Loprinzi, Charles L.

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: Hot flashes represent a significant clinical problem for some breast cancer survivors. Safe, effective treatment is needed for this prominent clinical problem. Although it has been shown that estrogen or progesterone replacement therapy can alleviate this problem, there are continued safety concerns regarding the use of hormonal therapies in these women. Based on anecdotal information, we hypothesized that soy-derived phytoestrogens, weak estrogen-like substances in the soybean that demonstrate estrogen agonist and/or antagonist effects when they bind to estrogen receptors, could alleviate hot flashes. This current trial was designed to investigate this hypothesis.PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind clinical trial involved breast cancer survivors with substantial hot flashes. After randomization, patients underwent a 1-week baseline period with no therapy. This was followed by 4 weeks of either soy tablets or placebo. The patients then crossed over to the opposite arm in a double-blind manner for the last 4 weeks. Patients completed a daily questionnaire documenting hot flash frequency, intensity, and perceived side effects.RESULTS: Of the 177 women who were randomized and started the study substance, 155 (88%) provided useable data over the first 5 weeks; 149 provided usable data over the entire 9 weeks. There was no suggestion that the soy product was more effective in reducing hot flashes than the placebo. At study completion, patients preferred the soy product 33% of the time, the placebo 37% of the time, and neither substance 31% of the time. No toxicity was observed.CONCLUSION: The soy product did not alleviate hot flashes in breast cancer survivors.