A comparison of elderly patients with aggressive histology lymphoma who were entered or not entered on to a randomized phase II trial

Evaluation of the representativeness and generalizability of Japanese clinical trials for localized rectal/colon cancer: Comparing participants in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group study with patients in Japanese registries

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear if clinical trial results including patients who meet trial eligibility criteria, are applicable to actual patients in daily practice (generalizability). Moreover, the extent to which are trial participants different from patients seen in daily practice (representativeness) is also unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the representativeness of the patients registered in randomized clinical trials to patients in daily practice and examine the generalizability of trial results to daily practice.

METHODS

We compared the results of surgical trials conducted by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group with data from two Japanese cancer registries, representing patients seen in daily practice. We compared overall survival (OS) between trial participants and registry patients to evaluate representativeness of trial participants. We then compared the OS of registry patients who received open surgery (OP) and laparoscopic surgery (LAP) to evaluate the generalizability of trial results.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3051 patients (701 in JCOG0212, 2350 registry patients) with rectal cancer and 3116 patients (1057 in JCOG0404, 2059 registry patients) with colon cancer. Trial participants tended to possess lower clinical stages. Multivariable analyses revealed registry patients with significantly worse survival compared with trial participants. The hazard ratio of LAP to OP among registry patients was 0.305 (95% CI; 0.048-2.188), which did not meet the prespecified generalizability criteria of 0.9.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results failed to ensure either the representativeness or generalizability of clinical trial results, compared to daily practice. Careful considerations are required when applying trial results to patients in daily practice.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review

Racial and ethnic minorities, older adults, rural residents, and individuals of low socioeconomic status are underrepresented among participants in cancer-related trials. The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the barriers to participation of underrepresented populations in cancer-related trials. Their search included English-language publications that reported original data on the recruitment of underrepresented groups to cancer treatment or prevention trials between 1966 and December 2005 in multiple electronic databases. They also hand-searched titles in 34 journals from January 2003 to December 2005 and they examined reference lists for eligible articles. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant studies. Data on barriers to participation were synthesized both qualitatively and based on statistically significant associations with trial enrollment. Of 5257 studies that were cited, 65 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current analysis, including 46 studies on recruitment into cancer therapeutic trials, 15 studies on recruitment into prevention trials, and 4 studies on recruitment into both prevention and treatment trials. Numerous factors were reported as barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. However, only 20 of the studies reported statistically significant associations between hypothesized barriers and enrollment. The available evidence had limitations in quality regarding representativeness, justification of study methods, the reliability and validity of data-collection methods, potential for bias, and data analysis. The results indicated that underrepresented populations face numerous barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. The current systematic review highlighting the literature on recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer trials and may be used as the evidence base toward developing an agenda for etiologic and intervention research to reduce the disparities in participation in cancer-related trials.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up to date physicians and treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2001, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded over 10,000 references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles and wrote to over 250 investigators to try to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised studies (yielding 6 comparisons) and 50 non-randomised cohort studies (85 comparisons), with 31,140 patients treated in RCTs and 20,380 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.002, I(2) = 36.2%) among the 73 dichotomous outcome comparisons; none of the potential explanatory factors we investigated helped to explain this heterogeneity. No statistically significant differences were found for 63 of the 73 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and two comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There were no statistically significant differences in heterogeneity (P = 0.53, I(2) = 0%) or in outcomes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12) of patients treated within and outside RCTs in the 18 comparisons which had used continuous outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is not associated with greater risks than receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Frequency and cost of chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects in a population sample of women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The number, nature, and costs of serious adverse effects experienced by younger women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer outside of clinical trials are unknown.

METHODS

From a database of medical claims made by individuals with employer-provided health insurance between January 1998 and December 2002, we identified 12,239 women 63 years of age or younger with newly diagnosed breast cancer, of whom 4075 received chemotherapy during the 12 months after the initial breast cancer diagnosis and 8164 did not. Diagnostic codes for eight chemotherapy-related adverse effects were identified. Total hospitalizations for all causes, hospitalizations or emergency room visits for adverse effects that are typically related to chemotherapy, and health care expenditures were compared between the two groups of women. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Women who received chemotherapy were more likely than those who did not to be hospitalized or to visit the emergency room for all causes (61% versus 42%; mean difference = 19%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.7% to 21.3%, P<.001) and for chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects (16% versus 5%, mean difference = 11%, 95% CI = 9.6% to 12.4%, P<.001). The percentages of chemotherapy recipients who were hospitalized or visited the emergency room during the year after their breast cancer diagnosis were 8.4% for fever or infection; 5.5% for neutropenia or thrombocytopenia; 2.5% for dehydration or electrolyte disorders; 2.4% for nausea, emesis, or diarrhea; 2.2% for anemia; 2% for constitutional symptoms; 1.2% for deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolus; and 0.9% for malnutrition. Chemotherapy recipients incurred large incremental expenditures for chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects (1271 dollars per person per year) and ambulatory encounters (17,617 dollars per person per year).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects among younger, commercially insured women with breast cancer may be more common than reported by large clinical trials and lead to more patient suffering and health care expenditures than previously estimated.

