Sloan, Jeff A.

111 Background: Limited data exist on patient (pt) experience and work productivity (WP) in MBC. VIRGO is a prospective OCS following >1,200 pts with locally advanced or MBC receiving 1st-line hormonal therapy (HT) or chemotherapy (CT) in a real-world setting. We report baseline characteristics of 277 pts from the VIRGO PRO substudy and correlations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms, activities of daily living, and WP. Methods: Symptom severity and interference (M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]), functional status (Activity Level Scale [ALS] from the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) and WP (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire) were assessed. Pts rated their HRQoL during the past week on a scale of 0–10. Results: See table. The five most severe symptoms at baseline were fatigue, decreased sexual interest, disturbed sleep, drowsiness, and emotional distress; these were reported with less severity in the HT cohort (24%-37% vs 42%-59%). Overall MDASI severity and interference correlated with WP measures in the CT (R=0.46 to 0.78) and HT cohorts (0.36 to 0.94). Mean of the 5 most severe symptoms also significantly correlated with WP indices (R=0.47 to 0.66). HRQoL correlated (p<0.05) with all WP measures (R=-0.46 to -0.56) in the CT cohort and with % impairment while working (R=-0.65) and % overall work impairment (R=-0.71) in the HT cohort. In univariate regression analysis, MDASI symptom interference score was the best predictor of reduced WP (R2=0.52 while working; R2=0.48 for non-work activities). Conclusions: MBC pts receiving CT and HT report significant work impairment. Results indicate moderate correlations between WP indices, HRQoL and symptom burden. [Table: see text]

54 Background: After diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer survivors do not return to a health-related quality of life (QOL) and function comparable to pre-diagnosis levels as observed in other adult cancer survivors. We hypothesize that inadequate attention has been paid to addressing and improving QOL and function among lung cancer survivors. Our primary goal is to evaluate existing symptoms and QOL deficits among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We are evaluating patterns of QOL deficits (scored 5 or less on the scale from 0 [worst] to 10 [best]) in relation to time of lung cancer diagnosis, treatments, progression and/or recurrence, and health-related conditions. We are collecting and analyzing relevant health care utilization for selected QOL deficits, and identifying availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. The expected outcomes will be new knowledge on patterns of QOL deficits, quality-adjusted life years in relation to the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of needed care and the effectiveness of interventions targeting improvement in QOL and symptoms. Results: In our initial analysis, among 3,707 lung cancer survivors who were diagnosed in 1999 to 2010, post-cancer treatment, and followed through 2011, 39% (1,442) reported deficits in overall QOL, 71% fatigue, 60% dyspnea, 41% being sedentary, 17% low spiritual well-being (SWB), and 10% currently smoking cigarettes. Among the 1,442 lung cancer survivors with a deficit in overall QOL, 97.5% reported severe fatigue or dyspnea, being sedentary or smoking, or having low SWB. In the remaining 36 of the 1,442, 24 had pain, cough, poor appetite, or other symptoms; only 12 (<1%) did not report deficit in any of the measured QOL domains. Analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Based on evidence gained to date, we are developing and testing interventions targeting symptoms and QOL deficits. We expect to gain strong evidence for recommendations in redefining and delivering care and support that are necessary for improving the health and QOL of lung cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: A meta-analysis of six North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trials involving patients receiving their first ever fluorouracil (5-FU)–based chemotherapy was undertaken to explore the association of sex with reports of the incidence and severity of stomatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained on a total of 731 patients (402 men and 329 women). Comparisons of incidence and severity rates and average stomatitis across sex were performed using standard binomial testing and t tests, respectively. Logistic regression analysis and a weighted analysis using data summarized to study level served as evidence of cross-validation. RESULTS: Women reported stomatitis both more often and with greater severity than did men. The incidence of any stomatitis for women was 63% versus 52% for men (P = .002). The incidence of severe or very severe stomatitis for men and women was 22% and 12%, respectively (P = .0006). On average, women reported stomatitis of roughly 0.4 points higher than men on a 0 to 4 ordinal scale (P < .00001). Comparison of results across treatment and placebo arms was carried out to validate the initial findings. Logistic regression modelling further confirmed the results conditional on the presence of a number of potentially confounding covariates. Women were also 11% more likely than men to experience leukopenia of common toxicity criteria grade ≥ 1, (70% v 59%, respectively; P < .00001) and grade 3+ (18% v 11%, respectively; P = .004). CONCLUSION: More women than men reported 5-FU–induced stomatitis. The precise mechanism resulting in different degrees of stomatitis across sex is not evident.

