William Dugan

Vinblastine Versus Vinblastine Plus Oral Estramustine Phosphate for Patients With Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer: A Hoosier Oncology Group and Fox Chase Network Phase III Trial

PURPOSE To compare vinblastine versus the combination of vinblastine plus estramustine as treatment for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 201 patients with metastatic prostate cancer, progressive after hormonal therapy and antiandrogen withdrawal (if prior antiandrogen treatment), were randomized to receive vinblastine (V) 4 mg/m(2) by intravenous bolus weekly for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks off, either alone or together with estramustine phosphate (EM-V) 600 mg/m(2) PO days 1 through 42, repeated every 8 weeks. Of 193 eligible patients, 98 received V, and 95 received EM-V. RESULTS Overall survival trended in favor of EM-V but was not significantly different as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P =.08). Median survival was 11.9 months for EM-V and 9.2 months for V. EM-V was superior to V for secondary end points of time to progression (P <. 001, stratified log rank test; median 3.7 v 2.2 months, respectively) and for proportion of patients with >/= 50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline sustained for at least 3 monthly measurements (25.2% v 3.2%, respectively; P <.0001). Granulocytopenia was significantly less for EM-V compared with V (grade 2, 3, and 4 = 7%, 7%, and 1% v 27%, 18% and 9%, respectively; P <.0001); however, grade 2 or worse nausea (26% v 7%, respectively; P =.0002) and extremity edema (22% v 8%, respectively; P =.005) were more frequent for EM-V. CONCLUSION Although overall survival was not significantly greater for the combination, EM-V was superior to V for time to progression and PSA improvement. These results encourage further study of estramustine-based antimicrotubule drug combinations in HRPC.

Use of a Depression Screening Tool and a Fluoxetine-Based Algorithm to Improve the Recognition and Treatment of Depression in Cancer Patients: A Demonstration Project

Helping oncologists to identify and treat depression is an important step in improving the overall care of people with cancer. In previous work performed in our community-based, ambulatory oncology outreach network, we validated a depression screening tool, put into place depression screening programs, and taught oncologists how to follow up on screening with brief, reliable clinical interviews. Subsequently, we provided these oncologists with a fluoxetine-based antidepressant algorithm to follow for the treatment of their depressed patients. In this article, we report on the initial experience identifying and treating 35 ambulatory oncology patients who were screened with the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZSDS). Structured follow-up interviews by their oncologist determined whether the patients qualified for a diagnosis of a major depressive episode. These patients then received 1 of 4 treatments based on the algorithm (no treatment, fluoxetine alone, fluoxetine plus bedtime doxepin, or fluoxetine plus methylphenidate). Patients were matched by their oncologist to a prototype patient for each treatment arm based on their symptomatic presentation (i.e., patients requiring a side effect minimization approach were to be placed on fluoxetine alone; patients who had significant insomnia, weight loss, or neuropathic pain were placed on the fluoxetine plus doxepin regimen; those with prominent fatigue were to receive fluoxetine plus methylphenidate). Patients were followed weekly for one month, and then every two weeks for two more months, with telephone assessments of their depression, associated symptoms and overall quality of life. Results suggested that oncologists most often chose the simplest regimen (fluoxetine alone) but that patients uniformly benefited in terms of improved mood and overall quality of life throughout the 12 weeks of follow-up. Our initial experience suggests that oncologists can be empowered to recognize and treat depression in their patients with a screen-and-intervene approach. Such an approach may benefit patients, and, if kept simple, can be incorporated into day-to-day care of people with cancer.

Access to communication technologies in a sample of cancer patients: an urban and rural survey

BackgroundThere is a growing awareness among providers of the symptom burden experienced by cancer patients. Systematic symptom screening is difficult. Our plan was to evaluate a technology-based symptom screening process using touch-tone telephone and Internet in our rural outreach cancer program in Indiana. Would rural patients have adequate access to technologies for home-based symptom reporting?Objectives1) To determine access to touch-tone telephone service and Internet for patients in urban and rural clinics; 2) to determine barriers to access; 3) to determine willingness to use technology for home-based symptom reporting.MethodsPatients from representative clinics (seven rural and three urban) in our network were surveyed. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 18, able to read, and diagnosis of malignancy.ResultsThe response rate was 97%. Of 416 patients completing the survey (230 rural, 186 urban), 95% had access to touch-tone telephone service, while 46% had Internet access (56% of urban patients, 38% of rural patients). Higher rates of Internet access were related to younger patient age, current employment, and higher education and income. The primary barrier to Internet access was lack of interest. Use of the Internet for health related activities was less than 50%. The preferred means of symptom reporting in patients with internet access were the touch-tone telephone (70%), compared to reporting by the Internet (28%).ConclusionAccess to communication technologies appears adequate for home-based symptom reporting. The use of touch-tone telephone and Internet reporting, based upon patient preference, has the potential of enhancing symptom detection among cancer patients that is not dependent solely upon clinic visits and clinician inquiry.