Supportive care in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Cisplatin Mouse Models: Treatment, Toxicity and Translatability

Cisplatin is one of the most widely used chemotherapeutic drugs in the treatment of a wide range of pediatric and adult malignances. However, it has various side effects which limit its use. Cisplatin mouse models are widely used in studies investigating cisplatin therapeutic and toxic effects. However, despite numerous promising results, no significant improvement in treatment outcome has been achieved in humans. There are many drawbacks in the currently used cisplatin protocols in mice. In the paper, the most characterized cisplatin protocols are summarized together with weaknesses that need to be improved in future studies, including hydration and supportive care. As demonstrated, mice respond to cisplatin treatment in similar ways to humans. The paper thus aims to illustrate the complexity of cisplatin side effects (nephrotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, neurotoxicity, ototoxicity and myelotoxicity) and the interconnectedness and interdependence of pathomechanisms among tissues and organs in a dose- and time-dependent manner. The paper offers knowledge that can help design future studies more efficiently and interpret study outcomes more critically. If we want to understand molecular mechanisms and find therapeutic agents that would have a potential benefit in clinics, we need to change our approach and start to treat animals as patients and not as tools.

Potential Drug Interactions of Repurposed COVID-19 Drugs with Lung Cancer Pharmacotherapies

Lung cancer patients are at heightened risk for developing COVID-19 infection as well as complications due to multiple risk factors such as underlying malignancy, anti-cancer treatment induced immunosuppression, additional comorbidities and history of smoking. Recent literatures have reported a significant proportion of lung cancer patients coinfected with COVID-19. Chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, ribavirin, oseltamivir, remdesivir, favipiravir, and umifenovir represent the major repurposed drugs used as potential experimental agents for COVID-19 whereas azithromycin, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, sarilumab, famotidine and ceftriaxone are some of the supporting agents that are under investigation for COVID-19 management. The rationale of this review is to identify potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) occurring in lung cancer patients receiving lung cancer medications and repurposed COVID-19 drugs using Micromedex and additional literatures. This review has identified several potential DDIs that could occur with the concomitant treatments of COVID-19 repurposed drugs and lung cancer medications. This information may be utilized by the healthcare professionals for screening and identifying potential DDIs with adverse outcomes, based on their severity and documentation levels and consequently design prophylactic and management strategies for their prevention. Identification, reporting and management of DDIs and dissemination of related information should be a major consideration in the delivery of lung cancer care during this ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for better patient outcomes and updating guidelines for safer prescribing practices in this coinfected condition.

Severe functional limitation due to pain & emotional distress and subsequent receipt of prescription medications among older adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Certain cancer types and subsequent treatment can cause or worsen pain and emotional distress, leading to functional limitation, particularly among a growing population of older adults with cancer.

METHODS

We constructed a national sample of older adult Medicare beneficiaries with cancer using the 2007-2012 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) database linked to Medicare Part D enrollment and prescription claims data. MHOS survey responses described functional limitations due to pain and emotional distress. Using multivariable logistic regression, we estimated the association between participant characteristics and patient-reported functional limitation due to pain and emotional distress and subsequent prescription medication use.

RESULTS

Among 9105 older adults with cancer, aged 66-102 years (y), 68.6% reported moderate to severe functional limitation due to pain, and 48.3% reported moderate to severe functional limitation due to emotional distress. Nearly 10% reported severe functional limitation due to co-occurring symptoms of pain and emotional distress. Significant predictors of severe functional limitation due to co-occurring symptoms included age ≥ 80y (ref: 66-69y, adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-2.18, p < .001), stage IV disease at diagnosis (ref: stage I, aRR: 2.08; CI 1.52-2.86, p < .001), and lung cancer (ref: breast cancer, aRR: 1.84; CI 1.30-2.61, p < .001). Among 892 participants reporting co-occurring symptoms, 32.5% received neither pain nor emotional distress prescription medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional limitation due to pain and emotional distress persist among older adults with cancer, particularly octogenarians. Efforts to identify and target unmet supportive care needs to maintain functional independence are needed.