PURPOSE: Hot flashes can be a prominent problem in women with a history of breast cancer. Given concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in such patients, other nonhormonal means for treating hot flashes are required. Based on anecdotal information regarding the efficacy of fluoxetine and other newer antidepressants for treating hot flashes, the present trial was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a double-blinded, randomized, two-period (4 weeks per period), cross-over methodology to study the efficacy of fluoxetine (20 mg/d) for treating hot flashes in women with a history of breast cancer or a concern regarding the use of estrogen (because of breast cancer risk). Eligible patients had to have reported that they averaged at least 14 hot flashes per week; they could have received tamoxifen or raloxifene as long as they were on a stable dose. The major outcome measure was a bivariate construct representing hot flash frequency and hot flash score, analyzed by a classic sums and differences cross-over analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one randomized women began protocol therapy. By the end of the first treatment period, hot flash scores (frequency × average severity) decreased 50% in the fluoxetine arm versus 36% in the placebo arm. Cross-over analysis demonstrated a significantly greater marked hot flash score improvement with fluoxetine than placebo (P = .02). The results were not adjusted for potential confounding influences, including age and tamoxifen use. The fluoxetine was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This dose of fluoxetine resulted in a modest improvement in hot flashes.

PURPOSE: The toxicity profile of fluorouracil (5-FU)–based chemotherapy given on 5 consecutive days at doses of 370 to 450 mg/m2 has been well documented. A meta-analysis of six North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) cancer control trials involving 786 patients indicated that women treated with this type of regimen experienced more severe stomatitis and leukopenia than men. After these findings, an additional meta-analysis of the toxicity profiles on five NCCTG colorectal cancer treatment trials was undertaken. METHODS: Data for 1,093 women and 1,355 men from 12 different treatment arms were included. The primary end points were the incidence of stomatitis, leukopenia, alopecia, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, recorded with standard National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare incidence and severity across sexes, supplemented by Forrest meta-analysis plots and logistic regression. RESULTS: The incidence of four out of six toxicities studied was significantly greater for women than men; the exceptions were severe nausea and vomiting. Overall, almost half of the women compared with a third of the men experienced severe toxicity (P < .0001). Logistic regression confirmed the univariate findings while adjusting for the effects of study, dose, body mass index, and age. The differences were consistent across treatment cycles. Response rates and survival distributions were the same for both sexes. CONCLUSION: This study confirms an earlier finding that women receiving 5-FU–based chemotherapy in a 5-day bolus schedule experience toxicity more frequently and with more severity than men. These data raise the question of whether the recommended initial dose of 5-FU–based chemotherapy for women should be lower than that for men.

PURPOSE: In the course of conducting a series of prospective clinical trials devoted to defining new treatment opportunities for hot flashes in cancer survivors, considerable experience has been acquired with related methodologic issues. This article has been written in response to many queries regarding this methodology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of seven different clinical trials that involved 968 patients was used for this work. Reliable and valid definitions of hot flash intensity were developed from patient-reported descriptions. Concomitant validity and reliability assessment of patient-completed diaries was undertaken to compare hot flash data with toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) end points and to examine consistency across patient groups using variability analysis and correlation procedures. Parametric data from this meta-analysis was used to examine relative power considerations for the design of phase II and phase III clinical trials. RESULTS: Daily diaries used in these studies exhibited consistency and reliability and had few missing data. Hot flash frequency and hot flash score (frequency multiplied by average severity) variables produced almost identical end point results. For phase III placebo-controlled studies, 50 patients per treatment arm seem appropriate to provide sufficient power specifications to detect a clinically meaningful change in hot flash activity. For phase II trials, 25 patients per trial seem to provide reasonable estimates of eventual hot flash efficacy to screen potential agents for more definitive testing. CONCLUSION: Given the data gained from these experiences, we can plan and carry out more efficient trials to identify efficacious agents for the reduction of hot flash activity.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the third step of a research program to identify variables that supplement the predictive power of the the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) for survival. The objective was to produce a simple, practical, stratification factor for phase III oncology clinical trials involving patients with advanced malignant disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 729 patients with metastatic colorectal or lung cancers. Patients provided a Karnofsky index and appetite rating while physicians provided a survival estimate and the ECOG-PS. Scores for each item were categorized as having a positive, neutral, or negative indication for survival. A patient was classified as having a relatively good prognosis if three or more of the four items showed a positive indication, a bad prognosis if three or more items were negative, and an uncertain prognosis otherwise (Good/Bad/Uncertain [GBU] index). RESULTS: The GBU index improved on the prognostic power of a Cox model quartile index and PS alone and increased the accuracy of survival classification estimates by 5% to 10% more than ECOG-PS alone. For patients with PS of 0 or 1, significant survival patterns exist between GBU groups (P= .002 and .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GBU index may be recommended as a supplementary stratification factor for certain future phase III trials in metastatic lung or colorectal cancer where patient heterogeneity is a particular concern. The GBU represents a relatively modest increase to the cost and patient burden of a clinical trial given the additional control that is achieved over the potentially confounding concomitant to the treatment variable.

