OS7.3 Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evaluation in the REGOMA trial: a randomized, phase II clinical trial analyzing regorafenib activity in relapsed glioblastoma patients

BACKGROUND

REGOMA trial showed that regorafenib (REG) significantly improved OS and PFS in patients (pts) with relapsed GBM with respect to lomustine (LOM). REG showed a different toxicity profile compared to LOM. Here, we report final results of the HRQoL assessment, a secondary end point.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and brain module (QLQ-BN20) administered before any MRI assessments, every 8 weeks (+/- 2 weeks) until disease progression. To evaluate treatment impact on HRQoL, questionnaires at progression were excluded. Mixed-effect linear models were fitted for each of the HRQOL domain to examine the change over progression-free time within and between arms. The models included the time of questionnaire assessment, the treatment group and their interaction, as fixed effects, and a compound symmetry covariance structure for the random effects. Differences of at least 10 points were classified as a clinically meaningful change. To correct for multiple comparisons and to avoid type I error, the level of significance was set at P=0.01 (2-sided).

RESULTS

Of 119 randomized pts, 117 partecipated in the HRQoL evaluation, and 114 had a baseline assessment (n=56 REG; n=58 LOM). No statistically significant differences were observed in any generic or cancer specific domain during treatment in the REG and LOM arms, or between the two arms, except for the appetite loss scale which was significantly worse in PTS treated with REG (Global mean 14.7 (SD=28.6) vs 7.6 (SD=16.0); p=0.0081). The rate of pts with a clinically meaningful worsening for appetite loss was not statistically different between the two arms (9 out of 24 and 0 out of 13 in the REG and LOM arm, respectively;p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

In the REGOMA trial, HRQoL did not change during regorafenib treatment. Pts treated with regorafenib and lomustine reported no significant difference in HRQoL.

Adjuvant Systemic Therapies in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: An Audit on Clinical Practice in Italy

Aims and Background

Rarely are conclusions from clinical trials summarized in international consensus conferences and promptly transferred to patient care. The adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer used in daily clinical practice in Italy is described and compared with the recommendations of the 1990 NIH Consensus Conference.

Patients and Methods

We audited prescriptions of adjuvant systemic therapies for Italian colorectal cancer patients in 82 centers during a fixed one-week period.

Results

Among 434 patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy there were 139 (42.5%) colon cancer patients with N- and 169 (51.7%) with N+ regional nodal involvement. Treatment at academic centers, a young age, T4 and a low total number of lymph nodes removed at surgery were the factors potentially justifying the decision for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer patients. The most common chemotherapy used was a bolus of 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid for 6 months (75.8%). Adjuvant radiotherapy was not administered to 37 (38.5%) of 96 patients with stage II and III rectal cancer.

Conclusions

The study shows that a substantial proportion of patients on adjuvant treatment at a certain time point in a large enough sample of Italian centers are stage II (potential over-treatment) and that an under-treatment of stage II and III rectal cancer patients (lack of radiotherapy) occurs too often in daily clinical practice in this country.

A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2-C colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the third most lethal cancer in both men and women in developed countries. About 75% of cases are first diagnosed when the disease is classified as localized or regional, undergo potentially curative treatment and enter a post-treatment surveillance program. Although such programs drain significant resources from health systems, empirical evidence of their efficacy is scanty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Dukes B2-C colorectal cancer patients who had no evidence of disease at the end of their front-line treatment (surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, if indicated) were eligible for the trial and randomized to two different surveillance programs. These programs differed greatly in the frequency of diagnostic imaging. They had similar schedules of physical examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assessments. Patients received baseline and yearly health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and QoL.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2006, 1228 assessable patients were randomized, 933 with colon cancer and 295 with rectal cancer. More than 90% of patients had the expected number of diagnostic procedures. Median follow-up duration was 62 months [interquartile range (IQR) 51-86] in the minimal surveillance group and 62 months (IQR 50-85) in the intensive group. At primary analysis, 250 patients had recurred and 218 had died. Intensive surveillance anticipated recurrence, as shown by a significant difference in mean disease-free survival of 5.9 months. Comparison of OS curves of the whole intention-to-treat population showed no statistically significant differences. HR-QoL of life scores did not differ between regimens.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the conclusions of other randomized clinical trials, which show that early diagnosis of cancer recurrence is not associated with OS benefit.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT02409472.

Randomized trial on adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI followed by docetaxel and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for radically resected gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Some trial have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant fluoropirimidine with or without platinum compounds compared with surgery alone. ITACA-S study was designed to evaluate whether a sequential treatment of FOLFIRI [irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV)] followed by docetaxel plus cisplatin improves disease-free survival in comparison with 5-FU/LV in patients with radically resected gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) day 1, LV 100 mg/m(2) as 2 h infusion and 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) as bolus, days 1 and 2 followed by 600 mg/m(2)/day as 22 h continuous infusion, q14 for four cycles) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 1, q21 for three cycles (sequential arm) or De Gramont regimen (5-FU/LV arm).

