Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer. However, improvements in surgery and histopathological assessment mean that the role of radiotherapy needs to be reassessed. We compared short-course preoperative radiotherapy versus initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a randomised trial in 80 centres in four countries. 1350 patients with operable adenocarcinoma of the rectum were randomly assigned, by a minimisation procedure, to short-course preoperative radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions; n=674) or to initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil) restricted to patients with involvement of the circumferential resection margin (n=676). The primary outcome measure was local recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. FINDINGS: At the time of analysis, which included all participants, 330 patients had died (157 preoperative radiotherapy group vs 173 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy), and median follow-up of surviving patients was 4 years. 99 patients had developed local recurrence (27 preoperative radiotherapy vs 72 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We noted a reduction of 61% in the relative risk of local recurrence for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.58, p<0.0001), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6.2% (95% CI 5.3-7.1) (4.4% preoperative radiotherapy vs 10.6% selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We recorded a relative improvement in disease-free survival of 24% for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.94, p=0.013), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6.0% (95% CI 5.3-6.8) (77.5%vs 71.5%). Overall survival did not differ between the groups (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.13, p=0.40). INTERPRETATION: Taken with results from other randomised trials, our findings provide convincing and consistent evidence that short-course preoperative radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with operable rectal cancer.

Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Local recurrence rates in operable rectal cancer are improved by radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) and surgical techniques such as total mesorectal excision. However, the contributions of surgery and radiotherapy to outcomes are unclear. We assessed the effect of the involvement of the circumferential resection margin and the plane of surgery achieved. METHODS: In this prospective study, the plane of surgery achieved and the involvement of the circumferential resection margin were assessed by local pathologists, using a standard pathological protocol in 1156 patients with operable rectal cancer from the CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 trial, which compared short-course (5 days) preoperative radiotherapy and selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy, between March, 1998, and August, 2005. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. FINDINGS: 128 patients (11%) had involvement of the circumferential resection margin, and the plane of surgery achieved was classified as good (mesorectal) in 604 (52%), intermediate (intramesorectal) in 398 (34%), and poor (muscularis propria plane) in 154 (13%). We found that both a negative circumferential resection margin and a superior plane of surgery achieved were associated with low local recurrence rates. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16-0.63, p=0.0011) with 3-year local recurrence rates of 6% (5-8%) and 17% (10-26%) for patients who were negative and positive for circumferential resection margin, respectively. For plane of surgery achieved, HRs for mesorectal and intramesorectal groups compared with the muscularis propria group were 0.32 (0.16-0.64) and 0.48 (0.25-0.93), respectively. At 3 years, the estimated local recurrence rates were 4% (3-6%) for mesorectal, 7% (5-11%) for intramesorectal, and 13% (8-21%) for muscularis propria groups. The benefit of short-course preoperative radiotherapy did not differ in the three plane of surgery groups (p=0.30 for trend). Patients in the short-course preoperative radiotherapy group who had a resection in the mesorectal plane had a 3-year local recurrence rate of only 1%. INTERPRETATION: In rectal cancer, the plane of surgery achieved is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence. Short-course preoperative radiotherapy reduced the rate of local recurrence for all three plane of surgery groups, almost abolishing local recurrence in short-course preoperative radiotherapy patients who had a resection in the mesorectal plane. The plane of surgery achieved should therefore be assessed and reported routinely.

Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life. METHODS: 409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112. FINDINGS: At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10]; p=0.29). Median survival was 7.6 months in the ASC alone group and 8.5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0.80 [0.63-1.02]; p=0.08), with a median survival of 9.5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0.99 [0.78-1.27]; p=0.95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months. INTERPRETATION: The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.

