Patients' preferences for adjuvant sorafenib after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial: what makes it worthwhile?

Background: We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for 1 year, or for 3 years after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial. Methods: SORCE participants from all sites in Australia and New Zealand, and selected sites in the UK, completed a validated preferences questionnaire at months 0, 3, 15, and 42 to elicit the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for 1 year (versus observation), or for 3 years (versus 1 year). The questionnaires used reference survival times of 5 and 15 years; and reference survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. Results: The 233 participants had a median age of 57 years (range 29-78) and 71% were male. For 1 year of sorafenib versus no adjuvant therapy, the median benefits in survival times judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra 9 months beyond 5 years and an extra 1 year beyond 15 years; the median benefit in survival rates were an extra 4% beyond 65% and an extra 3% beyond 85% at 5 years. For 3 years of sorafenib versus 1 year of sorafenib, the median benefit in survival time judged sufficient to warrant extended treatment was an extra 1 year beyond both 5 and 15 years. Participants randomly allocated to treatment with sorafenib judged larger benefits necessary than those allocated to placebo. Participants' preferences were not associated with their baseline characteristics or the interval from randomisation. Conclusion: Most participants judged an extra year of survival necessary to warrant 1 year of adjuvant sorafenib worthwhile, and an additional year of survival to warrant extending the duration of sorafenib from 1 to 3 years. Patients' preferences are important in shared decision making. SORCE trial clinical trials number: NCT00492258.

A phase III randomized trial of adding topical nitroglycerin to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer: the Australasian lung cancer trials group NITRO trial.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the substantial benefits of topical nitroglycerin with first-line, platinum-based, doublet chemotherapy in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) seen in a phase II trial could be corroborated in a rigorous, multicenter, phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients starting one of five, prespecified, platinum-based doublets as first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC were randomly allocated treatment with or without nitroglycerin 25 mg patches for 2 days before, the day of, and 2 days after, each chemotherapy infusion. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. RESULTS: Accrual was stopped after the first interim analysis of 270 events. Chemotherapy was predominantly with carboplatin and gemcitabine (79%) or carboplatin and paclitaxel (18%). The final analysis included 345 events in 372 participants with a median follow-up of 33 months. Topical nitroglycerin had no demonstrable effect on PFS [median 5.0 versus 4.8 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.32, P = 0.55], overall survival (median 11.0 versus 10.3 months, HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.24, P = 0.94), or objective tumor response (31% versus 30%, relative risk = 1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.29, P = 0.81). Headache, hypotension, syncope, diarrhea, dizziness, and anorexia were more frequent in those allocated nitroglycerin. CONCLUSION: The addition of topical nitroglycerin to carboplatin-based, doublet chemotherapy in NSCLC had no demonstrable benefit and should not be used or pursued further. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12608000588392.