David J. Girling

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

Summary 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. Funding Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council (UK).

Improving Survival Without Reducing Quality of Life in Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients by Increasing the Dose-Intensity of Chemotherapy With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support: Results of a British Medical Research Council Multicenter Randomized Trial

PURPOSE The treatment of small-cell lung cancer patients with good performance status aims to improve survival. Dose-intensification could be a way to achieve improved survival but can be limited by neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Preliminary, nonrandomized feasibility studies showed that doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (ACE) could be given every 2 (instead of the usual 3) weeks with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim; Chugai-Rh¿one-Poulenc, Tokyo, Japan) support. The present multicenter randomized trial was designed to examine whether such dose-intensification improves survival while maintaining acceptable toxicity levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS All patients were randomized to receive six cycles of ACE either every 3 weeks (control [C] group) or every 2 weeks with G-CSF (G group). The standard dose-intensity of ACE was increased by 50% in group G. RESULTS Four hundred and three patients (G group: n = 201; C group: n = 202) were randomized. The received dose-intensity was 34% higher in the G group than in the C group. Complete response rates were 40% for the G group and 28% for the C group (P =.02), and overall rates were 78% for the G group and 79% for the C group. Survival was longer in the G group (hazard ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.99; P =.04), survival rates for the G and C groups being 47% and 39% at 12 months and 13% and 8% at 24 months, respectively. Metastasis-free survival, nonhematologic toxicity, and quality of life were similar in the two groups. In the G group, there was less neutropenia but more thrombocytopenia and more frequent blood and platelet transfusions. CONCLUSION Increasing the dose-intensity of ACE with G-CSF support improved survival while maintaining acceptable toxicity.

The role of post-operative radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre randomised trial in patients with pathologically staged T1-2, N1-2, M0 disease. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party.

The role of post-operative radiotherapy for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear despite five previous randomised trials. One deficiency with these trials was that they did not include adequate TNM staging, and so the present randomised trial was designed to compare surgery alone (S) with surgery plus post-operative radiotherapy (SR) in patients with pathologically staged T1-2, N1-2. M0 NSCLC. Between July 1986 and October 1993, 308 patients (154 S, 154 SR) were entered from 16 centres in the UK. The median age of the patients was 62 years, 74% were male, > 85% had normal or near normal levels of general condition, activity and breathlessness, 68% had squamous carcinoma, 52% had had a pneumonectomy, 63% had N1 disease and 37% N2 disease. SR patients received 40 Gy in 15 fractions starting 4-6 weeks post-operatively. Overall there was no advantage to either group in terms of survival, although definite local recurrence and bony metastases appeared less frequently and later in the SR group. In a subgroup analysis, in the N1 group no differences between the treatment groups were seen, but in the N2 group SR patients appeared to gain a one month survival advantage, delayed time to local recurrence and time to appearance of the bone metastases. There is, therefore, no clear indication for post-operative radiotherapy in N1 disease, but the question remains unresolved in N2 disease.

Randomized trial of palliative two-fraction versus more intensive 13-fraction radiotherapy for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer and good performance status

In patients with non-metastatic but inoperable non-small cell lung cancer that is locally too extensive for radical radiotherapy (RT), but who have good performance status, it is important to determine whether thoracic RT should be the minimum that is required to palliate thoracic symptoms or whether treatment should be more intensive, with the aim of prolonging survival. A total of 509 such patients from 11 centres in the UK between November 1989 and October 1992 were admitted to a trial comparing palliative versus more intensive RT with respect to survival and quality of life. They were allocated at random to receive thoracic RT with either 17 Gy in two fractions (F2) 1 week apart (255 patients) or 39 Gy in 13 fractions (F13) 5 days per week (254 patients). Survival was better in the F13 group, the median survival periods being 7 months in the F2 group compared with 9 months in the F13 group, and the survival rates 31% and 36% at one year and 9% and 12% at 2 years, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.82; 95% CI0.69-0.99). There was a suggestion of a trend towards greater benefit in fitter patients. Metastases appeared earlier in the F2 group. As recorded by patients using the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, the commonest symptoms on admission were cough, shortness of breath, tiredness, lack of energy, worrying and chest pain. These were more rapidly palliated by the F2 regimen. Psychological distress was generally lower in the F13 group. Three patients (two F13, one F2) exhibited evidence of myelopathy. As recorded by patients using a diary card, 76% of the F2 compared with 81% of the F13 patients had dysphagia associated with their RT. This was transient, lasting for a median of 6.5 days in the F2 group compared with 14 days in the F13 group. In conclusion, the F2 regimen had a more rapid palliative effect. In the F13 group, although treatment-related dysphagia was worse, survival was longer.