The Accuracy of Clinical Staging of Stage I-IIIa Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis Based on Individual Participant Data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) helps determine the prognosis and treatment of patients; few data exist on the accuracy of clinical staging and the impact on treatment and survival of patients. We assessed whether participant or trial characteristics were associated with clinical staging accuracy as well as impact on survival. METHODS: We used individual participant data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), supplied for a meta-analysis of preoperative chemotherapy (± radiotherapy) vs surgery alone (± radiotherapy) in NSCLC. We assessed agreement between clinical TNM (cTNM) stage at randomization and pathologic TNM (pTNM) stage, for participants in the control group. RESULTS: Results are based on 698 patients who received surgery alone (± radiotherapy) with data for cTNM and pTNM stage. Forty-six percent of cases were cTNM stage I, 23% were cTNM stage II, and 31% were cTNM stage IIIa. cTNM stage disagreed with pTNM stage in 48% of cases, with 34% clinically understaged and 14% clinically overstaged. Agreement was not associated with age (P = .12), sex (P = .62), histology (P = .82), staging method (P = .32), or year of randomization (P = .98). Poorer survival in understaged patients was explained by the underlying pTNM stage. Clinical staging failed to detect T4 disease in 10% of cases and misclassified nodal disease in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates suboptimal agreement between clinical and pathologic staging. Discrepancies between clinical and pathologic T and N staging could have led to different treatment decisions in 10% and 38% of cases, respectively. There is therefore a need for further research into improving staging accuracy for patients with stage I-IIIa NSCLC.

Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response. METHODS: We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428. RESULTS: Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17). INTERPRETATION: Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.

Lung cancer management in limited resource settings: guidelines for appropriate good care.

Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer death worldwide and is becoming an increasing problem in developing countries. It is important that, in countries where health care resources are limited, these resources are used most effectively and cost-effectively. The authors, with the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency, drew on existing evidence-based clinical guidelines, published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as well as recent research publications, to summarise the current evidence and to make broad recommendations on the non-surgical treatment of patients with lung cancer. Tables were constructed which summarise the different treatment options for specific groups of patients, the increase in resource use for and the likely additional clinical benefit from each option. These tables can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of different interventions in a particular health care system and to develop local clinical guidelines.

The early toxicity of escalated versus standard dose conformal radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression for patients with localised prostate cancer: results from the MRC RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397).

BACKGROUND: Five-year disease-free survival rates for localised prostate cancer following standard doses of conventional radical external beam radiotherapy are around 80%. Conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) raises the possibility that radiotherapy doses can be increased and long-term efficacy outcomes improved, with safety an important consideration. METHODS: MRC RT01 is a randomised controlled trial of 862 men with localised prostate cancer comparing Standard CFRT (64Gy/32f) versus Escalated CFRT (74Gy/37f), both administered with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression. Early toxicity was measured using physician-reported instruments (RTOG, LENT/SOM, Royal Marsden Scales) and patient-reported questionnaires (MOS SF-36, UCLA Prostate Cancer Index, FACT-P). RESULTS: Overall early radiotherapy toxicity was similar, apart from increased bladder, bowel and sexual toxicity, in the Escalated Group during a short immediate post-radiotherapy period. Toxicity in both groups had abated by week 12. Using RTOG Acute Toxicity scores, cumulative Grade 2 bladder and bowel toxicity was 38% and 30% for Standard Group and 39% and 33% in Escalated Group, respectively. Urinary frequency (Royal Marsden Scale) improved in both groups from pre-androgen suppression to 6 months post-radiotherapy (p<0.001), but bowel and sexual functioning deteriorated. This pattern was supported by patient-completed assessments. Six months after starting radiotherapy the incidence of RTOG Grade > or = 2 side-effects was low (<1%); but there were six reports of rectal ulceration (6 Escalated Group), six haematuria (5 Escalated Group) and eight urethral stricture (6 Escalated Group). CONCLUSIONS: The two CFRT schedules with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression have broadly similar early toxicity profiles except for the immediate post-RT period. At 6 months and compared to before hormone therapy, bladder symptoms improved, whereas bowel and sexual symptoms worsened. These assessments of early treatment safety will be complemented by further follow-up to document late side-effects and efficacy.

Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide with midcycle vincristine versus standard chemotherapy in patients with small-cell lung cancer and good performance status: clinical and quality-of-life results of the British Medical Research Council multicenter randomized LU21 trial.

