Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Cancer Quality Alliance: Blueprint for a better cancer care system.

The Cancer Quality Alliance (CQA), a national alliance advocating for improvements in the quality of cancer care in America, presents a set of 5 case studies that depict a vision of quality cancer care and a "Blueprint" for actions to realize this vision. The CQA Blueprint case studies feature patients with soft tissue sarcoma, breast cancer, rectal cancer, and Hodgkin disease and focus on key phases in the cancer care trajectory: detection, diagnosis, treatment, post-treatment/survivorship, and end of life. Each case study begins with a patient summary, follows with a worst- and a best-case scenario, and concludes with a discussion section identifying "what went right" in the best case and "what went wrong" in the worst case. Steps to be taken by key stakeholders, for example, health care providers, insurers/payers, policy makers, and patients and families, are then outlined. By juxtaposing a worst- and best-case scenario, the cancer care case studies elucidate the origins of complex health care problems and clarify the actions needed to overcome them. The CQA will make the case studies available for use as teaching tools to give health care providers and patients themselves descriptions of how the health care system should work to achieve the ultimate benefit for an individual living with, through, and beyond a diagnosis of cancer. The CQA adopted the definition of quality health care of the Institute of Medicine, and the analysis of care provided in the discussion section of each case study is framed using 6 quality improvement aims identified in the Institute of Medicine's report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Health care quality may be judged according to its safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Policy Board recommended the creation of quality measures and a national reporting system in 1999. Representatives from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) collaborated to create metrics suitable for national performance measurement. METHODS: Content and methodology experts nominated by ASCO and NCCN met to select and refine metrics for breast, colon, and rectal cancer based on National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality and NCCN measures and NCCN and ASCO guidelines. Measures were selected based on their impact on disease free and overall survival, the degree to which opportunities for improvement exist, and the feasibility of data collection. RESULTS: Three breast cancer measures and four colorectal cancer measures were chosen. Measures for breast cancer included adjuvant hormone therapy for hormone receptor-positive tumors, chemotherapy for hormone receptor-negative cancer, and radiation after lumpectomy. Colorectal measures included adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for rectal cancer, and adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. All but one were recommended as accountability measures and one for quality improvement (removal and examination of 12 or more lymph nodes in colon cancer). Specifications were developed for each measure using tumor registries as the data source. CONCLUSION: ASCO/NCCN measures can be implemented by health systems, provider groups or payors for improvement or accountability using local tumor registries to furnish data on staging and treatment.

Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiation therapy for stages I-IIIA resectable non small-cell lung cancer guideline.

PURPOSE: To determine the role of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in patients with completely resected stage IA-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a Joint Expert Panel in August 2006 to review the evidence and draft recommendations for these therapies. RESULTS: Available data support the use of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in completely resected NSCLC; however, the strength of the data and consequent recommendations vary by disease stage. Adjuvant radiation therapy appears detrimental to survival in stages IB and II, with a possible modest benefit in stage IIIA. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for routine use in patients with stages IIA, IIB, and IIIA disease. Although there has been a statistically significant overall survival benefit seen in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling a range of people with completely resected NSCLC, results of subset analyses for patient populations with stage IB disease were not significant, and adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB disease is not currently recommended for routine use. To date, very few patients with stage IA NSCLC have been enrolled onto RCTs of adjuvant therapy; adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended in these cases. Evidence from RCTs demonstrates a survival detriment for adjuvant radiotherapy with limited evidence for a reduction in local recurrence. Adjuvant radiation therapy appears detrimental to survival in stage IB and II, and may possibly confer a modest benefit in stage IIIA.

Community-based trial of R-CHOP and maintenance rituximab for intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma with first-cycle filgrastim for older patients.

BACKGROUND: Administration of full-dose R-CHOP (rituximab/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone) chemotherapy is important to maximize response in patients with intermediate-or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma but might be difficult in older patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This community-based study was conducted to determine response, toxicity, and disease-free survival in patients with intermediate-or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving R-CHOP with filgrastim. Patients received 6-8 cycles of R-CHOP followed by 4 cycles of maintenance rituximab for responders. Patients aged > 60 years or with increased infection risk received filgrastim 5 microg/kg per day in all R-CHOP cycles; other patients received filgrastim after a neutropenic event (no planned administration for cycle 1). RESULTS: Of 101 patients enrolled, 60 (59%) were aged > 60 years and received filgrastim in all cycles. Thirty-three patients aged 60 years vs. 93% 60 years vs. 95% 60 years vs. 71% 60 years vs. 78% or= 38.3 degrees C with absolute neutrophil count < 500/mm) occurred in 17% of patients overall (22% > 60 years vs. 10% 60 years vs. 2% 60 years receiving R-CHOP with filgrastim support in all cycles received comparable doses of chemotherapy and had similar overall response rates compared wtih those of younger patients receiving no preemptive cycle-1 filgrastim.

2006 update of recommendations for the use of white blood cell growth factors: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF). UPDATE METHODOLOGY: The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.

Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on colorectal cancer surveillance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on results from three independently reported meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that compared low-intensity and high-intensity programs of colorectal cancer surveillance, and on recent analyses of data from major clinical trials in colon and rectal cancer, the Panel recommends annual computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen for 3 years after primary therapy for patients who are at higher risk of recurrence and who could be candidates for curative-intent surgery; pelvic CT scan for rectal cancer surveillance, especially for patients with several poor prognostic factors, including those who have not been treated with radiation; colonoscopy at 3 years after operative treatment, and, if results are normal, every 5 years thereafter; flexible proctosigmoidoscopy [corrected] every 6 months for 5 years for rectal cancer patients who have not been treated with pelvic radiation; history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 months during years 4 and 5, and subsequently at the discretion of the physician; and carcinoembryonic antigen every 3 months postoperatively for at least 3 years after diagnosis, if the patient is a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy. Chest x-rays, CBCs, and liver function tests are not recommended, and molecular or cellular markers should not influence the surveillance strategy based on available evidence.

A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. METHODS: Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. RESULTS: Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. CONCLUSION: Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.

Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P =.105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P =.004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P <.001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P =.092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P <.001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P <.001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.