Preoperative radiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis using individual patient data (oesophageal cancer collaborative group)

PURPOSE The existing randomized evidence has failed to conclusively demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of preoperative radiotherapy in treating patients with potentially resectable esophageal carcinoma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether there is benefit from adding radiotherapy prior to surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS This quantitative meta-analysis included updated individual patient data from all properly randomized trials (published or unpublished) comprising 1147 patients (971 deaths) from five randomized trials. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 9 years, the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) suggests an overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% and an absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. This result is not conventionally statistically significant (p = 0.062). No clear differences in the size of the effect by sex, age, or tumor location were apparent. CONCLUSION Based on existing trials, there was no clear evidence that preoperative radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer. These results indicate that if such preoperative radiotherapy regimens do improve survival, then the effect is likely to be modest with an absolute improvement in survival of around 3 to 4%. Trials or a meta-analysis of around 2000 patients would be needed to reliably detect such an improvement (15-->20%).

Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the U.K. Medical Research Council experience

Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.

Radiation myelopathy: Estimates of risk in 1048 patients in three randomized trials of palliative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Radiation myelopathy (RM) is an uncommon but serious late effect of thoracic radiotherapy (RT), which oncologists try to avoid by careful planning and dose selection. Five patients with RM are described from among 1048 with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer treated with palliative RT in three randomized trials conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party. Seven RT regimens were used in these trials: 10 Gy in a single fraction on one day (10/1/1) (114 patients), 17/2/8 (524 patients), 27/6/11 (47 patients), 30/6/11 (36 patients), 30/10/12 (88 patients), 36/12/16 (86 patients) and 39/13/17 (153 patients). Of the five instances of RM, three occurred in the 524 patients treated with 17 Gy in two fractions, and two in the 153 treated with 39 Gy in 13 fractions. The estimated cumulative risks of RM by 2 years were 2.2% for the 17 Gy group, 2.5% for the 39 Gy group, and 0% for the remainder, but the annual risks had wide 95% confidence intervals, indicating that the distribution of episodes among the seven regimens could have been random. Nevertheless, calculation of cord doses in terms of the total doses that would have an equivalent biological effect if given in 2 Gy fractions (LQED2 values) from our data for different values of the ratio of the linear quadratic parameters of the cell survival curve (alpha/beta), suggest that the best estimate of alpha/beta is less than 3 Gy, and possibly close to 2 Gy. This emphasizes the sensitivity of human spinal cord to changes in fraction size. We recommend that, when the computed LQED2 for a schedule of treatment that includes the thoracic spinal cord (assuming alpha/beta = 2 for cord) exceeds 48 Gy, oncologists should consider reducing the dose to the cord.