PURPOSE: Ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide, and vincristine, alone and in combination, are highly active against small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial was designed to investigate whether survival could be improved by a regimen of all four drugs (ICE-V) compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with SCLC and good performance status, and to assess the patients' quality of life (QL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of either ICE-V at 4-week intervals without dose reduction or standard chemotherapy administered according to local practice. The recommended standard control regimens were cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide; and cisplatin and etoposide. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were randomly assigned, and 350 (87%) patients have died. Overall survival was longer in the ICE-V group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.91; P = .0049), median survival was 15.6 months in the ICE-V group and 11.6 months in the control group, and 2-year survival rates were 20% and 11%, respectively. There was no evidence that the relative survival benefit for ICE-V was less in extensive-stage than in limited-stage patients. An increased rate of septicemia was reported in the ICE-V group (15% v 7% in the control group), but this did not result in an increase in reported treatment-related deaths (four patients [2%] in both groups). The findings on QL were broadly similar in both groups, with some benefit in favor of ICE-V. CONCLUSION: Compared with standard chemotherapy, the ICE-V regimen improves overall survival without QL penalties, despite an increased but manageable level of toxicity.

A comparison of statistical tests for detecting differential expression using Affymetrix oligonucleotide microarrays.

Signal quantification and detection of differential expression are critical steps in the analysis of Affymetrix microarray data. Many methods have been proposed in the literature for each of these steps. The goal of this paper is to evaluate several signal quantification methods (GCRMA, RSVD, VSN, MAS5, and Resolver) and statistical methods for differential expression (t test, Cyber-T, SAM, LPE, RankProducts, Resolver RatioBuild). Our particular focus is on the ability to detect differential expression via statistical tests. We have used two different datasets for our evaluation. First, we have used the HG-U133 Latin Square spike in dataset developed by Affymetrix. Second, we have used data from an in-house rat liver transcriptomics study following 30 different drug treatments generated using the Affymetrix RAE230A chip. Our overall recommendation based on this study is to use GCRMA for signal quantification. For detection of differential expression, GCRMA coupled with Cyber-T or SAM is the best approach, as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The integrated pipeline in Resolver RatioBuild combining signal quantification and detection of differential expression is an equally good alternative for detecting differentially expressed genes. For most of the differential expression algorithms we considered, the performance using MAS5 signal quantification was inferior to that of the other methods we evaluated.

A randomised controlled trial of pre-operative chemotherapy followed, if feasible, by resection versus radiotherapy in patients with inoperable stage T3, N1, M0 or T1-3, N2, M0 non-small cell lung cancer.

The majority of patients with stage T3, N1, M0 or T1-3, N2, M0 non-small cell lung cancer are considered inoperable, and receive radical radiotherapy. This randomised trial aimed to assess whether, in this group of inoperable patients, a policy of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (with mitomycin, ifosfamide and cisplatin (MIC) or mitomycin, vinblastine and cisplatin (MVP)) followed, if feasible, by surgery (CT-S), would result in better outcomes than radical radiotherapy (RT). The trial closed due to poor accrual, with only 48 patients randomised in 3 years. Only 4 of the 24 patients in the CT-S group had a complete resection, and of these, the 2 patients who had a pneumonectomy both died 12 days after surgery. There was no evidence of an improved survival in the CT-S group (median survival 13.8 months, compared with 11.3 months for the RT group), but because the trial failed to recruit we were unable to reach any reliable conclusions about these two treatment options.