RESULTS

From February 2005 to August 2009, 1106 patients were enrolled, and 1100 included in the analysis: 562 in the sequential arm and 538 in the 5-FU/LV arm. With a median follow-up of 57.4 months, 581 patients recurred or died (297 sequential arm and 284 5-FU/LV arm), and 483 died (243 and 240, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected for both disease-free [hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.17; P = 0.974] and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.18; P = 0.865). Five-year disease-free and OS rates were 44.6% and 44.6%, 51.0% and 50.6% in the sequential and 5-FU/LV arm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A more intensive regimen failed to show any benefit in disease-free and OS versus monotherapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640782.

Medical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has substantially changed in the past few decades, the introduction of novel therapies (such as sorafenib) have improved patient survival. Nevertheless, HCC remains the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Decision-making largely relies on evidence-based criteria, as showed in the US and European clinical practice guidelines, which endorse five therapeutic recommendations: resection; transplantation; radiofrequency ablation; chemoembolization; and sorafenib. However, areas still exist in which uncertainty precludes a strong recommendation, such as the role of adjuvant therapies after resection, radioembolization with yttrium-90 or second-line therapies for advanced HCC. Many clinical trials that are currently ongoing aim to answer these questions. The first reported studies, however, failed to identify novel therapeutic alternatives (that is, sunitinib, erlotinib or brivanib). Efforts that focus on the implementation of personalized medicine approaches in HCC will probably dominate research in the next decade.

Abstract P1-09-06: Imaging Tests in Staging and Surveillance of Early Breast Cancer (EBC) — Changes in Routine Clinical Practice and Cost Implications

Background. New imaging tests such as computed tomography [CT], [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scanning and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are not recommended for staging or follow up of asymptomatic patients with EBC according to current guidelines. However, frequently these tests are requested even in the absence of a clinical indication. Variations in practice patterns have significant cost implications and no clear impact on cancer outcomes. Aim. In the present study we analyzed how the availability of novel and more expensive imaging technique has changed staging and follow-up modalities in EBC patients and if these changes affect costs. Methods. Two thousand and five patients with EBC diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 were identified using clinical computerized medical records from 639 general practitioners assisting 915,689 inhabitants of the Campania, a southern region of Italy. For each year EBC incidence, the mean number of diagnostic tests per patient (N/Pt) done during the first year after the initial diagnosis and the mean costs per each year were evaluated and compared by Anova test. Results. We identified 576, 489, 474 and 497 newly diagnosed cases of EBC in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively.

Table 1

Table 1 describes changes in the mean number of different imaging tests requested per patient in these years. Overall, there was a significant increase of the mean number of imaging tests done per patient from 2005 to 2008 (P<0.0001). No change of the mean number of mammograms, bone scan and chest X ray requested per patient was observed. However, importantly, the mean number of TC scan, PET scan and MRI requested per patient almost doubled from 2005 to 2008. Accordingly, the mean costs for staging and surveillance per patient also significantly increased (355 € in 2005, 378 € in 2006, 391 € in 2007 and 547 € in 2008; <0.0001).

Conclusions. TC scan, PET scan and MRI employment for patient with EBC in daily clinical practice has been steadily growing over the past four years. However, there are no data to support their role in routine breast cancer staging or surveillance in asymptomatic patients. More studies are needed to characterize which subset of patients deserve more intensive staging and follow up procedures as costs related to these imaging test prescriptions are relevant.

Prophylaxis and treatment of hepatitis B in immunocompromised patients

The literature on hepatitis B virus (HBV) in immunocompromised patients is heterogeneous and referred mainly to the pre-antivirals era. Today a rational approach to the problem of hepatitis B in these patients provides for: (a) the evaluation of HBV markers and of liver condition in all subjects starting immunosuppressive therapies (baseline), (b) the treatment with antivirals (therapy) of active carriers, (c) the pre-emptive use of antivirals (prophylaxis) in inactive carriers, especially if they are undergoing immunosuppressive therapies judged to be at high risk, (d) the biochemical and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) monitoring (or universal prophylaxis, in case of high risk immunosuppression) in subjects with markers of previous contact with HBV (HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive), in order to prevent reverse seroconversion. Moreover it is suggested a strict adherence to criteria of allocation based on the virological characteristics of both recipients and donors in the general setting of transplants and in liver transplantation the universal prophylaxis with nucleos(t)ides analogues (frequently combined with specific anti-HBV immunoglobulins) in HBsAg positive candidates and in HBsAg negative recipients of anti-HBc positive grafts.

