Martin R. Stockler

Capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group randomized phase III MAX study

PURPOSE To determine whether adding bevacizumab, with or without mitomycin, to capecitabine monotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in an open-label, three-arm randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 471 patients in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom with previously untreated, unresectable mCRC were randomly assigned to the following: capecitabine; capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CB); or capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin (CBM). We compared CB with capecitabine and CBM with capecitabine for progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), toxicity, response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Median PFS was 5.7 months for capecitabine, 8.5 months for CB, and 8.4 months for CBM (capecitabine v CB: hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001; C v CBM: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75; P < .001). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median OS was 18.9 months for capecitabine and was 16.4 months for CBM; these data were not significantly different. Toxicity rates were acceptable, and all treatment regimens well tolerated. Bevacizumab toxicities were similar to those in previous studies. Measures of overall QOL were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION Adding bevacizumab to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin, significantly improves PFS without major additional toxicity or impairment of QOL.

Duration of Chemotherapy for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE To determine if it is preferable to extend chemotherapy beyond a standard number of cycles in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS We searched biomedical literature databases and conference proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a defined number of cycles with continuation of the same chemotherapy until disease progression, a larger defined number of cycles of identical chemotherapy, and a defined number of cycles of identical initial chemotherapy followed by additional cycles of an alternative chemotherapy. Meta-analysis was performed using the fixed effect model. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AE), and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS We found 13 RCTs including 3,027 patients. Extending chemotherapy improved PFS substantially (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81; P < .00001) and OS modestly (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99; P = .03). Subgroup analysis revealed that effects on PFS were greater for trials extending chemotherapy with third-generation regimens rather than older regimens (HR, 0.70 interaction v 0.92 interaction; P = .003). Extending chemotherapy was associated with more frequent AE in all trials where it was reported and impaired HRQL in two of seven trials. CONCLUSION Extending chemotherapy, particularly with a third-generation regimen, improved PFS substantially, but OS less so. Future trials should test extending treatment with more effective and/or better-tolerated agents.

Systematic review of the efficacy of antiemetics in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer

ObjectivesTo systematically review studies of antiemetics used in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer.Data sourcesRandomized controlled trials (RCT) and uncontrolled studies identified by electronic and hand searching.Review methodsIdentified studies were appraised for quality and effect size.ResultsOf 21 studies included, 2 were systematic reviews, 7 were RCT and 12 were uncontrolled studies or case series. Differences in interventions and outcomes amongst the RCT precluded any quantitative data synthesis and all seven studies were prone to bias. Whereas uncontrolled studies indicated a high response rate to standard regimens (75–93% for both nausea and vomiting), RCT showed much lower response rates to these agents (23–36% for nausea, 18–52% for vomiting). The two methods of antiemetic choice (choice based either on the inferred mechanism or empirical) were equally effective. There is reasonably strong evidence for the use of metoclopramide in cancer-associated dyspepsia and steroids in malignant bowel obstruction. There was conflicting evidence about the efficacy of serotonin antagonists compared with standard treatments (e.g. metoclopramide, dopamine antagonists and dexamethasone). There was little or no evidence of the efficacy of some commonly used and seemingly effective drugs such as haloperidol, cyclizine, and methotrimeprazine.ConclusionEvidence supporting the existing consensus-based guidelines for management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer is sparse. Current approaches to treatment based on the neuropharmacology of the emetic pathway may be inappropriate in this setting. Well-designed studies of the impact of “standard” management and novel agents on nausea and vomiting in palliative populations are needed.

Duration of Chemotherapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of different first-line chemotherapy durations in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). METHODS We searched literature databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared different chemotherapy durations in the first-line treatment of MBC. Only trials with unconfounded comparisons of additional cycles of chemotherapy were included. The main outcome measures for this analysis were OS and PFS. Published data from retrieved studies were analyzed according to standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS We found 11 randomized clinical trials including 2,269 patients. Longer first-line chemotherapy duration resulted into a significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99; P = .046) and PFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.76; P < .001). There were no differences in effects on either OS or PFS between subgroups defined by time of random assignment, study design, number of chemotherapy cycles in the control arm or concomitant endocrine therapy. CONCLUSION Longer first-line chemotherapy duration is associated with marginally longer OS and a substantially longer PFS.