Lung cancer diagnosis and staging with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration compared with conventional approaches: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and staging of lung cancer is an important process that identifies treatment options and guides disease prognosis. We aimed to assess endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration as an initial investigation technique for patients with suspected lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients who had undergone a CT scan and had suspected stage I to IIIA lung cancer, from six UK centres and randomly assigned them to either endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) or conventional diagnosis and staging (CDS), for further investigation and staging. If a target node could not be accessed by EBUS-TBNA, then endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was allowed as an alternative procedure. Randomisation was stratified according to the presence of mediastinal lymph nodes measuring 1 cm or more in the short axis and by recruiting centre. We used a telephone randomisation method with permuted blocks of four generated by a computer. Because of the nature of the intervention, masking of participants and consenting investigators was not possible. The primary endpoint was the time-to-treatment decision after completion of the diagnostic and staging investigations and analysis was by intention-to-diagnose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00652769. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2008, and July 4, 2011, we randomly allocated 133 patients to treatment: 66 to EBUS-TBNA and 67 to CDS (one later withdrew consent). Two patients from the EBUS-TBNA group underwent EUS-FNA. The median time to treatment decision was shorter with EBUS-TBNA (14 days; 95% CI 14-15) than with CDS (29 days; 23-35) resulting in a hazard ratio of 1·98, (1·39-2·82, p<0·0001). One patient in each group had a pneumothorax from a CT-guided biopsy sample; the patient from the CDS group needed intercostal drainage and was admitted to hospital. INTERPRETATION: Transbronchial needle aspiration guided by endobronchial ultrasound should be considered as the initial investigation for patients with suspected lung cancer, because it reduces the time to treatment decision compared with conventional diagnosis and staging techniques. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Implementing the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) RT01 trial (ISRCTN 47772397): methods and practicalities of a randomised controlled trial of conformal radiotherapy in men with localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is the most frequently used treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) is a relatively new development. MRC RT01 was set-up to explore optimum CFRT dose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RT01 was an international multi-centre randomised controlled trial for men with T1b-T3a, N0, M0 prostate cancer that evolved from a single-centre pilot trial of similar design. All men received at least 3 months of pre-radiotherapy hormone treatment, before randomisation to standard (64 Gy) or high dose (74 Gy) radical CFRT. Accrual was completed in December 2001 with 843 men randomised from 25 centres in less than 4 years. RT01 has been a catalyst for implementing CFRT across UK. In addition to the Trial Management Group, independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and independent Trial Steering Committee, a Quality of Life and Health Economics (QL/HE) group, a radiotherapy Quality Assurance (QA) Group and a Radiography Trial Implementation Group were set up. The QL/HE group ensured implementation, compliance, analysis and interpretation of the QL and HE data in the trial. The inauguration of QA and Radiography groups facilitated inter-centre collaboration. The QA Group ensured procedures were in place before and during trial participation, and monitored quality and consistency with systems including a physics questionnaire, a clinical examples exercise, a standard operating procedure document, designing and building a phantom, and convening a complications modelling subgroup. The Radiography group agreed and implemented technique improvements. RESULTS: More centres participated than initially predicted, enabling recruitment better than scheduled. The trial expedited the implementation of CFRT in many UK radiotherapy centres. Additionally, the QA and Radiography groups helped ensure smooth initiation and established consistency in planning, dosimetry and delivery of prostate CFRT services at participating UK centres. Considerable data has been collected; a series of papers will be produced, although mature clinical trial results are not anticipated until 2006-2008.

Impact of short-course preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer on patients' quality of life: data from the Medical Research Council CR07/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group C016 randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The Medical Research Council CR07/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group C016 (MRC CR07/NCIC CTG C016) trial showed that, in patients with operable rectal cancer, short-course preoperative radiotherapy (PRE) reduced the rate of local recurrence compared with surgery followed by selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with a positive circumferential resection margin. However, the advantages of giving PRE to all patients needs to be balanced against any negative impact on patients' quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 1,350 patients were asked to complete the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-item (MOS SF-36) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Colorectal 38-item (EORTC QLQ-CR38) questionnaires. A priori hypotheses related to the impact of treatment on sexual, bowel, and physical function and general health. RESULTS: Male sexual dysfunction was significantly increased following surgery (P < .001), although there was no difference between treatment arms. However, a treatment difference had emerged at 6 months (PRE patients reporting significantly greater dysfunction; P = .004), which persisted out to at least 2 years (an insufficient number of female patients completed the sexual dysfunction questions to draw firm conclusions). Both treatment groups reported similar levels of decreased physical function at 3 months, but thereafter it returned to baseline levels. There was no evidence of any major changes between treatments or time points in terms of general health or bowel function, but exploratory analysis indicated a significant (P = .006 at 2 years) increase in the level of fecal incontinence with PRE. CONCLUSION: These results from a large randomized trial using validated patient-completed questionnaires show that, for males, the main adverse effect was sexual dysfunction, and the main cause of this was surgery, but that PRE also affected sexual and some aspects of bowel functioning.