Immediate versus delayed palliative thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer and minimal thoracic symptoms: randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objective: To determine whether patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer unsuitable for resection or radical radiotherapy, and with minimal thoracic symptoms, should be given palliative thoracic radiotherapy immediately or as needed to treat symptoms. Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting: 23 centres in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and South Africa. Participants: 230 patients with previously untreated, non-small cell lung cancer that is locally too advanced for resection or radical radiotherapy with curative intent, with minimal thoracic symptoms, and with no indication for immediate thoracic radiotherapy. Interventions: All patients were given supportive treatment and were randomised to receive palliative thoracic radiotherapy either immediately or delayed until needed to treat symptoms. The recommended regimens were 17 Gy in two fractions one week apart or 10 Gy as a single dose. Main outcome measures: Primary—patients alive and without moderate or severe cough, chest pain, haemoptysis, or dyspnoea six months from randomisation, as recorded by clinicians. Secondary—quality of life, adverse events, survival. Results: From December 1992 to May 1999, 230 patients were randomised. 104/115 of the patients in the immediate treatment group received thoracic radiotherapy (90 received one of the recommended regimens). In the delayed treatment group, 48/115 (42%) patients received thoracic radiotherapy (29 received one of the recommended regimens); 64 (56%) died without receiving thoracic radiotherapy; the remaining three (3%) were alive at the end of the study without having received the treatment. For patients who received thoracic radiotherapy, the median time to start was 15 days in the immediate treatment group and 125 days in the delayed treatment group. The primary outcome measure was achieved in 28% of the immediate treatment group and 26% of patients from the delayed treatment group (27/97 and 27/103, respectively; absolute difference 1.6%, 95% confidence interval -10.7% to 13.9%). No evidence of a difference was observed between the two treatment groups in terms of activity level, anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, as recorded by the patients. Adverse events were more common in the immediate treatment group. Neither group had a survival advantage (hazard ratio 0.95, 0.73to 1.24; P=0.71). Median survival was 8.3 months and 7.9 months, and the survival rates were 31% and 29% at 12 months, for the immediate and delayed treatment groups, respectively. Conclusion: In minimally symptomatic patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, no persuasive evidence was found to indicate that giving immediate palliative thoracic radiotherapy improves symptom control, quality of life, or survival when compared with delaying until symptoms require treatment.

Defining and analysing symptom palliation in cancer clinical trials: a deceptively difficult exercise

SummaryThe assessment of symptom palliation is an essential component of many treatment comparisons in clinical trials, yet an extensive literature search revealed no consensus as to its precise definition, which could embrace relief of symptoms, time to their onset, duration, degree, as well as symptom control and prevention. In an attempt to assess the importance of these aspects and to compare different methods of analysis, we used one symptom (cough) from a patient self-assessment questionnaire (the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) in a large (>300 patient) multicentre randomized clinical trial (conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party) of palliative chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer. The regimens compared were a two-drug regimen (2D) and a four-drug regimen (4D). No differences were seen between the regimens in time of onset of palliation or its duration. The degree of palliation was strongly related to the initial severity: 90% of the patients with moderate or severe cough at baseline reported improvement, compared with only 53% of those with mild cough. Analyses using different landmark time points gave conflicting results: the 4D regimen was superior at 1 month and at 3 months, whereas at 2 months the 2D regimen appeared superior. When improvement at any time up to 3 months was considered, the 4D regimen showed a significant benefit (4D 79%, 2D 60%, P = 0.02). These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting results, and the importance of working towards a standard definition of symptom palliation. The current lack of specified criteria makes analysis and interpretation of trial results difficult, and comparison across trials impossible. A standard definition of palliation for use in the analysis of clinical trials data is proposed, which takes into account aspects of onset, duration and degree of palliation, and symptom improvement, control and prevention.

A randomised trial of three or six courses of etoposide cyclophosphamide methotrexate and vincristine or six courses of etoposide and ifosfamide in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). I: Survival and prognostic factors. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party.

A total of 458 eligible patients, from 21 centres, with histologically or cytologically confirmed SCLC were allocated at random to three chemotherapy regimens, each given at 3-week intervals. In two regimens, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and vincristine were given for a total of either three courses (ECMV3) or six courses (ECMV6). In the third regimen, etoposide and ifosfamide were given for six courses (EI6). Patients with limited disease (56% of the total) also received radiotherapy to the primary site after the third course of chemotherapy in all three groups. A partial response occurred in 45% of 144 ECMV3 patients, 48% of 141 ECMV6, and 53% of 141 EI6 patients assessed, and a complete response in a further 15%, 9%, and 13% respectively, giving total response rates of 60%, 57%, and 67%, respectively. There was no overall survival advantage to any of the three regimens. At 1 year, 24%, 29%, and 30% of patients were alive, and at 2 years 7%, 8%, and 9%, respectively. The median survival time was 7.4 months in the ECMV3 group, 8.6 months in the ECMV6 group and 8.8 months in the EI6 group. The individual factors: poor performance status, extensive disease, the presence of dysphagia and a raised white blood cell count on admission adversely affected prognosis. The results do not exclude the possibility of a minor survival advantage with the two 6-course regimens. The findings on quality of life are presented in the companion paper (MRC Lung Cancer Working Party, 1993b).