Use of and spending on supportive care medications among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer

PURPOSE

The study objective was to provide population-based estimates of supportive care medication (SCM) use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and determine factors related to SCM receipt.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of community-based Medicare beneficiaries used the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (1997–2007). Dependent variables comprised use and spending on SCMs for three medication classes: opioids, antidepressants/sedative/hypnotics (ASH), and antiemetics. Independent variables of interest were supplemental insurance coverage, cancer site, and treatment. Multivariate models determined factors affecting receipt of, and spending on, SCMs. We also compared SCM use and spending among beneficiaries with and without cancer in order to understand what portion of SCM use and spending could be attributed to cancer as opposed to other comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

A total of 1,836 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and 9,898 beneficiaries without cancer were eligible for the study. Beneficiaries with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, ASH, and antiemetics compared to non-cancer beneficiaries. Adjusted annual payments for antiemetics were on average $637 higher in with cancer versus without cancer (p<0.01), while ASH payments were $184 lower (p<0.01). Opioid spending was similar among cancer and non-cancer users. Relative to colon cancer, beneficiaries with prostate cancer were least likely to receive any of the three SCM classes. Receipt of antineoplastic treatment increased the probability of use of all three classes of SCMs. Insurance coverage did not influence the use of or spending on opioids or antiemetics, but was associated with both outcomes for ASH. The use of all three SCM classes was significantly lower during years before Part D implementation of the new Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit and was higher after implementation of Part D.

CONCLUSION

This study provides population-based information on SCM use among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. Cancer site and treatment modality were important predictors of SCM use.

[A meta analysis of doublets versus single-agent chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

It remains disputed whether doublets are more effective than single-agent chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of doublets and single-agent chemotherapy for elderly patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

Data from all published, randomized trials that compared doublets and single-agent chemotherapy in elderly patients were collected from electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and the CBMdice). Meta-analysis was completed using software Stata 11.0.

RESULTS

The results of the meta-analysis, including 12 eligible trials (2,306 patients), showed that the doublets significantly increased the overall response rate (OR=1.80, 95%CI:1.50-2.17, P<0.000,1) and one-year survival rate (OR=1.45, 95%CI: 1.22-1.72, P<0.000,1) compared with single-agent chemotherapy. The results of one-year survival rate in platinum-based doublet chemotherapy arms (OR=1.55, 95%CI: 1.18-2.03, P=0.001) and non platinum-based ones (OR=1.38, 95%CI: 1.10-1.73, P=0.006) were both significantly higher than that of single-agent chemotherapy. However, grade 3/4 anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and neurotoxicity (P<0.05) were significantly associated with doublet chemotherapy. The incidence of toxicity effect in non platinum-based chemotherapy was similar to that of single-agent chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with single-agent chemotherapy, doublet chemotherapy could increase the overall response rate and one-year survival rate significantly. Therefore, doublet chemotherapy would be more appropriate for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC as the first-line chemotherapy regimen. However, further prospective randomized controlled trials in elderly NSCLC patients is needed to verify the findings in this study.

Best supportive care: a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care?

This article seeks to address the question: Is best supportive care (BSC) in research a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care? The data regarding the ethical and methodological validity of BSC studies are reviewed. Most of the BSC studies published over the past 25 years are really treatment versus no treatment studies represented as BSC studies. By ignoring the best contemporaneous standards of BSC, standardizing practices in multicenter studies, validating participating centers, or documenting treatment delivery, researchers belie the stated intention of studying BSC. Most studies sought to evaluate if there was any benefit of a new anti-tumor treatment versus discontinuation of anti-tumor therapies. Overwhelmingly, and with few exceptions, the impact of BSC practices was not really part of the key research question. To be ethical and methodologically valid, BSC studies must incorporate standards consistent with contemporaneous, proven BSC practice standards. Work is underway to develop widely validated standards of practice for the control arm of best supportive care studies. These can be readily incorporated in to study development and evaluation.

Quality of life as an outcome variable in the management of advanced cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Though well recognized in the West, palliative care and quality of life are relatively newer concepts in a developing country like India. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of palliative care on pain and quality of life and to identify the association between the two.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational prospective study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer, receiving palliative drug therapy, were recruited from a tertiary care hospital. City of Hope Medical Center Quality of Life Survey and visual analog scale (VAS) were used to assess the quality of life and cancer pain severity, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included in the study. Palliative drug therapy produced a significant reduction in pain scores expressed as mean ± SD in VAS [7.13 ± 2.2 vs. 2.62 ± 2.1 (P<0.001) after 1 month in 93 patients; 7.06 ± 2.1 vs. 2.47 ± 2.1 (P<0.001) after 1 month and 2.02 ± 1.9 (P<0.001) after 2 months in 51 patients]. Also, significant improvement in the quality of life scores [919.78 ± 271.3 vs. 1280.65 ± 306.8 (P<0.01) after 1 month in 93 patients; 950.39 ± 238.2 vs. 1336.67 ± 291 (P<0.01) after 1 month and 1405.49 ± 368.3 (P<0.01) after 2 months in 51 patients] was obtained. There was a high correlation between the average change of pain intensity and quality of life scores (r= -0.53, P<0.02). Overall, a reduction in pain resulted in significant improvement in the quality of life (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the role of palliative care and, more importantly, pain management in improving the quality of life of advanced cancer patients.