A factorial phase III randomized trial of rofecoxib and prolonged constant infusion of gemcitabine at 10mg/m2/min (PCI-G) in first-line treatment of adult patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): The GECO study

7069

Background: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest that rofecoxib and PCI-G might improve efficacy of treatment of advanced NSCLC. Methods: Advanced (stage IV or IIIb with supraclavear nodes or pleural effusion) NSCLC pts, aged <70, PS 0–1, were eligible. A 2x2 factorial design was applied to test if addition of rofecoxib (50 mg daily) or PCI-G could improve overall survival (OAS) compared with standard first-line treatment [cisplatin (80 mg/m2 d 1) and gemcitabine (1200 mg/m2 dd 1&8) every 21 days]. To have 80% power of detecting a 0.67 HR of death, with bilateral alpha = 0.05, 400 pts were planned and 200 deaths were required for each comparison. Response was assessed with RECIST, quality of life (QoL) by EORTC questionnaires. Results: From Jan ’03 to May ’05, 400 pts were enrolled. Rofecoxib arms were closed (Oct 1st,’04) due to manufacturer decision of drug withdrawing for safety issues. As of Dec ’05, analyses include 400 pts (246 deaths) for PCI-G and 240 pts (enrolled as of Jul 1st,’04 to have a 3-month chance of treatment) for rofecoxib comparison (168 deaths). Median age was 60. PCI-G did not improve OAS (median 47.3 vs 42.9 weeks with standard infusion, HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75–1.25), nor any other secondary end-point. Rofecoxib did not prolong OAS (median 43.6 vs 44.1 weeks without rofecoxib, HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74–1.38), but improved response rate (41.2% vs 26.4%, p = 0.02), global QoL, physical and role functioning, fatigue, pain and analgesic consumption. In both comparisons, there was no clinically relevant difference in toxicity. Conclusions: Neither PCI-G nor rofecoxib prolonged OAS. Rofecoxib improved response rate and several QoL items, including pain-related and global QoL. Partially supported by AIRC; rofecoxib freely supplied by MS&D Italy.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Tamoxifen in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: 5-year results of the CLIP-1 multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In 1998, when data of a meta-analysis on tamoxifen in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had suggested a little advantage for this treatment, we published the results of a multicenter randomised controlled trial, that showed no survival benefit for tamoxifen vs. control. Here we report an updated analysis of the study results 4.5 years after the closure of enrollment.

METHODS

The study had a planned sample size of 480 patients. Patients with any stage HCC were eligible, irrespective of locoregional treatment. Tamoxifen was given orally, 40 mg/die, from randomisation until death.

RESULTS

496 patients were randomised by 30 Institutions from January 1995 to January 1997. Information was available for 477 patients. As of July 2001, 374 deaths (78%) were recorded, and median survival times were 16 and 15 months (p=0.54), in the control and tamoxifen arm. Data were further analysed separately for advanced patients and for those eligible to potentially curative locoregional treatments: relative hazard of death for patients receiving tamoxifen was equal to 0.98 (95% CI 0.76-1.25) for the former group and 1.38 (95% CI 0.95-2.01) for the latter. The prognostic score recently devised by our group (CLIP score) was, as expected, strictly correlated (p<0.0001) to the locoregional treatment received and strongly correlated with prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

the update of the present study confirms that tamoxifen is not effective in prolonging survivals, both in advanced patients and in those potentially curable and that the CLIP score is able to predict prognosis.

Survival and quality of life in gastrointestinal tumors: two different end points?

BACKGROUND

In gastrointestinal tumors, the traditional end point of medical treatment was represented mainly by survival. In the last few years, however, there has been an increasing awareness about the role of quality of life.

DESIGN

This paper seeks to discuss these two important end points and their relationship in colorectal, gastric, pancreatic and liver cancers.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy has doubled survival in comparison with best supportive care in gastrointestinal tumors. A subjective response, represented by a decrease in cancer-related symptoms is expected in about half of the symptomatic patients in colorectal and gastric cancer. In pancreatic cancer, the positive results in terms of clinical benefit helped define the role of chemotherapy. Although clinical benefit does not represent a validated tool to measure quality of life, it can be a first step in the definition of new, simpler tools to assess this end point. The frequent presence of a serious concomitant disease, liver cirrhosis, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) usually prevents the use of chemotherapy in these tumors, which are often treated with locoregional treatments. Unfortunately, their impact on the survival and quality of life of these patients has never been adequately assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

In many gastrointestinal cancers, chemotherapy can produce a survival gain and an improvement in the quality of life. Further studies assessing new drugs and/or combinations should focus on these aspects and their relationships. In particular, the impact of treatments of HCC on both survival and quality of life must be investigated by well-designed prospective trials. When assessing the value of a particular anticancer treatment, it is important to consider the impact it may have not only on survival but also on quality of life. This is particularly so for cancer patients, whose life expectancy may be short.