Mailliard, James A.

Purpose: The North Central Cancer Treatment Group performed a phase III trial to determine whether chemotherapy plus either bid radiation therapy (RT) or daily (qd) RT resulted in a better outcome for patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). No difference in survival was identified between the two arms. This secondary analysis was performed to examine the relationship between patient age and outcome. Patients and Methods: Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized to receive etoposide plus cisplatin and either RT qd or split-course RT bid. This retrospective study compared the outcomes of patients aged ≥70 years (“elderly patients”) with those of younger individuals. Of the 244 assessable patients, 63 (26%) were elderly, and 181 (74%) were younger individuals. Results: The 2-year and 5-year survival rates were 39% and 18%, respectively, in patients younger than 70 years, compared with 36% and 13%, respectively, in elderly patients (P = .4). Grade 4+ toxicity occurred in 62% of patients younger than 70 years compared with 81% of elderly patients (P = .007). Grade 4+ hematologic toxicity occurred in 56% of patients younger than 70 years, compared with 78% of elderly patients (P = .003). Grade 4+ pneumonitis occurred in 1% of those younger than 70 years, compared with 6% of elderly patients (P = .02). Conclusion: Toxicity, especially myelosuppression and pneumonitis, was more pronounced in the elderly patients receiving combined-modality therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. Despite increased toxicity, elderly patients have survival rates equivalent to younger individuals. Therefore, fit, elderly patients with locally advanced NSCLC should be encouraged to receive combined-modality therapy, preferably on clinical trials with cautious, judicious monitoring. Future studies should explore ways to decrease toxicity of therapy in elderly patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of life (QOL) and tumor response after administration of an oral chemotherapy regimen in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight patients received a mean number of 5.8 cycles of therapy. QOL data were analyzed at baseline, after every two cycles of therapy, and at the time of treatment discontinuation. The Uniscale and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 were both utilized. RESULTS: The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17% to 37%). Median survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 15.1 months). Global QOL scores were unchanged over the course of therapy by either tool. Only the physical function subscale score had worsened at the end of therapy. In an analysis of responding patients, significant and durable improvements in both global QOL measures as well as select subscale scores were observed. Diarrhea and physical function QOL scores had declined at the time of treatment discontinuation. Patients who did not respond to therapy had preserved QOL scores when they were evaluated after two cycles of therapy. CONCLUSION: This oral treatment strategy preserved QOL in treated patients. Global QOL measures as well as several QOL subscale scores significantly improved in patients with a documented response to therapy. The profile of improved QOL components indicated that patient well-being was related to tumor response in specific and perceivable ways. Nonresponding patients reported preserved QOL during the first two cycles of therapy. QOL analysis was feasible and informative in this moderately sized multicenter phase II trial.