Randomised, non-comparative phase II study of weekly docetaxel with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil or with capecitabine in oesophagogastric cancer: the AGITG ATTAX trial.

Background:Docetaxel administered 3-weekly with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil leads to better survival than does standard therapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer, but leads to high rates of haematological toxicity. Weekly docetaxel is associated with less haematological toxicity. This randomised phase II study tested weekly docetaxel-based combination chemotherapy regimens, with the aim of maintaining their activity while reducing toxicity.Methods:Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic oesophageal or gastric carcinoma were randomised to receive weekly docetaxel (30 mg m−2) on days 1 and 8, cisplatin (60 mg m−2) on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil (200 mg m−2 per day) continuously, every 3 weeks (weekly TCF, wTCF); or docetaxel (30 mg m−2) on days 1 and 8 and capecitabine (1600 mg m−2 per day) on days 1–14, every 3 weeks (weekly TX, wTX).Results:A total of 106 patients were enrolled (wTCF, n=50; wTX, n=56). Response rates, the primary end point, were 47% with wTCF and 26% with wTX. Rates of febrile neutropenia were low in each arm. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 5.9 and 11.2 months for wTCF and 4.6 and 10.1 months for wTX, respectively.Conclusion:Weekly TCF and TX have encouraging activity and less haematological toxicity than TCF administered 3-weekly. Weekly docetaxel-based combination regimens warrant further evaluation in this disease.

Patient-Reported Outcome Results From the Open-Label Phase III AURELIA Trial Evaluating Bevacizumab-Containing Therapy for Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE To determine the effects of bevacizumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs; secondary end point) in the AURELIA trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (CT) or with bevacizumab (BEV-CT). PROs were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Ovarian Cancer Module 28 (EORTC QLQ-OV28) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Cancer symptom index (FOSI) at baseline and every two or three cycles (8/9 weeks) until disease progression. The primary PRO hypothesis was that more patients receiving BEV-CT than CT would achieve at least a 15% (≥ 15-point) absolute improvement on the QLQ-OV28 abdominal/GI symptom subscale (items 31-36) at week 8/9. Patients with missing week 8/9 questionnaires were included as unimproved. Questionnaires from all assessments until disease progression were analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effects of differing assumptions and methods for missing data. RESULTS Baseline questionnaires were available from 89% of 361 randomly assigned patients. More BEV-CT than CT patients achieved a ≥ 15% improvement in abdominal/GI symptoms at week 8/9 (primary PRO end point, 21.9% v 9.3%; difference, 12.7%; 95% CI, 4.4 to 20.9; P = .002). MMRM analysis covering all time points also favored BEV-CT (difference, 6.4 points; 95% CI, 1.3 to 11.6; P = .015). More BEV-CT than CT patients achieved ≥ 15% improvement in FOSI at week 8/9 (12.2% v 3.1%; difference, 9.0%; 95% CI, 2.9% to 15.2%; P = .003). Sensitivity analyses gave similar results and conclusions. CONCLUSION Bevacizumab increased the proportion of patients achieving a 15% improvement in patient-reported abdominal/GI symptoms during chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Prognostic factors in patients with recently diagnosed incurable cancer: a systematic review

Goals of workTo review the literature and develop a conceptual framework about prognostic factors for people presenting to medical oncologists with recently diagnosed incurable cancer.Materials and methodsMedline was searched from January 2000 to October 2003 to identify articles testing associations between clinical or laboratory variables and survival time in adults with advanced solid tumours and median survival of 3 to 24 months. We recorded how frequently prognostic factors were significantly associated with survival in univariable and multivariable analyses.ResultsThere were 53 studies included. The factors associated with survival were organised into four categories related to attributes of the host the tumour, the treatment and the interactions between host, tumour and treatment (symptoms, quality of life, performance status and laboratory tests). Co-morbidity was consistently associated with shorter survival. Age and gender were not consistently associated with survival duration, except in lung cancer where females survived longer. Tumour-related factors associated with shorter survival included primary tumour (lung), metastatic site (liver, brain and visceral) and disease extent. Symptoms associated with shorter survival included those of the anorexia–cachexia syndrome, dyspnoea, pain and impaired physical well being. Performance status was strongly associated with survival in most studies. Laboratory tests associated with shorter survival included anaemia, thrombocytopenia, hypoalbuminaemia and elevated serum levels of both alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase.ConclusionPrognostic factors in patients with advanced cancer can be conceptualised as attributes of the host, tumour, treatment and interactions between the three reflected in symptoms, quality of life performance status and laboratory tests.

