of eyebrows or eyelashes reported fearing what others think. Mastectomy was experienced by 84% of the women in our study, but only 32% of them reported fearing what others think. 87% of our study cohort received information about the possibility of adverse events. 70, 56, and 60% of women felt helped by information they received for the management of alopecia, loss of eyebrows or eyelashes, or mastectomy, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that altered body image is a critical psychosocial issue for women with breast cancer. Effective information can be a source of reassurance and may constitute one of the most important sources of emotional support.

Clinical activity of sunitinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma-Results of the REchallenge with SUnitinib in MEtastatic RCC (RESUME) Study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib rechallenge in the third-line or later setting in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study comprised 61 mRCC patients at 19 centres in France who received sunitinib rechallenge between January 2006 and May 2013. Patients received first-line sunitinib, ≥1 different targeted therapies, and then sunitinib rechallenge. Patient/disease characteristics, tolerability, treatment modalities, and outcomes of therapeutic lines were recorded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in sunitinib rechallenge. RESULTS: Analyses included 52 patients; median age was 59 years, 75% were male, and 98% had clear-cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy. At sunitinib rechallenge versus first-line, patients had poorer performance (Karnofsky performance status 90-100: 30% versus 81%) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic risk (poor risk: 18% versus 3%). Overall, 20%, 65%, 12%, and 4% received sunitinib rechallenge as third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-line therapy, respectively, at 14.6 months (median) after stopping initial treatment. With first-line sunitinib and rechallenge, median PFS was 18.4 and 7.9 months, respectively; objective response rate was 54% and 15%. Two of eight rechallenge responders had not achieved first-line response. Median overall survival was 55.9 months. The sunitinib rechallenge safety profile was as expected, with no new adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. Disease progression with first-line sunitinib may not be associated with complete or irreversible resistance to therapy.

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). RESULTS: A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Noncastrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Validation of the Glass Model and Development of a Novel Simplified Prognostic Model.

BACKGROUND: The Glass model developed in 2003 uses prognostic factors for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer (NCMPC) to define subgroups with good, intermediate, and poor prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To validate NCMPC risk groups in a more recently diagnosed population and to develop a more sensitive prognostic model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: NCMPC patients were randomized to receive continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in the GETUG-15 phase 3 trial. Potential prognostic factors were recorded: age, performance status, Gleason score, hemoglobin (Hb), prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), metastatic localization, body mass index, and pain. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: These factors were used to develop a new prognostic model using a recursive partitioning method. Before analysis, the data were split into learning and validation sets. The outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For the 385 patients included, those with good (49%), intermediate (29%), and poor (22%) prognosis had median OS of 69.0, 46.5 and 36.6 mo (p=0.001), and 5-yr survival estimates of 60.7%, 39.4%, and 32.1%, respectively (p=0.001). The most discriminatory variables in univariate analysis were ALP, pain intensity, Hb, LDH, and bone metastases. ALP was the strongest prognostic factor in discriminating patients with good or poor prognosis. In the learning set, median OS in patients with normal and abnormal ALP was 69.1 and 33.6 mo, and 5-yr survival estimates were 62.1% and 23.2%, respectively. The hazard ratio for ALP was 3.11 and 3.13 in the learning and validation sets, respectively. The discriminatory ability of ALP (concordance [C] index 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.71) was superior to that of the Glass risk model (C-index 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66). The study limitations include the limited number of patients and low values for the C-index. CONCLUSION: A new and simple prognostic model was developed for patients with NCMPC, underlying the role of normal or abnormal ALP. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed clinical and biological factors that could affect overall survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. We showed that normal or abnormal alkaline phosphatase at baseline might be useful in predicting survival.

Patients' self-assessment versus investigators' evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15).