Effect of Palliative Drug Therapy on Quality of life in Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Advanced cancer patients are managed by palliative care and its main aim is to provide best possible quality of life to the patients by symptom management. Pain is the most agonizing symptom experienced by advanced head and neck cancer patients. Control of pain hence requires more attention by the caregiver in order to improve their quality of life. Recently quality of life issues have emerged as a main focus of cancer treatment as compared to conventional increase in survival rate. This study mainly focuses on the effect of palliative drug therapy on quality of life.

Improving the Methodologic and Ethical Validity of Best Supportive Care Studies in Oncology: Lessons From a Systematic Review

Purpose

To systematically review the best supportive care (BSC) literature and to evaluate the ethical and methodologic validity issues by using widely acknowledged criteria.

Methods

Two search strings that included both cancer and supportive as terms (with random article type, or review or meta-analysis) explored databases from 1966 to 2008. Citations, abstracts, and papers were reviewed for inclusion criteria, and relevant data were extracted by two independent researchers. Data were validated for accuracy. Ethical and methodologic validity were evaluated by using the criteria derived from the Helsinki Requirements of the WMA; CONSORT statements for the evaluation of reports of randomized, controlled trials; and the universal requirements for ethical clinical research.

Results

Forty-three published papers were identified that described 32 studies, 20 of which incorporated the design of treatment plus supportive care (SC) versus SC alone, and 12 of which incorporated the design of treatment versus SC. Most of the studies had poor compliance to critical Helsinki requirements, to methodologic precautions derived from the CONSORT statement for studies involving a nonpharmacologic arm, and to four of seven universal requirements for ethical clinical research.

Conclusion

Lack of rigor in BSC studies has contributed to a generation of research with widespread ethical and methodologic shortcomings. Ad hoc SC and lack of standardization of SC delivery may be sources of systematic bias or error in BSC trials. Rectifying these shortcomings in future studies demands greater vigilance toward these issues by researchers, institutional review boards, editors, and peer reviewers. Given the prevalence of overlooked problems that are later identified, currently open BSC studies should be reevaluated by institutional review boards and researchers to check for ethical and methodologic validity, and identified shortcomings should be addressed.

Phase II study of docetaxel and celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, in elderly or poor performance status (PS2) patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The utility of two-drug chemotherapy regimens in elderly or performance status (PS 2) patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains to be established. Preclinical studies suggested that celecoxib, a Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, has antitumor activity in NSCLC and can enhance the activity of chemotherapy drugs. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of weekly docetaxel and celecoxib in advanced NSCLC patients, who were either elderly (> or =70 years) or PS2.

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or IV NSCLC who were > or =70 years and had a PS of 0-2 or patients of any age with a PS of 2 were included. Patients should have been off any nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for 30 continuous days before study enrollment. Patients were treated with weekly docetaxel 36 mg/m i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28 day cycle and Celecoxib 400 mg po twice daily. Disease assessment was performed after every two cycles. The study design required 39 patients.

RESULTS

Study was terminated after 34 patients were enrolled due to safety concerns regarding celecoxib. Thirty patients were evaluable. The response rate was 15%. The median progression free survival and median survival were 2.3 months and 5.0 months, respectively. The median survival of patients > or =70 years old with a PS of 0-1 was 8.3 months and the median survival of PS2 patients was 2.8 months. The combination was well tolerated with fatigue as the most common adverse effect. Two patients developed arterial thrombotic events.

CONCLUSION

In these 'special populations' of patients with advanced NSCLC, the addition of celecoxib to docetaxel did not seem to improve the outcome compared with single agent docetaxel.