Pooled safety and efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in nine first-line treatment trials using individual data from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade > or = 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy. RESULTS: Compared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade > or = 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.

Irinotecan/fluorouracil combination in first-line therapy of older and younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: combined analysis of 2,691 patients in randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists about whether elderly patients benefit to the same extent as younger patients from combination therapy with irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Combined analysis was carried out with source data from the fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid (FA) and the irinotecan/FU/FA arms of four first-line, phase III trials of CRC to investigate the efficacy and safety of combination and monotherapy in elderly (age > or = 70 years; n = 599) compared with younger (age < 70 years; n = 2,092) patients. RESULTS: Response rates were improved with irinotecan-based combination therapy compared with FU/FA in patients both younger than 70 years and > or = 70 years (46.6% v 29.0% P < .0001; and 50.5% v 30.3%, P < .0001, respectively). With irinotecan/FU/FA, progression-free survival was better for both younger (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85; P < .0001) and elderly patients (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90; P = .0026). In younger patients, overall survival was improved with combination therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92; P = .0003). The same trend was observed in elderly patients (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .15). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and age in the regression analysis. The expected differences in toxicity between combination and monotherapy in elderly and younger patients were observed. A significant interaction between treatment and age (cutoff, 70 years) for vomiting and hepatotoxicity was not confirmed by analysis that used age as a continuous variable. CONCLUSION: Patients older than 70 years of age who were selected for inclusion in phase III trials derived similar benefits as younger patients from irinotecan-containing chemotherapy, and the risk of toxicity was similar.

Predictive biomarkers of chemotherapy efficacy in colorectal cancer: results from the UK MRC FOCUS trial.

PURPOSE: Candidate predictive biomarkers for irinotecan and oxaliplatin were assessed in 1,628 patients in Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, CPT-11: Use and Sequencing (FOCUS), a large randomized trial of fluorouracil alone compared with fluorouracil and irinotecan and compared with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: The candidate biomarkers were: tumor immunohistochemistry for MLH1/MSH2, p53, topoisomerase-1 (Topo1), excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranserase (MGMT), and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2); germline DNA polymorphisms in GSTP1, ABCB1, XRCC1, ERCC2, and UGT1A1. These were screened in more than 750 patients for interaction with benefit from irinotecan or oxaliplatin; two markers (Topo1 and MLH1/MSH2) met criteria to be taken forward for analysis in the full population. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred thirteen patients (81%) were assessable for Topo1 immunohistochemistry (low, < 10%; moderate, 10% to 50%; or high, > 50% tumor nuclei). In patients with low Topo1, PFS was not improved by the addition of either irinotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.22) or oxaliplatin (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.07); conversely, patients with moderate/high Topo1 benefited from the addition of either drug (HR, 0.48 to 0.70 in all categories; interaction P = .005; overall, P = .001 for irinotecan; P = .05 for oxaliplatin). High Topo1 was associated with a major overall survival benefit with first-line combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.60; median benefit, 5.3 months); patients with moderate or low Topo1 did not benefit (HR, 0.92 and 1.09, respectively; interaction P = .005). MLH1/MSH2 did not show significant interaction with treatment, although the low rate of loss (4.4%) limits the power of the study for this biomarker. CONCLUSION: Topo1 immunohistochemistry identified subpopulations that did or did not benefit from irinotecan, and possibly also from oxaliplatin. If verified independently, this information will contribute to the individualization of treatment for colorectal cancer.

Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group.

