Francesco Perrone

PURPOSE: Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

PURPOSE: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were "not at all," "a little," "quite a bit," and "very much." Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported "very much" toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. CONCLUSION: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

PURPOSE: To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm. RESULTS: Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

This ESMO Guideline provides key recommendations on the role of PROMs during the care of patients with cancer. It covers the use of PROMs in patients with cancer from the start of active treatment during follow-up and at the end of life. Recommendations are based on available scientific evidence and the authors’ collective expert consensus. Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia.

PURPOSE: We studied retrospectively the interaction between c-erbB2 overexpression and adjuvant tomoxifen in node-negative breast cancer patients enrolled in the Gruppo Universitario Napoletano 1 (GUN-1) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: c-erbB2, evaluated by immunohistochemistry in 145 of 173 patients randomly assigned to 2-year adjuvant tamoxifen or no further therapy, was considered overexpressed if greater than 10% of the cells showed specific membrane staining. The role of each prognostic variable and their independent effect were studied using the Cox model. Disease-free (DFS) and overall (OAS) survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: As of November 30, 1994, the median follow-up period was 12 years. c-erbB2 was overexpressed in 43 of 145 patients (29.7%), which directly correlated with tumor size and inversely with estrogen receptor (ER) level. At univariate analysis, overexpression of c-erbB2 did not affect either DFS or OAS; tamoxifen had a greater effect on reducing the risk of recurrence than of death. Addition of c-erbB2 to a multivariate Cox model that contained menopausal status, tumor size, nuclear grade, and treatment as covariates did not affect the significance of the model for DSF or OAS, whereas addition of the first-order interaction between c-erbB2 and tamoxifen was statistically significant both for DFS and OAS. The same result was obtained when the model contained ER status and ER-tamoxifen interaction. Indeed, adjuvant tamoxifen significantly prolonged DFS and OAS in c-erbB2-negative cases, whereas it had no effect on DFS and OAS in c-erbB2-positive patients. CONCLUSION: In early-stage breast cancer patients, overexpression of c-erbB2 is a marker of lack of efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen.