Jürg Bernhard

Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Burdens and Benefits of Adjuvant Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil and Tamoxifen for Elderly Patients With Breast Cancer: The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII

PURPOSE Information on the tolerability and efficacy of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for older women is limited. We studied these issues using the data collected as part of the International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII. PATIENTS AND METHODS Postmenopausal women with operable, node-positive breast cancer were randomized to receive either tamoxifen alone for 5 years (306 patients) or tamoxifen plus three consecutive cycles of classical cyclophosphamide (100 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14), methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) intravenous days 1 and 8), and fluorouracil (600 mg/m(2) intravenous days 1 and 8) every 28 days (CMF; 302 patients). The median follow-up was 8.0 years. RESULTS Among the 299 patients who received at least one dose of CMF, women 65 years of age or older (n = 76) had higher grades of toxicity compared with women less than 65 years old (n = 223) (P =.004). More women in the older age group compared with the younger women experienced grade 3 toxicity of any type (17% v 7%, respectively), grade 3 hematologic toxicity (9% v 5%, respectively), and grade 3 mucosal toxicity (4% v 1%, respectively). Older patients also received less than their expected CMF dose compared with younger postmenopausal women (P =.0008). The subjective burdens of treatment, however, were similar for younger and older patients based on quality-of-life measures (performance status, coping, physical well-being, mood, and appetite). For older patients, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 63% for CMF plus tamoxifen and 61% for tamoxifen alone (hazards ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 1.52; P =.99). For younger patients, the corresponding 5-year DFS rates were 61% and 53% (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.91; P =.008), but the test for heterogeneity of CMF effect according to age group was not statistically significant. The reduced effectiveness of CMF among older women could not be attributed to dose reductions according to dose received. CONCLUSION CMF tolerability and effectiveness were both reduced for older patients compared with younger postmenopausal node-positive breast cancer patients who received tamoxifen for 5 years. The development and evaluation of less toxic and more effective chemotherapy regimens are required for high-risk elderly patients.

A randomized trial comparing axillary clearance versus no axillary clearance in older patients (≥ 60 years) with breast cancer: First results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 10–93

505 Background: Axillary clearance is associated with undesirable side-effects. We therefore investigated if avoiding axillary surgery in older women would result in improved quality of life (QL) and similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS Between 1993 and 2002, women ≥ 60 years old with clinically N0 operable breast cancer were randomized to primary surgery plus axillary clearance (Sx+Ax) followed by tamoxifen (Tam) versus Sx without Ax followed by Tam. The primary endpoint was QL reported by the patient (using linear analogue self-assessment [LASA] scales) and by physician assessment at sequential time points. RESULTS 473 patients (234 to Sx+Ax, 239 to Sx) were randomized to meet the target accrual of 472 patients. The median age was 74 years in both arms. Other characteristics were also balanced: 80% ER-positive; 45% mastectomies; 33% breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy (RT); 22% breast-conserving surgery without RT. The table below gives the results of 2 of the LASAs and 2 of the physician-reported side-effects. In all of these assessments the largest differences were observed from baseline to post-operative, with patients randomized to Sx+Ax having worse QL and more side effects, but the differences tended to approach baseline values in 6 to 12 months. At a median follow-up of 6 years, results for Sx+Ax vs. Sx were similar for DFS (total events: 84 vs. 77; 5-year DFS: 71% vs. 70%; relative risk (RR) [Sx+Ax/Sx]: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.82-1.53; p=0.46) and OS (total deaths: 65 vs. 62; 5-year OS: 78% vs. 80%; RR [Sx+Ax/Sx]: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.77-1.55; p=0.61). CONCLUSIONS Avoiding axillary clearance for women ≥ 60 years old who have clinically N0 disease and receive Tam results in similar efficacy with improved QL. [Figure: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil; Docetaxel and Cisplatin; and Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil As Systemic Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE This randomized phase II trial evaluated two docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to overall response rate (ORR) for comparison in a phase III trial with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil (ECF) as first-line advanced gastric cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric carcinoma, a performance status <or= 1, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function randomly received <or= eight 3-weekly cycles of ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil [FU] 200 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 21), TC (docetaxel initially 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 [later reduced to 75 mg/m(2) as a result of toxicity] and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1), or TCF (TC plus FU 300 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 14). Study objectives included response (primary), survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 13% to 41%) for ECF, 18.5% (95% CI, 9% to 34%) for TC, and 36.6% (95% CI, 23% to 53%) for TCF (n = 119). Median overall survival times were 8.3, 11.0, and 10.4 months for ECF, TC, and TCF, respectively. Toxicity was acceptable, with one toxic death (TC arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in more treatment cycles with docetaxel (TC, 49%; TCF, 57%; ECF, 34%). Global health status/QOL substantially improved with ECF and remained similar to baseline with both docetaxel regimens. CONCLUSION Time to response and ORR favor TCF over TC for further evaluation, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting. A trend towards increased myelosuppression and infectious complications with TCF versus TC or ECF was observed.

Quality-of-Life Scores Predict Outcome in Metastatic but Not Early Breast Cancer

PURPOSE We compared the prognostic value of quality-of-life (QL) scores in the adjuvant setting and after relapse in two randomized trials of the International Breast Cancer Study Group. PATIENTS AND METHODS More than 2,000 premenopausal and postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer who were participating in randomized trials that compared adjuvant therapies completed QL assessments for physical well-being, mood, appetite, and coping at study entry and at months 3 and 18 if they remained relapse-free and, in case of relapse, at 1 month and at 6 months after relapse. Cox regression models were used to test the relationship between QL scores and disease-free survival (DFS), in the adjuvant setting, or overall survival, in the case of postrelapse QL measurement. All models were stratified by language/country group and included other factors related to QL and/or outcome. RESULTS DFS was not significantly predicted by QL scores at baseline or month 18, or by changes in QL score between baseline and months 3 or 18. In contrast, after relapse, QL scores were predictive for subsequent overall survival. One month after relapse, better mood (P =.04) in premenopausal patients and better appetite (P =.005) in postmenopausal patients were associated with longer survival. Six months after relapse, better physical well-being (P =.03) and appetite (P =.03) in premenopausal patients and better physical well-being (P <.0001), mood (P =.002), appetite (P =.0001), and coping (P =.0001) in postmenopausal patients predicted longer survival. CONCLUSION Any prognostic significance of QL scores in the adjuvant setting is minimal or obscured by chemotherapy effects, but there is strong prognostic significance of QL scores after disease relapse. The contrast suggests that patient perception of the severity of underlying illness may determine reported QL scores.

The Perceived Adjustment to Chronic Illness Scale (PACIS): a global indicator of coping for operable breast cancer patients in clinical trials

Subjective well-being is a major aspect of quality of life and is therefore increasingly used as an endpoint in clinical trials. It is influenced to a great extent by the complex process of coping with the disease and its treatment. Assessment of coping is methodologically demanding, especially in large clinical trials. We therefore developed a single-item measure, the Perceived Adjustment to Chronic Illness Scale (PACIS), as an indicator of coping, complementary to other scales related to quality of life. We sought to validate this instrument in a subgroup of 121 Swiss patients participating in the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) adjuvant trials. At months 3 and 6 of adjuvant treatment PACIS showed a distinct pattern of highly significant rank correlations with several disease-and treatment-related problem areas from the Herschbach coping inventory (FBBK); 42% of the variance of PACIS at month 3 was explained by the FBBK (P=0.0001). The portion of explained variance was considerably higher for the Italian-(70%) than for the German-speaking (30%) subgroups. Patients who rated more effort to cope with their disease on PACIS indicated more frequent use of 3 of 15 coping strategies in relation to psychological distress. These were “crying and becoming desperate”, “taking tranquillizers and alcohol” and “other people are far worse off”. These three coping strategies may define a high-risk group for poor psychosocial outcome. Patients whose PACIS scores showed that it required less effort to cope tended to use the strategy “seeing a positive side of the problem”. We conclude that PACIS can be used as a global indicator of the coping process in large multicultural clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Clinical relevance of single item quality of life indicators in cancer clinical trials

We investigated the hypothesis that global single-item quality-of-life indicators are less precise for specific treatment effects (discriminant validity) than multi-item scales but similarly efficient for overall treatment comparisons and changes over time (responsiveness) because they reflect the summation of the individual meaning and importance of various factors. Linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) indicators for physical well-being, mood and coping were compared with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD), the Mood Adjective Check List (MACL) and the emotional behaviour and social interaction scales of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) in 84 patients with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant therapy. Discriminant validity was investigated by multitrait-multimethod correlation, responsiveness by standardized response mean (SRM). Discriminant validity of the indicators was present at baseline but less under treatment. Responsiveness was demonstrated by the expected pattern among treatments (P = 0.008). In patients without chemotherapy, the SRMs indicated moderate (0.5–0.8) to large (>0.8) improvements in physical well-being (0.70), coping (0.92), HAD anxiety (0.89) and depression (1.19), and MACL mental well-being (0.68). In patients with chemotherapy for the first 3 months, small but clinically significant improvements (>).2) included mood (0.38), coping (0.41), HAD axiety (0.31) and MACL mental well-being (0.35). Patients with 6 months chemotherapy showed no changes. The indicators also reflected mood disorders (HAD) and marked psychosocial dysfunction (SIP) at baseline and under treatment according to pre-defined cut-off levels. Global indicators were confirmed to be efficient for evaluating treatments overall and changes over time. The lower reliability of single as opposed to multi-item scales affects primarily their discriminant validity. This is less decisive in large sample sizes.

Responsiveness of a Single-Item Indicator Versus a Multi-Item Scale: Assessment of Emotional Well-Being in an International Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trial

A single-item linear analogue self-assessment scale for mood was compared with a 28-item adjective checklist for emotional well-being. To confirm its concurrent validity and responsiveness to treatment and recurrence in patients with breast cancer, emotional well-being was assessed every 3 months for 2 years and at 1 and 6 months after recurrence in 1,169 patients who were premenopausal and 960 patients who were postmenopausal. These patients were enrolled in two International Breast Cancer Study Group randomized clinical trials in operable breast cancer conducted from 1986 to 1993. To assess concurrent validity, Pearsons correlation between the linear analogue self-assessment scale and the adjective checklist were calculated for each time-point within each treatment group and for the two assessments after recurrence. Responsiveness to treatment and recurrence were analyzed using paired t tests and the squared ratio of these t tests, an estimate of relative efficiency. Concurrent validity of the mood linear analogue self-assessment was consistently confirmed across four language groups. Both measures were responsive; out of 24 changes over time, 19 were in the expected direction for the linear analogue self-assessment scale (p < or = 0.05 for 9 of 19) and 17 for the adjective checklist (p < or = 0.05 for 10 of 17). The linear analogue self-assessment scale was less but significantly efficient for detection of treatment effects, with relative efficiency estimates ranging from 0.16 to 2.45 and a median of 0.66 among the comparisons with relatively stable estimates (/t/ > or = 1.0) and more efficient for recurrence than the adjective checklist. The mood linear analogue self-assessment scale is a valid indicator of emotional well-being in patients with breast cancer in large multicenter, multicultural trials in which comprehensive scales are less feasible. This investigation supports the clinical relevance of linear analogue self-assessment scales as indicators of components of quality of life in cancer clinical trials.