BACKGROUND: Toxicity, which is a key parameter in the evaluation of cancer treatments, can be underestimated by clinicians. We investigated differences between patients and physicians in reporting adverse events of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in a multicentre phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: The 385 patients included were invited to complete a 26-symptom questionnaire 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment, among which eighteen symptoms were also assessed by physicians, reported in medical records and graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. Positive and negative agreements as well as Kappa concordance coefficients were computed. FINDINGS: Data were available for 220 and 165 patients at 3 and 6 months respectively. Physicians systematically under-reported patients' symptoms. Positive agreement rates (at respectively 3 and 6 months) for the five most commonly reported symptoms were: 61.0% and 64.3% hot flushes, 50.0% and 43.6% fatigue, 29.4% and 31.1% sexual dysfunction, 24.4% and 14.4% weigh gain/loss, 16.7% and 19.3% for joint/muscle pain. For symptoms most frequently reported as disturbing or very disturbing by patients, the clinicians' failure to report them ranged from 50.8% (hot flushes) to 89.5% (joint/muscle pain) at 3 months, and from 48.2% (hot flushes) to 88.4% (joint/muscle pain) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: Physicians often failed to report treatment-related symptoms, even the most common and disturbing ones. Patients' self-evaluation of toxicity should be used in clinical trials to improve the process of drug assessment in oncology. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, Astra-Zeneca, and Amgen.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

A phase III trial of docetaxel-estramustine in high-risk localised prostate cancer: a planned analysis of response, toxicity and quality of life in the GETUG 12 trial.

AIM: To assess docetaxel-estramustine in patients with localised high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After staging pelvic lymph node dissection, patients with high-risk prostate cancer randomly received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (3 years)+DE (4 cycles of docetaxel 70 mg/m(2)/3 weeks+estramustine 10mg/kg/dd1-5) or ADT alone. Local therapy was administered at 3 months. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirteen patients were accrued: T3-T4 (67%), Gleason score ~8 (42%), PSA >20 ng/mL (59%), pN+ (29%). In the chemotherapy arm, 94% of patients received the planned four cycles of docetaxel. Local treatment consisted of radiotherapy in 358 patients (87%) (median dose 74 Gy in both arms). ADT was given for 36 months in both arms. A PSA response (PSA ~0.2 ng/mL after 3 months of treatment) was obtained in 34% and 15% in the ADT+DE arm and in the ADT arm, respectively (p<0.0001). Febrile neutropenia occurred in only 2%. Moderate to severe hot flashes occurred less often in the ADT+DE arm (2% versus 22%; p<0.001). There was no toxicity-related death, no secondary leukaemia, and no excess second cancers. Chemotherapy had a negative impact on quality of life (global health status, p = 0.01; fatigue, p = 0.003; role functioning, p = 0.003; social functioning, p = 0.006) at 3 months but this effect disappeared at 1 year. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel-estramustine can be combined safely with standard therapy in high-risk prostate cancer, with a promising PSA response rate and no negative impact on quality of life after 1 year. Long-term follow-up is required to assess the impact on relapse and survival.

Dose individualization of carboplatin after a 120-hour infusion schedule: higher dose intensity but fewer toxicities.

Carboplatin (CBDCA) is a widely used anticancer agent for which dose-effect and dose-toxicity relationships have been demonstrated, thus stressing the need for a controlled exposure to this drug. So far, carboplatin administration could only be individualized a priori following 2 classic methods, which are based on the evaluation of renal clearance: Calvert's and Chatelut's formulas. This study was designed to develop and evaluate the performance of an alternative CBDCA 120-hour schedule coupled to a Bayesian adaptive dosing with feedback strategy. Precision of the dosing method was assessed in 84 patients (256 courses performed during a 10-year period), by comparing CBDCA plasma concentrations observed at the end of the infusion with initial target values. A comprehensive monitoring of treatment-related toxicities also was performed. Finally, the authors compared doses actually delivered following the dose-tailoring method with the theoretical, standard, ones calculated retrospectively with Calvert's and Chatelut's formulas. No significant differences were found between experimental and theoretical concentrations. According to the target exposure chosen (3 levels), the mean doses administered to our patients were 517, 719, and 902 mg of CBDCA compared with 550, 509, and 538 or 657, 604, and 644 mg, which would have been given following Calvert or Chatelut formulas, respectively. These results showed that our Bayesian method led to the administration of up to 60% higher doses of carboplatin compared with those based only on the evaluation of renal clearance. Despite the markedly higher doses administered, no severe toxicities were reported in the patients treated following this new schedule. It is noteworthy that neither hematologic growth factors nor stem cells, usually associated with high-dose regimen, were used as support in this study. These data strongly suggest that it is possible to deliver higher dose- intensities of carboplatin, even in elderly, unselected patients, without increasing toxicities and with no growth factor support, provided that a therapeutic drug monitoring strategy with real-time tailored dosing is performed.