Capecitabine Versus Classical Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil As First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE We compared oral capecitabine, administered intermittently or continuously, versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line chemotherapy for women with advanced breast cancer unsuited to more intensive regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred twenty-three eligible women were randomly assigned to capecitabine administered intermittently (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 of every 21 days; n = 107) or continuously (650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 21 of every 21 days; n = 107), or to classical CMF (oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) days 1 to 14 with intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 28 days; n = 109). The primary end point was quality-adjusted progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included PFS, overall survival (OS), objective tumor response, and adverse events. Intermittent and continuous capecitabine were to be compared first and, if similar (P > .05), combined for definitive comparisons versus CMF. RESULTS Quality-adjusted PFS (P = .2), objective tumor response rate (20%; P = .8), and PFS (median, 6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10; P = .2) were similar in women assigned capecitabine versus CMF. OS was longer in women assigned capecitabine rather than CMF (median, 22 v 18 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; P = .02). Febrile neutropenia, infection, stomatitis, and serious adverse events were more common with CMF; hand-foot syndrome was more common with capecitabine. CONCLUSION Capecitabine improved OS by being similarly active, less toxic, and more tolerable than CMF. Capecitabine is a good first-line chemotherapy option for women with advanced breast cancer who are unsuited to more intensive regimens.

Patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: a review of what makes it worthwhile?

Adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer improves survival but is unpleasant and inconvenient. Women and clinicians need information about the magnitude of survival benefits considered sufficient to make the side-effects and inconvenience worthwhile. We sought studies that quantified the minimum required survival benefit by asking women who had experienced adjuvant chemotherapy. Four studies involving 512 women were appraised and summarised. All studies referred to chemotherapy given between 1980 and 1996, but the methods varied widely, especially the way in which women were recruited and questioned. However, the results were remarkably consistent. Most women said that small improvements in survival were sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. Women with dependants, social support, and milder side-effects judged smaller benefits worthwhile. Age, education, employment, and income status were not predictive of the womens responses. Optimum decision-making about the relative benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy requires up-to-date information from women receiving current chemotherapy and supportive regimens.

Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) Improves Pain and Well-Being in People With Advanced Cancer Already Receiving a Strong Opioid Regimen: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Cross-Over Trial

PURPOSE To determine whether adding regular acetaminophen (paracetamol) could improve pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer and pain despite strong opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants took acetaminophen for 48 hours and placebo for 48 hours. The order (acetaminophen or placebo first) was randomly allocated. Pain was the primary outcome. Preferences, number of opioid breakthrough doses, overall well-being, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, constipation, and cold sweats were secondary outcomes. Patients rated themselves daily with visual analog scales (VAS) and a verbal numeric scale (VNS) for pain, all scaled from 0 to 10. RESULTS Thirty patients completed the trial. The oral opioid was morphine in 23 patients and hydromorphone in seven patients. The median daily opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 200 mg (range, 20 to 2,100 mg). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or both were used by 16 patients. Pain and overall well-being were better for patients receiving acetaminophen than for those receiving placebo. The mean difference was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8; P =.03) in VNS for pain, 0.6 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.3; P =.09) in VAS for pain, and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.4; P =.05) in VAS for overall well-being. More patients preferred the period they took acetaminophen (n = 14) than the period they took placebo (n = 8), but many had no preference (n = 8). There were no differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION Acetaminophen improved pain and well-being without major side effects in patients with cancer and persistent pain despite a strong opioid regimen. Its addition is worth considering in all such patients.