Sylvie Chabaud

Lymphopenia is frequent in advanced cancers and predicts the toxicity of chemotherapy. Its effect on relapse and survival is uncertain. Its prognostic value for survival was analyzed in three databases of previously reported prospective multicenter studies: (a) FEC chemotherapy in metastatic breast carcinoma; (b) CYVADIC in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group 62791); and (c) prospective, consecutive phase III studies of aggressive diffuse large-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphomas conducted at Centre Léon Bérard between 1987 and 1993. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for survival were performed. The incidence of lymphopenia of <1,000/microL before treatment was constant among the series: 25%, 24%, and 27%, respectively. Lymphopenia was significantly more frequent (P < 0.05) in metastatic breast cancer patients with performance status (PS) of >1, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with international prognostic index (IPI) of > 0, and advanced soft tissue sarcoma and metastatic breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Inunivariate analysis, lymphopenia of <1,000/microL significantly correlated to overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (median, 10 versus 14 mo; P < 0.0001), advanced soft tissue sarcoma (median, 5 versus 10 months; P < 0.01), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (median, 11 versus 94 months; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis (Cox model), lymphopenia was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in metastatic breast cancer [RR (relative risk), 1.8; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.3-2.4] along with liver metastases and PS; in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1) along with liver metastases, lung metastases, and PS; and in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.03-2.1) along with IPI. Our findings show that lymphopenia is an independent prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in several cancers.

BACKGROUND: CAPTIM was a randomized trial comparing prehospital thrombolysis with transfer to an interventional facility (and, if needed, percutaneous intervention) with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Because the benefit of thrombolysis is maximal during the first 2 hours after symptom onset, and because prehospital thrombolysis can be implemented earlier than PCI, this analysis studied the relationship between the effect of assigned treatment and the time elapsed from symptom onset. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomization within 2 hours (n=460) or > or =2 hours (n=374) after symptom onset had no impact on the effect of treatment on the 30-day combined primary end point of death, nonfatal reinfarction, and disabling stroke. However, patients randomized <2 hours after symptom onset had a strong trend toward lower 30-day mortality with prehospital thrombolysis compared with those randomized to primary PCI (2.2% versus 5.7%, P=0.058), whereas mortality was similar in patients randomized > or =2 hours (5.9% versus 3.7%, P=0.47). There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and delay with respect to 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 4.19, 95% CI 1.033 to 17.004, P=0.045). Among patients randomized in the first 2 hours, cardiogenic shock was less frequent with lytic therapy than with primary PCI (1.3% versus 5.3%, P=0.032), whereas rates were similar in patients randomized later. CONCLUSIONS: Time from symptom onset should be considered when one selects reperfusion therapy in STEMI. Prehospital thrombolysis may be preferable to primary PCI for patients treated within the first 2 hours after symptom onset.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of venous thromboembolism remains controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an open-label, randomized trial comparing a short oral anticoagulant course (3 months for proximal deep vein thrombosis [P-DVT] and/or pulmonary embolism [PE]; 6 weeks for isolated calf DVT [C-DVT]) with a long course of therapy (6 months for P-DVT/PE; 12 weeks for C-DVT). The outcome events were recurrences and major, minor, or fatal bleeding complications. A total of 736 patients were enrolled. There were 23 recurrences of venous thromboembolism in the short treatment group (6.4%) and 26 in the long treatment group (7.4%); the 2 treatment regimens had an equivalent effect. For the hemorrhage end point, the difference between the short and the long treatment groups was not significant: 15.5% versus 18.4% for all events (P=0.302), 1.7% versus 2.8% (P=0.291) for major events, and 13.9% versus 15.3% for minor bleeding. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the rate of recurrence was lower for C-DVT than for P-DVT or PE. CONCLUSIONS: After isolated C-DVT, 6 weeks of oral anticoagulation is sufficient. For P-DVT or PE, we demonstrated an equivalence between 3 and 6 months of anticoagulant therapy. For patients with temporary risk factors who have a low risk of recurrence, 3 months of treatment seems to be sufficient. For patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism or permanent risk factors who have a high risk of recurrence, other trials are necessary to assess prolonged therapy beyond 6 months.

PURPOSE: Imatinib is the standard treatment of advanced GI stromal tumors (GISTs). It is not known whether imatinib may be stopped in patients in whom disease is controlled. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicentric phase III study was designed to compare continuous (CONT) compared with interrupted (INT) imatinib beyond 1 year of treatment in patients with advanced GIST. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate after reinitiation of imatinib, and quality of life. Early stopping rules in cases of rapid progression of disease were defined, with preplanned interim analyses. RESULTS: Between May 2002 and April 2004, 182 patients with advanced GIST were enrolled. Between May 2003 and April 2004, 98 patients in response or stable disease under imatinib reached more than 1 year of follow-up. Forty were not eligible for randomization, and 58 patients were randomly assigned, 32 and 26 patients in the INT and CONT arms, respectively. As of October 15, 2005, eight of 26 patients in the CONT group and 26 of 32 patients in the INT group had documented disease progression (P < .0001). Twenty-four of 26 patients with documented progression in the INT arm responded to imatinib reintroduction. No differences in overall survival or imatinib resistance were observed between the two arms. Quality of life evaluated 6 months after random assignment using the 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire was not significantly different between the two groups of randomly assigned patients. CONCLUSION: Imatinib interruption results in rapid progression in most patients with advanced GIST, and cannot be recommended in routine practice unless patient experience significant toxicity