Randomized controlled drug trials on very elderly subjects: descriptive and methodological analysis of trials published between 1990 and 2002 and comparison with trials on adults

BACKGROUND

Very elderly subjects (VES; aged 80 years or older) constitute a special population as they frequently present multiple diseases (polypathology). Results from trials on general adult populations therefore cannot be extrapolated to VES. We performed a census of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on VES published between 1990 and 2002, and carried out a descriptive and methodological analysis of these RCT/VES, comparing them with matched RCT on general adult populations (control RCT, RCT/C).

METHODS

We searched for RCT/VES in two international databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) and then manually. RCT/C were matched to RCT/VES for disease area and year of publication. The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed with Chalmers' scale.

RESULTS

We identified 84 RCT/VES, 63 of which were conclusive and 21, inconclusive. Subjects were institutionalized in 48 RCT, and community dwelling in 11 RCT (unspecified in 25 RCT). Efficacy was the main criterion in 75 RCT; tolerance in 9 RCT. Twenty-six RCT were published by geriatrics journals, and 58 by general medical journals. The RCT/VES covered most of the disease areas of geriatrics. The 84 RCT/VES had a mean methodological quality score of 0.578 +/- 0.157. The matched 84 RCT/C had a mean methodological quality score of 0.592 +/- 0.116 (p = .466). The methodological quality score of RCT/VES increased with the number of included subjects (p = .004) and the year of publication (p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of RCT/VES is equivalent to that of RCT in general adult populations. Nevertheless, RCT/VES remain very scarce, and neglect certain diseases. RCT/VES and the inclusion of very elderly subjects in RCT on adults should be strongly encouraged.

Treatment of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas in Elderly Patients

The roles of evolving treatment strategies for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL) in elderly patients are still not well defined and their effects on the overall epidemiology of the disease are still not clear. Three questions arise when discussing the management of NHL in elderly patients. First, should older patients be treated with the same regimens usually administered to younger patients? Second, are health outcomes of elderly patients similar to those usually observed in young patients, particularly response rate and overall survival? Third, which strategies should be adopted to improve overall health outcomes? Periodic review of the literature and updated data on the management of NHL in elderly patients may provide an answer to all these queries. In essence, older patients must be treated with the same intensive approaches that are usually reserved for younger patients. The results reported in randomized controlled clinical trials are consistent with the capability of older patients to exhibit overall response rate, event-free survival, and overall survival similar to those observed in their younger counterparts. Combining chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies seems to be the main optional strategy for better outcomes in elderly patients. In contrast, knowledge concerning the management of indolent lymphomas in elderly patients is still lacking, and available clinical data are limited in this setting, especially in patients with poor prognostic factors who may need an immediate therapeutic intervention.

Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy alone and with concomitant chemotherapy to the head and neck: treated within and outside of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

A German multicenter randomized trial (ARO 95-6) compared hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (RT) alone (to a total radiation dose of 77.6 Gy) with hyperfractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy (to 70.6 Gy) using concurrent mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil. We analyzed the baseline patient characteristics and the influence of physician selection bias on treatment outcome for patients who were and were not enrolled in the randomized Phase III trial, with the therapies administered according to the trial protocols.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between February 1996 and May 2000 at Tübingen University, 42 on-study patients and 41 off-study patients with Stage III-IV nonmetastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated. The median follow-up for patients at risk (living at last evaluation) was 44 months, with a minimal follow-up of 2 years.

RESULTS

The 4-year rate of overall survival, disease-specific survival, and locoregional tumor control was 25%, 40%, and 54%, respectively, for all 83 patients. Among patients enrolled in the study, the 4-year rate of overall survival for those receiving accelerated hyperfractionated radiochemotherapy was 33%, and that for patients receiving accelerated hyperfractionated RT alone was 18% (p = 0.25); among off-study patients, the comparable rates were 48% and 0% (p = 0.004). The 4-year rate of disease-specific survival among on-study patients receiving radiochemotherapy and RT alone was 41% and 36%, respectively (p = 0.5); among off-study patients the respective rates were 58% and 0% (p = 0.2). The rate of 4-year locoregional tumor control associated with radiochemotherapy and RT, respectively, was 51% and 54% among on-study patients and 72% and 23% among off-study patients (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Patients with advanced head-and-neck cancer who were entered into the randomized trial did not have statistically significantly different survival than patients treated according to the same protocol but outside the trial. Also, outside the trial, the physicians' selection bias in determining which patient received which treatment showed a much greater benefit from combined modality treatment than that found in the randomized trial.

Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review

BACKGROUND

Many oncologists believe that patients with cancer who enroll in clinical trials have better outcomes than those who do not enroll. We aimed to assess the empirical evidence that such a trial effect exists.

METHODS

We developed a conceptual framework for comparison of trial and non-trial patients. We then did a comprehensive literature search to identify studies that compared outcomes between these groups. We critically evaluated these studies to assess whether they provide valid and generalizable support for a trial effect.

FINDINGS

We identified 26 comparisons, from 24 published articles, of outcomes among cancer patients enrolled and not enrolled in clinical trials. 21 comparisons used retrospective cohort designs. 14 comparisons provided some evidence that patients enrolled in trials have improved outcomes. However, strategies to control for potential confounding factors were inconsistent and frequently inadequate. Only eight comparisons restricted non-trial patients to those meeting trial eligibility criteria. Of these, three noted better outcomes in trial patients than in non-trial patients. Children with cancer, patients with haematological malignant disease, and patients treated before 1986 were disproportionately represented in positive studies.

INTERPRETATION

Despite widespread belief that enrollment in clinical trials leads to improved outcomes in patients with cancer, there are insufficient data to conclude that such a trial effect exists. Until such data are available, patients with cancer should be encouraged to enroll in clinical trials on the basis of trials' unquestioned role in improving treatment for future patients.

The role of myelopoietic growth factors in managing cancer in the elderly

More than 50% of all malignancies are diagnosed in patients aged > 65 years and most cancer-related deaths occur in this population. Misconceptions about prognosis and treatment contribute to the undertreatment of elderly cancer patients and consequent poor outcomes. Although older patients have been excluded from cancer treatment trials in the past, response rates to chemotherapy in a variety of common cancers in otherwise healthy elderly patients are comparable to those attained in younger patients. Lower functional reserve in many organ systems alters the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic drugs as well as the patient's response to treatment-induced toxicity. Except for myelosuppression and mucositis, otherwise fit elderly cancer patients are not at significantly enhanced risk of toxicity to chemotherapy. Severe neutropenia and related infection are encountered much more frequently during the treatment of elderly as compared with younger cancer patients. These lead to treatment delays, dose reductions and higher hospitalisation rates. Myelopoietic growth factor support reduces myelosuppression and the associated risk of severe infection, thereby allowing delivery of chemotherapy at full dose intensity. Beneficial responses to granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim) in elderly patients have been found in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with standard cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) therapy and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) during induction and consolidation chemotherapy. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; sargramostim) has been found to reduce myelosuppression in elderly AML patients receiving induction but not consolidation chemotherapy. These prophylactic treatments produce significant cost benefits because of the reduced hospitalisation and antibiotic use associated with neutropenia. To maximise positive outcomes, elderly patients should be included in clinical trials of new cancer agents. Since myelosuppression is the main risk factor for elderly patients undergoing chemotherapy, optimisation of growth factor support and the development of more effective and safer myelopoietic agents may improve success rates and reduce adverse events. Such information will lead to better management of cancer in older patients.

Treatment of large cell lymphoma in elderly patients with a mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and prednisone regimen: long-term follow-up results

BACKGROUND

Patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) require intensive and extensive therapy, which seems impracticable in elderly patients due to hematologic and extrahematologic toxicity. Consequent dose reduction and therapy attenuation can reduce treatment-related toxicity but also decreases therapeutic efficacy. Thus, age represents a fundamental prognostic factor that has a profound influence on both therapeutic decisions and patient outcome.

METHODS

Between January, 1990 and June, 1997, 145 patients age > 64 years (median age, 72.3 years) with a diagnosis of aggressive NHL were treated on a chemotherapy regimen that consisted of mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, and prednisone.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients (63%) achieved complete remission, and 48 patients (33%) achieved partial remission, for an overall response rate of 96%. Six patients (4%) were resistant to therapy. The overall survival rate, with a median follow-up of 66 months, was 44%, and the failure free survival rate was 42%. The disease free survival rate was 63.5%, with a median follow-up of 60 months. Multivariate survival analysis showed that the achievement of complete remission was the single most important prognostic factor, which was associated significantly with longer survival (P < 0.0001). Toxicity was moderate, with 5 deaths (3%) due to complications related to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results confirm that a protocol devised specifically for elderly patients may reduce toxicity and allow longer overall survival in this particular subset of patients.

