New approach to implement cancer patient care: The valutazione percorso rete oncologica campana (ValPeROC)-experience from an Italian oncology network.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of the Campania Oncology Network (ROC) was to reduce cancer delay and care fragmentation through the establishment of cancer-specific multidisciplinary oncologic groups (GOMs) and diagnostic and therapeutic assistance paths (PDTAs). METHODS: Five cancer centres of the ROC, with their own cancer specific GOM, were selected. In our analysis, we have focused on four neoplasms: lung, colon, ovarian and prostate cancers. The median time for pre-GOM and GOM Times was calculated for each tumour site. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to individuate risk factors for pre-GOM and GOM Time. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed for prostate cancer compared to other patients either for pre-GOM or GOM Times. Significant risks were found for ovarian and prostate cancers in pre-GOM time and for prostate cancer in GOM-Time. CONCLUSIONS: This experience will produce knowledge and data to guide decision-making and to manage more effectively the challenges of fighting cancer in Campania region. The Valutazione Percorso Rete Oncologica Campana (ValPeROC) study evaluates, for the first time, the ROC activity, through the analysis of key performance indices. Pre-GOM and GOM Time represent the quality of the entire regional health system and are useful to define models, which can evaluate the performance of the ROC over time.

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.

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.

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.

Cisplatin plus vinorelbine as induction chemotherapy followed by surgery in the treatment of stage IIIB non-small cell lung cancer. Final results of a multicenter phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine has been shown to be effective in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Based on these data, we planned to treat patients with stage IIIB NSCLC without malignant pleural effusion and/or metastatic supraclavicular lymph nodes, in order to study the potential effectiveness of this association as neoadjuvant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients entered into the study and were treated preoperatively with cisplatin 120 mg/m2 given on day 1 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 8, recycled every 3 weeks for a maximum of 3 cycles. The main characteristics of patients were: male/female 23/7, median age 61 years, performance status 0/1/2, 8/17/5. Only patients who achieved an objective response underwent surgery. RESULTS: A total of 82 (91.1%) cycles were administered with moderate toxicity: WHO grade (G) 2 and 3 neutropenia occurred in 20 (66.6%) patients, G 3 anaemia occurred in 4 (13.3%), G 3 nausea/vomiting in 20 (66.6%) and G 1-2 renal toxicity in 2 (6.6%). Eighteen (60%; exact 95% confidence limits, 40.6% to 77.3%) patients achieved a partial response and 14 (46.6%) underwent surgery. Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 11 (36.6% of all patients) and pathological complete resection in 5 (16.6%). No postoperative pulmonary complications were reported. The median survival for all patients was 25.5 (exact 95% confidence limits, 13 to 39) months. The median progression-free survival in responsive patients was 27 (exact 95% confidence limits, 13 to 33) months. CONCLUSION: The combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine is effective and safe as a neoadjuvant therapy in stage IIIB NSCLC, showing a high response rate (60%) and amenability to surgery.

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.

Gemcitabine alone or with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: a prospective, randomized phase III study of the Gruppo Oncologia dell'Italia Meridionale.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, randomized Phase III trial was performed to determine whether, compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone, the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to GEM was able to improve the time to disease progression and the clinical benefit rate in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate, overall survival rate, and toxicity patterns of patients in the two treatment arms were evaluated as secondary end points. METHODS: Patients with measurable, locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized to receive GEM (Arm A) or a combination of GEM and CDDP (Arm B). In Arm A, a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) GEM per week was administered for 7 consecutive weeks, and, after a 2-week rest, treatment was resumed on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle for 2 cycles. In Arm B, CDDP was given at a dose of 25 mg/m(2) per week 1 hour before GEM at the same dose that was used in Arm A. On Day 22, only GEM was administered. Patients were restaged after the first 7 weeks of therapy and then again after the other 2 cycles. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients entered the trial: Fifty-four patients were randomized to Arm A, and 53 patients were randomized to Arm B. The median time to disease progression was 8 weeks in Arm A and 20 weeks in Arm B; this difference was statistically significant (P = 0.048). In Arm A, one complete response and four partial responses were recorded on the basis of an intent-to-treat analysis, with an overall response rate of 9.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3-20%). In Arm B, there were no complete responses, whereas 14 partial responses were achieved, with an overall response rate of 26.4% (95%CI, 15-40%). This difference in the overall response rates was statistically significant (P = 0.02). The tumor growth control rate (i.e., total number of patients who achieved complete responses, partial responses, and stable disease) was 42.6% (95%CI, 29-57%) in Arm A and 56.6% (95%CI, 42-70%) in Arm B. A clinical benefit was observed in 21 of 43 patients (49%) in Arm A and in 20 of 38 patients (52.6%) in Arm B without any significant difference. The median overall survival was 20 weeks for patients in Arm A and 30 weeks for patients in Arm B (P = 0.43). Toxicity was mild in both treatment arms, with no significant differences between the two groups except for the statistically higher incidence of Grade 1-2 asthenia in Arm B (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of CDDP to GEM significantly improved the median time to disease progression and the overall response rate compared with GEM alone. The clinical benefit rate was similar in both arms, whereas the median overall survival rate was more favorable for Arm B, although the difference did not attain statistical significance. The authors conclude that the combination of CDDP and GEM currently may be considered as an optimal treatment for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.