Quality-of-life outcomes for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized trial, JBR.10

PURPOSE

Adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is now the standard of care, but there is little information regarding its impact on quality of life (QOL). We report the QOL results of JBR.10, a North American, intergroup, randomized trial of adjuvant cisplatin and vinorelbine compared with observation in patients who have completely resected, stages IB to II NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

QOL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and a trial-specific checklist at baseline and at weeks 5 and 9 for those who received chemotherapy and at follow-up months 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36. A 10-point change in QOL scores from baseline was considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned on JBR.10. A total of 173 patients (82% of the expected) in the observation arm and 186 (85% of expected) in the chemotherapy arm completed baseline QOL assessments. The two groups were comparable, with low global QOL scores and significant symptom burden, especially pain and fatigue, after thoracotomy. Changes in QOL during chemotherapy were relatively modest; fatigue, nausea, and vomiting worsened, but there was a reduction in pain and no change in global QOL. Patients in the observation arm showed considerable improvements in QOL by 3 months. QOL, except for symptoms of sensory neuropathy and hearing loss, in those treated with chemotherapy returned to baseline by 9 months.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this trial indicate that the negative effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on QOL appear to be temporary, and that improvements (with a return to baseline function) are likely in most patients.

Retrospective review of cancer patients > or =80 years old treated with chemotherapy at a comprehensive cancer center

CONTEXT

The percentage of cancer patients > or =80 years old is expected to increase in the next few years. However data on the use of chemotherapy in these patients are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a retrospective review to define the profile of patients > or =80 years old who received chemotherapy at our center and assess their survival.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients > or =80 years treated with chemotherapy between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2004 were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 4689 patients treated with chemotherapy over the 5-year period, 133 patients (3%) were > or =80 years old. The median age was 83 years. 61% were females and 39% were males. 16% had hematologic tumors and 84% had solid tumors. Gynecological (32%) and aerodigestive cancers (27%) were the most common sites and lung cancer (22%) was the most common cancer. During the first regimen, 512 cycles of chemotherapy were delivered with a median of 3 cycles (range: 1-24 cycles). 49% received single and 51% multidrug regimens. Carboplatin was the most common single agent and carboplatin and paclitaxel was the most common combination among solid tumor patients. 19% of solid tumor patients received radiation with chemotherapy. The 1-year survival among hematologic cancer and solid tumor patients was 65% and 48%, respectively. Stage of disease was the only statistically significant factor predicting survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In cancer patients > or =80 years old selected for chemotherapy, both single and multi-agent therapy appeared to be feasible.

Factorial phase III randomised trial of rofecoxib and prolonged constant infusion of gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the GEmcitabine-COxib in NSCLC (GECO) study

BACKGROUND

The addition of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and prolonged constant infusion (PCI) of gemcitabine to treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess whether the addition of rofecoxib or PCI gemcitabine could improve overall survival compared with first-line treatment with cisplatin plus gemcitabine given by standard infusion.

METHODS

Patients with stage IV or IIIb (with supraclavicular nodes or pleural effusion) NSCLC who were under 70 years of age and who had performance status 0 or 1 were eligible for this multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised phase III trial with 2 x 2 factorial design. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: group A, gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) in a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 21 days for six cycles; group B, the same treatments as group A plus oral rofecoxib 50 mg/day until disease progression; group C, intravenous PCI gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) in a 120-min infusion on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 21 days for six cycles; group D, the same drugs as group C plus oral rofecoxib 50 mg/day until disease progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, and toxicity. Analyses were intention-to-treat. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Institutes of Health website http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00385606.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 30, 2003, and May 3, 2005, 400 patients were enrolled. Median age was 60 years (range 29-71). PCI gemcitabine did not improve overall survival (median 47 weeks [95% CI 40-55] vs 44 [36-52], with standard gemcitabine infusion, hazard ratio (HR) of death 0.93 [0.74-1.17], p=0.41), progression-free survival, nor any other secondary endpoint. Vomiting and fatigue were significantly worse with PCI gemcitabine. The two rofecoxib groups were closed early (on Oct 1, 2004) due to withdrawal of the drug because of safety issues. With intention-to-treat statistical analyses limited to 240 patients (ie, those randomised before July 1, 2004) who had at least 3 months of treatment, rofecoxib did not prolong overall survival (median 44 weeks [CI 36-55] vs 44 [40-54] without rofecoxib, and HR of death 1.00 [0.75-1.34], p=0.85), or progression-free survival, but did improve response rate (41%vs 26%, p=0.02), global quality of life, physical, emotional and role functioning, fatigue, and sleeping. Rofecoxib significantly increased the incidence of diarrhoea and decreased constipation, fatigue, fever, weight loss, and pain, and analgesic consumption. Severe cardiac ischaemia was more frequent with rofecoxib than without; however, the difference was not statistically significant in the primary analysis (p=0.06) and became significant when patients who were randomised between July 1, 2004, and Sept 30, 2004, were included in the analysis (p=0.03).