[Treatment of high-grade, disseminated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in elderly patients]

PURPOSE

Treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in the elderly is difficult because of an increased risk of toxicity and frequent chronic or debilitating diseases. The aim of this paper is to describe the main studies in this field.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Most recent clinical trials deal with anthracyclin or assimilated drugs regimens. Potential interest of chemotherapy and associated immunotherapy is on study. Without any influence on survival duration, haematopoietic growth factors seem to improve the tolerance of the treatment.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

For elderly patients with good performance status and without severe co morbidity, curative strategy with anthracyclin-containing regimen like CHOP is still the standard chemotherapy. Association with rituximab improves the prognosis. For patients with poor performance status and/or associated disease, optimal strategy remains to be defined with quality of life evaluation.

Influence of amifostine on toxicity of CHOP in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma--a phase II study

Due to concerns about toxicity, many elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) are not considered candidates for standard chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). The cytoprotective agent amifostine has the potential to reduce toxicity when added to chemotherapy. The purpose of the current study was to examine the toxicity of CHOP combined with amifostine in elderly patients with aggressive NHL. A prospective phase II study was performed in patients aged 60 years and older. Patients with stage I/II disease received 4 cycles of CHOP followed by involved-field irradiation. Patients with stage III/IV received 6-8 cycles of CHOP. Amifostine (740 mg/m(2)) was administered as a 15-min i.v. infusion immediately before chemotherapy. Forty-one (median age 69.5 years, range 60-87) of 49 consecutive previously untreated patients, aged 60 years and older, with aggressive NHL seen in our center were included in the study. Twenty-one patients had stage I/II disease and 20 had stage III/IV disease. The patients received a total of 207 cycles of amifostine-CHOP. Infusion of amifostine caused mild to moderate transient side effects, including a drop of systolic blood pressure >20 mmHg in 54 cycles and nausea/vomiting in 36 cycles. Hematotoxicity of CHOP consisted of leukopenia grade 4 in only 15.4% of cycles. There were two cases of grade 3 anemia. No thrombocytopenia higher than grade 2 occurred. Febrile neutropenia was rare, occurring in 4.3% of cycles. One patient died after the first CHOP administration because of anthracycline-related acute cardiomyopathy (corresponding to a toxic death rate of 2.4%). The complete response rates were 85 and 75% in stage I/II and stage III/IV patients, respectively. After median follow-up of 33 months (range 17-50 months) the median overall survival was not reached in patients with stage I/II and was found to be 32 months in patients with stage III/IV. At 2 years, 76% of patients with stage I/II and 70% with stage III/IV were alive. Twelve of the 15 patients who died were aged older than 70. Amifostine pre-treatment was associated with a low toxicity of CHOP in elderly patients with aggressive NHL treated with curative intent. Treatment outcomes appeared not to be impaired by the addition of amifostine to CHOP. This schedule merits further testing in a randomized trial.

Diffuse large cell lymphoma

A review of new or emerging ideas concerning diffuse large B-cell lymphomas is presented, with particular emphasis on histologic classification, genetic prognostic factors, first-line and salvage treatments, and specific locations such as neurologic, cutaneous, or gastrointestinal sites. This lymphoma remains the most heterogeneous of all lymphomas for its clinical characteristics and outcome. This heterogeneity is probably secondary to the fact that a large proportion of lymphomas seems to occur from a transformation of an unknown indolent lymphoma.

Generalizability of trial results based on randomized versus nonrandomized allocation of OME infants to ventilation tubes or watchful waiting

The objective was to study the generalizability of trial results by comparing randomized patients to eligible but nonrandomized patients who received the same management. Implementation of trial results is only justifiable when the results can be generalized to the total domain population. The design was a multicentre randomized controlled trial on the effect of early screening and treatment with ventilation tubes on infants with otitis media with effusion. Randomized (n = 187) and nonrandomized eligible patients (n = 133) were followed up. The study population comprised children who were detected by auditory screening at the age of 9-12 months and who were subsequently diagnosed with persistent bilateral otitis media with effusion for 4-6 months. A significant difference was found in the distribution of some prognostic factors: more randomized children had older siblings, did not attend day care and had mothers with a lower educational level than the nonrandomized children. These factors, however, did not modify the outcome. No differences were found in mean hearing levels between the randomized and nonrandomized children: in both the randomized and nonrandomized children ventilation tubes improved the hearing level, especially after 6 months. However, in the long term (12 months), the hearing levels were equal again. The results of the randomized and nonrandomized patients were comparable. The results of this trial appear to be generalizable to the total domain population. The procedure of following up both randomized and nonrandomized patients is recommended when there is concern about selective participation and reduced generalizability.