Quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a Southwest Oncology Group randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of this paper is to present the results of a randomized trial comparing the effects of two chemotherapy regimens on the Quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Trials in advanced stage disease represent an important treatment context for QOL assessment. A second purpose of this paper is to examine methods for handling the level of missing data commonly observed in the advanced stage disease context. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive cisplatin plus vinorelbine or carboplatin plus paclitaxel. The QOL of 222 patients was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) prior to randomization; follow-up assessments occurred at 13 and 25 weeks. Three methods were used to analyze the QOL data: (1) cross-sectional analysis of four patient categories (improved, stable, missing, and declined) based on changes in the FACT-L score, (2) a mixed linear model, and (3) a pattern mixture model. The longitudinal analyses addressed two potential data biases. RESULTS: Questionnaire submission rates were 91% at baseline, 68% at 13 weeks, and 47% at 25 weeks. The cross-sectional and mixed linear model analyses did not show significant differences by treatment arm in patient-reported QOL. The pattern mixture model analysis, more appropriate given non-ignorable missing data, also found no statistically significant effect of treatment on patient QOL. CONCLUSION: We present a sensitivity analysis approach with multiple methods for analyzing treatment effects on patient QOL in the presence of substantial, non-ignorable missing data in an advanced stage disease clinical trial. We conclude that the two treatment arms did not differ statistically in their effects on patient QOL over a 25-week treatment period.

Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION: PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.

Improving breast self-examination compliance: a Southwest Oncology Group randomized trial of three interventions.

BACKGROUND: Only 20-40% of U.S. women conduct breast self-examination (BSE). This Southwest Oncology Group experimental study compared the impact of three interventions on BSE compliance. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three arms: (1) physician message; (2) physician message and BSE class; or (3) physician message, BSE class, and reinforcement (phone and postcard). Compliance (frequency and accuracy) was measured by interview at intake and at 6 months and by phone contact at 1 year. Logistic and multiple regression were employed. RESULTS: This analysis included 2,233 subjects from six institutions. At 1 year the percentages of women doing BSE were 59, 62, and 78% for Arms 1-3, respectively; gains over intake frequency (27% average) were significant within each arm (P < or = 0.0001). At both 6 months and 1 year the differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2 average accuracy scores and the differences between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the percentage of women doing BSE were significant (P < or = 0.0001). Findings within institutions were consistent with the overall findings. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a BSE class increased accuracy over physician message alone; physician message, BSE class, and reinforcement gave the highest percentage of women doing BSE.

Coaching persons with lung cancer to report sensory pain. Literature review and pilot study findings.

Because clinicians often do not recognize that patients have pain and patients do not spontaneously communicate their pain, clinicians may fail to prescribe or administer adequate pain medications. One method of improving clinicians' assessments of pain is to coach patients to communicate their pain in ways that clinicians recognize. The aims of our pilot study were to (a) examine the feasibility of implementing a randomized clinical trial of a COACHING protocol in 18 outpatients with lung cancer pain and (b) estimate the effects of COACHING on nurses' knowledge of patients' pain location, intensity, quality, and pattern. The expectation was that COACHING would show a trend toward reducing the discrepancy between patients self-report of sensory pain and sensory pain data known to nurse clinicians. Patients were randomly assigned to be COACHED or NOT-COACHED (usual care) and pretest-posttest measures with the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were taken from nurses and patients. Patients- and nurse-completed MPQs and VASs were compared for agreement. Improvement in percent agreement occurred consistently more often (pretest to posttest) between patient self-report of sensory pain and nurses' pain assessments in the COACHED group than in the NOT-COACHED group. Pilot study findings demonstrated feasibility of implementing the COACHING protocol and suggest that COACHING may be effective in reducing discrepancies between patients' self-reports and nurses' assessments of sensory pain. Design modifications are recommended for implementation of future studies.