INTERPRETATION

Neither PCI gemcitabine nor rofecoxib prolonged survival in the patients in this study. Rofecoxib improved response rate and several quality-of-life items, including pain-related items and global quality of life. Further studies with less cardiotoxic COX-2 inhibitors are needed in NSCLC.

Many Patients 80 Years and Older with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Can Tolerate Chemotherapy

People 80 years of age and older constitute 17.8% of all lung cancer patients in the United States. Because the life expectancies of 80-year-old men and women are 87.3 years and 89.0 years, respectively, non-small cell lung cancer shortens lives in addition to causing morbidity. In this retrospective study, all patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer 80 years of age and older treated at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center with one or more follow-ups were identified from the database for the years 1997 to 2004. A cohort of patients younger than 80 years old was matched based on treatment year, race, histology, and gender in a 2:1 ratio. Of 13,690 thoracic oncology patients, 496 (3.6%) were 80 years of age and older, of whom 46 met the criteria. In older and younger patients, respectively, platinum doublets were given in 43% versus 79% (p < 0.0001), the response rate was 41% versus 47%, the median progression-free survival was 5.55 versus 3.91 months (p = 0.216), and the median overall survival was 10.7 versus 9.8 months (p = 0.43). Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were similar. Our data indicate that selected patients 80 years of age and older may tolerate and benefit from chemotherapy, and prospective evaluation of these patients is indicated.

Chemotherapy of advanced NSCLC in special patient population

The elderly and patients with Performance Status (PS) of 2, constitute the so-called special patient population. The tolerability of chemotherapy in this population is globally worse, and treatment approaches should be different. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is currently recommended as the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its role in special patient population is controversial. The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC is still debated. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. However, the role of platin-based chemotherapy needs to be defined in prospective randomised trials. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) should be the recommended option for non-selected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Also for PS2 patients there is no consensus on standard treatment. On the basis of current evidence, chemotherapy treatment appears justified for patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. Single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) could be the preferred option, although carboplatin-based or low-dose cisplatin-based doublets may represent alternative options. Stronger evidence is expected from new clinical research specifically focused on PS2 patients. High priority should be given to the evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of platinum-based combinations and role of new targeted therapies.

Treatment of Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Elderly: Results of an International Expert Panel

The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still debated. To guide clinical management of these patients and suggest the priorities for clinical research in this field, an International Expert Panel met in Naples, Italy, on April 19 to 20, 2004. Results and conclusions based on a review of evidence available in the literature to date are presented in this article. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is recommended to better define prognosis and to predict tolerance to treatment. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. These data should be interpreted cautiously because retrospective subgroup analyses are encumbered by selection bias; hence, randomized trials dedicated to platinum-based chemotherapy for nonselected elderly patients are warranted. Several promising biologic therapies are under investigation; however, with present data, target-based agents as first-line treatment for elderly NSCLC patients are not yet recommended. Clinical research, with trials specifically designed for elderly patients, is mandatory. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, a taxane) should be the recommended option for nonselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Platinum-based chemotherapy is a viable option for fit patients with adequate organ function. Best supportive care remains important, in addition to chemotherapy or as the exclusive option for patients who are unsuitable for more aggressive treatment.

Palliative chemotherapy: Historical perspective, applications, and controversies

Despite advances in cancer detection and treatment, cancer continues to be a major public health burden in the United States, and patients with advanced or refractory cancers carry much of this burden. The primary goal of cancer treatment is cure. However, most patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease do not benefit from this intent. Recent research studies have documented the role of chemotherapy in providing symptom control, preventing complications, prolonging life, and improving quality of life (QOL) in patients with incurable cancers. Although chemotherapy under these conditions is palliative, patients receiving chemotherapy or participating in research trials are excluded from receiving much needed palliative services, such as Hospice, based on current definitions, limitations, and models of palliative care. Application of palliative services on a continuum from the time of diagnosis through the end of life (EOL) has been recognized as beneficial in the treatment of patients with terminal diseases and has been addressed through trials assessing mixed management models, providing palliative and therapeutic options.

Chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced lung cancer. Part II: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Increasing interest in the treatment of elderly patients or patients with poor performance status (PS) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to a number of subgroup analyses of clinical trials, and even more importantly, the conduction of trials specifically designed for this cohort. These studies allow some important conclusions. Data from retrospective studies and meta-analyses indicate that the use of platinum-based two-drug combinations in selected, fit elderly patients may produce response rates, survival, and toxicity comparable to those in younger patients. This excludes a per se inferior effectiveness of chemotherapy in the population of elderly patients with NSCLC. A number of more recently introduced agents with a favourable toxicity profile have significantly increased treatment options. Single- agent therapy with vinorelbine, when compared to best supportive care, has been shown to give a statistically significant survival benefit and improve quality of life. Conflicting data from phase II/III trials in elderly patients with NSCLC exist regarding a potential benefit of combination chemotherapy over single-agent treatment in the total cohort of elderly patients, including those with comorbidities or declining functional reserve. A review of the most important trials, assessing treatment options in elderly patients with lung cancer, either prospectively or retrospectively, is provided, and still unresolved issues are addressed.

Prevalence and management of pain in Italian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Pain is a highly distressing symptom for patients with advanced cancer. WHO analgesic ladder is widely accepted as a guideline for its treatment. Our aim was to describe pain prevalence among patients diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), impact of pain on quality of life (QoL) and adequacy of pain management. Data of 1021 Italian patients enrolled in three randomised trials of chemotherapy for NSCLC were pooled. QoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13. Analgesic consumption during the 3 weeks following QoL assessment was recorded. Adequacy of pain management was evaluated by the Pain Management Index (PMI). Some pain was reported by 74% of patients (42% mild, 24% moderate and 7% severe); 50% stated pain was affecting daily activities (30% a little, 16% quite a bit, 3% very much). Bone metastases strongly affected presence of pain. Mean global QoL linearly decreased from 64.9 to 36.4 from patients without pain to those with severe pain (P<0.001). According to PMI, 616 out of 752 patients reporting pain (82%) received inadequate analgesic treatment. Bone metastases were associated with improved adequacy and worst pain with reduced adequacy at multivariate analysis. In conclusion, pain is common in patients with advanced NSCLC, significantly affects QoL, and is frequently undertreated. We recommend that: (i) pain self-assessment should be part of oncological clinical practice; (ii) pain control should be a primary goal in clinical practice and in clinical trials; (iii) physicians should receive more training in pain management; (iv) analgesic treatment deserves greater attention in protocols of anticancer treatment.

Same Old Story? Do We Need to Modify Our Supportive Care Treatment of Elderly Cancer Patients? Focus on Antiemetics

The incidence of cancer is highest among individuals > or =65 years of age. Physiological changes associated with aging, such as cognitive decline, renal and hepatic dysfunction, can often complicate treatment options, and the elderly represent a particular challenge to the oncologist because of the high incidence of comorbidity and polypharmacy. Effective supportive care is of particular importance in elderly cancer patients as they may recover less satisfactorily if adverse events are poorly controlled. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that supportive care agents, for example, antiemetics, are underutilised in this patient population. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens are frequently associated with nausea and vomiting--symptoms that can have deleterious effects on vulnerable patients if not adequately managed. The serotonin 5-HT3-receptor antagonists represent a class of antiemetics that are currently regarded as the gold standard treatment for chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. They are recommended as first-line treatment for patients at moderate-to-high risk of emesis. However, antiemetic guidelines do not differentiate between these agents and, more importantly, do not contain specific recommendations for the elderly. Pharmacological differences exist between the commonly available 5-HT3-receptor antagonists (dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, tropisetron and palonosetron), namely receptor sensitivity, duration of action, metabolism and tolerability profile. Of particular concern with prescriptions to elderly cancer patients is the convenience of once-daily administration, the low potential for drug-drug interactions and cardiovascular adverse effect profile. Moreover, the addition of the newly approved neurokinin NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant to the choice of antiemetic regimen may complicate therapy and exacerbate the drug-drug interaction risk in elderly patients. Therefore, the use of antiemetics that are well tolerated and with the lowest risk of drug-drug interactions is imperative in this patient population and will enable even those patients with several comorbidities and a high level of polypharmacy to receive effective antiemetic therapy.