Citations

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: To estimate the efficacy of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a personal and family history of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We followed the course of 745 women with a first breast cancer and a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer who underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy at the Mayo Clinic between 1960 and 1993. Family history information and cancer follow-up information were obtained from the medical record, a study-specific questionnaire, and telephone follow-up. Life-tables for contralateral breast cancers, which consider age at first breast cancer, current age, and type of family history, were used to calculate the number of breast cancers expected in our cohort had they not had a prophylactic mastectomy. RESULTS: Of the 745 women in our cohort, 388 were premenopausal (age < 50 years) and 357 were post- menopausal. Eight women developed a contralateral breast cancer. Six events were observed among the premenopausal women, compared with 106.2 predicted, resulting in a risk reduction of 94.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.7% to 97.9%). For the 357 postmenopausal women, 50.3 contralateral breast cancers were predicted, whereas only two were observed, representing a 96.0% risk reduction (95% CI, 85.6% to 99.5%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of contralateral breast cancer seems to be reduced significantly after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a personal and family history of breast cancer.

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: Substantial and successful effort has been focused on decreasing the risk of local failure after rectal cancer surgery through the use of adjuvant therapies. Our study examined data from studies conducted by United States cooperative groups to investigate the impact of surgical and pathologic variables in rectal cancer outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Surgical and pathologic reports from 673 patients with stage II/III rectal cancer enrolled onto three adjuvant clinical trials were reviewed for tumor and surgical variables. Additional information on individual institutions and operating surgeon was collected. Variables were tested for association with 5-year local recurrence and survival after adjustment for adjuvant treatments and other important prognostic factors. RESULTS: Five-year local recurrence and survival rates were 16% and 59%, respectively. Surgeons treating more than 10 study cases had lower local recurrence rates than those treating ≤ 10 (11% v 17%, P = .02). Free radial margins also correlated with local recurrence (P = .01). Type of surgery, distal margins, and tumor radial spread were not significant. Tumor adherence to adjacent structures predicted local recurrence (35% v 14%, P < .001) and survival (30% v 63%, P < .001), regardless of en bloc resection. Although T and N classification predicted survival (P < .001), only N classification correlated with local recurrence. The number and percentage of positive nodes correlated with survival, but only the percentage independently predicted local recurrence. Several pathologic and surgical variables were reported suboptimally. CONCLUSION: Moderate variability in outcomes among surgeons was detected in this high-risk population. Efforts to improve surgical results will require changes in reporting practices to allow for more accurate assessment of the quality of surgery.

PURPOSE: Survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer are at risk for long-term effects of disease and treatment. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study assessed overall and cause-specific mortality in a retrospective cohort of 20,227 5-year survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible subjects were individuals diagnosed with cancer (from 1970 to 1986) before the age of 21 who had survived 5 years from diagnosis. Underlying cause of death was obtained from death certificates and other sources and coded and categorized as recurrent disease, sequelae of cancer treatment, or non–cancer-related. Age and sex standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated using United States population mortality data. RESULTS: The cohort, including 208,947 person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a 10.8-fold excess in overall mortality (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 11.3). Risk of death was statistically significantly higher in females (SMR = 18.2), individuals diagnosed with cancer before the age of 5 years (SMR = 14.0), and those with an initial diagnosis of leukemia (SMR = 15.5) or CNS tumor (SMR = 15.7). Recurrence of the original cancer was the leading cause of death among 5-year survivors, accounting for 67% of deaths. Statistically significant excess mortality rates were seen due to subsequent malignancies (SMR = 19.4), along with cardiac (SMR = 8.2), pulmonary (SMR = 9.2), and other causes (SMR = 3.3). Treatment-related associations were present for subsequent cancer mortality (radiation, alkylating agents, epipodophyllotoxins), cardiac mortality (chest irradiation, bleomycin), and other deaths (radiation, anthracyclines). No excess mortality was observed for external causes (SMR = 0.8). CONCLUSION: While recurrent disease remains a major contributor to late mortality in 5-year survivors of childhood cancer, significant excesses in mortality risk associated with treatment-related complications exist up to 25 years after the initial cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported what seem to be false-positive results using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved HercepTest (Dako Corp, Carpinteria, CA) to profile Her-2/neu amplification and overproduction in breast carcinoma. False-positive status has been based on comparisons with gene copy enumeration by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and with comparisons to immunohistochemistry (IMH) results using a monoclonal antibody. However, simple overexpression by tumor cells that have normal gene copy has not been evaluated by profiling mRNA expression, ie, such cases could simply represent true-positive, transcriptionally upregulated overexpression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred infiltrating ductal carcinomas of breast were evaluated by IMH using monoclonal (CB11; Ventana Medical Systems, Inc, Tucson, AZ) and polyclonal (HercepTest; Dako) antibodies after antigen retrieval (AR). A polyclonal antibody sans AR (PCA/SAR) was also used. All IMH stains were evaluated and scored according to the guidelines for the FDA-approved HercepTest. A total of 145 of 400 carcinomas were subsequently evaluated by direct and digoxigenin-labeled (Dig) FISH, and 144 of 400 were evaluated by detection of mRNA overexpression via autoradiographic RNA:RNA in situ hybridization. RESULTS: Overall HercepTest/CB11 IMH discordance was 12%. Expression of mRNA was highly concordant with FISH and DigFISH amplification and with CB11 and PCA/SAR immunohistology. IMH false-positive cases (no Her-2/neu gene amplification) occurred with both HercepTest (23%) and CB11 (17%), and the majority of false-positive results (34 of 44) were scored as 2+. All 2+ false-positive cases were mRNA-negative. Combined results of HercepTest and CB11 showed that 79% (38 of 48) of 3+ cases were Her-2/neu gene amplified, but only 17% (seven of 41) of 2+ cases had increased gene copy. CONCLUSION: Discordant HercepTest/FISH results, and to a lesser extent discordance with CB11 IMH, are most commonly false-positive results with a score of 2+. The 2+ score as defined in the guidelines for the FDA-approved HercepTest should not be used as a criterion for trastuzumab therapy unless confirmed by FISH. Determination of Her-2 gene copy number by FISH may be a more accurate and reliable method for selecting patients eligible for trastuzumab therapy.

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.