PURPOSE: Multitargeted antifolate (MTA) is an investigational agent that, like gemcitabine, exhibits broad activity in solid tumors. A phase I trial of MTA and gemcitabine was undertaken, based on the demonstration of preclinical cytotoxic synergy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (group I) received 164 courses (median, four; range, one to 14 courses) of treatment of gemcitabine at doses of 1,000 and 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and MTA at doses of 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 mg/m2, given 90 minutes after gemcitabine on day 1. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks. Because the day 8 dose of gemcitabine was reduced or omitted in 57% of courses due to neutropenia, 21 patients (group II) were treated on an alternate schedule, with MTA administered on day 8 rather than day 1. This group received 85 treatment courses (median, four; range, one to 10 courses). RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia. Other toxicities included nausea, fatigue, rash, and elevated hepatic transaminases. The maximum-tolerated dose was gemcitabine/MTA 1,000/500 mg/m2 for group I and 1,250/500 mg/m2 for group II. Thirteen objective responses were documented (colorectal cancer, n = 3; non–small-cell lung cancer, n = 3; cholangiocarcinoma, n = 2; ovarian carcinoma, n = 2; mesothelioma, n = 1; breast cancer, n = 1; and adenocarcinoma of unknown primary site, n = 1). Gemcitabine had no effect on the disposition of MTA. CONCLUSION: The gemcitabine/MTA combination is broadly active and warrants further evaluation. The sequence of gemcitabine administered on days 1 and 8 with MTA administered on day 8 is better tolerated and is recommended for further study at doses of gemcitabine/MTA 1,250/500 mg/m2.

PURPOSE: Randomized studies have suggested that sucralfate is effective in mitigating diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy (RT). This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to confirm the antidiarrheal effect of sucralfate. Several other measures of bowel function were also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving pelvic RT to a minimum of 45 Gy at 1.7 to 2.1 Gy/d were eligible for the study. Patients were assigned randomly, in double-blind fashion, to receive sucralfate (1.5 g orally every 6 hours) or an identical looking placebo during pelvic RT. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were randomly assigned and found assessable. Overall, there was no significant difference in patient characteristics between those receiving sucralfate and those receiving placebo. Moderate or worse diarrhea was observed in 53% of patients receiving sucralfate versus 41% of those receiving placebo. Compared with patients receiving placebo, more sucralfate-treated patients reported fecal incontinence (16% v 34%, respectively; P = .04) and need for protective clothing (8% v 23%, respectively; P = .04). The incidence and severity of nausea were worse among those taking sucralfate (P = .03). Analysis of patient-reported symptoms 10 to 12 months after RT showed a nonsignificant trend toward more problems in patients taking sucralfate than in those taking placebo (average, 2.3 v 1.9 problems, respectively; P = .34). CONCLUSION: Sucralfate did not decrease pelvic RT-related bowel toxicity by any of the end points measured and seems to have aggravated some gastrointestinal symptoms.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and describe the toxicities of the combination of irinotecan and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks to patients with advanced malignancies and, also, to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel and describe preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received 85 courses (median, two courses; range, one to 15 courses) of treatment with irinotecan, administered over 90 minutes by intravenous infusion, followed by docetaxel, administered over 60 minutes by intravenous infusion. Four escalating dose levels of irinotecan/docetaxel (160/50 mg/m2, 160/65 mg/m2, 200/65 mg/m2, and 200/75 mg/m2) were studied. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel. RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, which consisted of neutropenia that was severe (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI CTC] grade 4) but brief (< 5 days) in 11 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia. Nonhematologic toxicities of anorexia, nausea, and stomatitis were mild to moderate (NCI CTC grades 1 and 2), but there was one incidence each of both CTC grade 3 anorexia and nausea. All patients had total alopecia. Diarrhea was dose-dependent and severe in four patients who failed to take adequate antidiarrhea therapy. Five out of 16 assessable patients, one with cholangiocarcinoma, one with leiomyosarcoma, and three with non–small-cell lung cancer, achieved partial remissions. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan and docetaxel causes significant reversible myelosuppression, which was dose limiting but led to no serious sequelae. There was no evidence of a clinically significant interaction using these two agents in this sequence. The combination showed antitumor activity at all the dose levels tested and should be further studied in a number of tumor types. The recommended phase II dose on this schedule is irinotecan 160 mg/m2 and docetaxel 65 mg/m2.