PURPOSE: Several recent trials have shown a significant overall survival (OS) benefit from postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation was to identify treatment options associated with a higher benefit or groups of patients who particularly benefit from postoperative chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected and pooled from the five largest trials (4,584 patients) of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in completely resected patients that were conducted after the 1995 NSCLC meta-analysis. The interactions between patient subgroups or treatment types and chemotherapy effect on OS were analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) and log-rank tests stratified by trial. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 5.2 years, the overall HR of death was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.96; P = .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy. There was no heterogeneity of chemotherapy effect among trials. The benefit varied with stage (test for trend, P = .04; HR for stage IA = 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.06; HR for stage IB = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.10; HR for stage II = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.95; and HR for stage III = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94). The effect of chemotherapy did not vary significantly (test for interaction, P = .11) with the associated drugs, including vinorelbine (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.91), etoposide or vinca alkaloid (HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07), or other (HR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.13). Chemotherapy effect was higher in patients with better performance status. There was no interaction between chemotherapy effect and sex, age, histology, type of surgery, planned radiotherapy, or planned total dose of cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Postoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improves survival in patients with NSCLC.

The quality of life of men with locally advanced prostate cancer during neoadjuvant hormone therapy: data from the Medical Research Council RT01 trial (ISRCTN 47772397).

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' quality of life (QoL) during neoadjuvant hormone therapy (HT) using data from the Medical Research Council RT01 trial of standard- (64 Gy/32-fraction) and high- (74 Gy/37-fraction) dose radiotherapy (RT, both given conformally). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 843 patients randomized to the RT01 trial, 316 completed the Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy core questionnaire with its additional prostate subscale, and the Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire with the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index before HT and again before starting RT. Three predefined QoL hypotheses were generated to focus the analyses. RESULTS: For the three primary QoL analyses there was evidence that sexual functioning deteriorated, urinary function did not change, and there was a slight decline in physical well-being after > or = 3 months of HT. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Exploratory analyses also suggested that role functioning deteriorated, sleep was more disturbed, and there was an increase in fatigue. However, overall QoL was not reported to be affected and patients indicated an improvement in attitude and satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of men, many of whom reported reduced sexual functioning before treatment, the additional decline during HT seemed to be generally accepted as the price to pay for an appropriate cancer treatment. Nevertheless, these changes need to be discussed with patients before HT is commenced.

Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In men with localised prostate cancer, conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) could deliver higher doses of radiation than does standard-dose conventional radical external-beam radiotherapy, and could improve long-term efficacy, potentially at the cost of increased toxicity. We aimed to present the first analyses of effectiveness from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The MRC RT01 trial included 843 men with localised prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to standard-dose CFRT or escalated-dose CFRT, both administered with neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Primary endpoints were biochemical-progression-free survival (bPFS), freedom from local progression, metastases-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity scores. The toxicity scores were measured with questionnaires for physicians and patients that included the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), the Late Effects on Normal Tissue: Subjective/Objective/Management (LENT/SOM) scales, and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA PCI) scales. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at the Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN47772397. FINDINGS: Between January, 1998, and December, 2002, 843 men were randomly assigned to escalated-dose CFRT (n=422) or standard-dose CFRT (n=421). In the escalated group, the hazard ratio (HR) for bPFS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.53-0.85, p=0.0007). We noted 71% bPFS (108 cumulative events) and 60% bPFS (149 cumulative events) by 5 years in the escalated and standard groups, respectively. HR for clinical progression-free survival was 0.69 (0.47-1.02; p=0.064); local control was 0.65 (0.36-1.18; p=0.16); freedom from salvage androgen suppression was 0.78 (0.57-1.07; p=0.12); and metastases-free survival was 0.74 (0.47-1.18; p=0.21). HR for late bowel toxicity in the escalated group was 1.47 (1.12-1.92) according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale; 1.44 (1.16-1.80) according to the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales; and 1.28 (1.03-1.60) according to the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale. 33% of the escalated and 24% of the standard group reported late bowel toxicity within 5 years of starting treatment. HR for late bladder toxicity according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale was 1.36 (0.90-2.06), but this finding was not supported by the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales (HR 1.07 [0.90-1.29]), nor the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale (HR 1.05 [0.81-1.36]). INTERPRETATION: Escalated-dose CFRT with neoadjuvant androgen suppression seems clinically worthwhile in terms of bPFS, progression-free survival, and decreased use of salvage androgen suppression. This additional efficacy is offset by an increased incidence of longer term adverse events.