[Who has more anxiety concerning a shortened life span: terminal cancer patients or those in curative therapy?]. / Wer hat grössere Furcht vor einer Verkürzung der Lebensspanne: palliativ oder kurativ behandelte Krebspatienten?

The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a difference in the amount of fear of the advancement (progression) and return (relapse) of cancer shown by terminal cancer patients and those in curative therapy. The cohort consists of 291 rehabilitation patients, main diagnoses were colonic/rectal-, breast- and prostate cancer. The patients were questioned using the fear of progression questionnaire (PA-F-KF) and a Five-Item Fear of Relapse/Recurrence Scale. Patients in palliative care and those in curative therapy are equally fearful of the disease progressing. When comparing both groups for fear of relapse however, those patients in palliative care are more anxious. This apparently paradoxical result can be seen as being an expression of the highly debilitating fear experienced by terminally ill cancer patients. Simultaneously, patients try to keep up their hope by unconsciously reinterpreting the actual progress of the disease as being a potential relapse.

Topotecan versus treosulfan, an alkylating agent, in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and relapse within 12 months following 1st-line platinum/paclitaxel chemotherapy. A prospectively randomized phase III trial by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group (AGO-OVAR).

OBJECTIVE: Effective therapies with a low rate of side effects are warranted in the 2nd-line setting in ovarian cancer. Both topotecan and the alkylating agent treosulfan have demonstrated efficacy in this patient group and are broadly used in Germany. Therefore, we started a prospectively randomized phase III trial comparing these two drugs in early recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients having relapsed after platinum-taxane therapy were randomized to receive either topotecan or treosulfan. Stratification depended on platinum sensitivity (stratum 1: up to 6 months after primary chemotherapy, stratum 2: 6 to 12 months). RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were treated either with topotecan (136 patients) or treosulfan (138). Hematologic toxicity was significantly more frequent with topotecan but without severe clinical consequences. Non hematologic toxicity was similar in both study arms. Overall survival was significantly longer with topotecan (p=0.0023), with a median of 55.0 weeks versus 41.0 weeks as well as progression-free survival (p=0.0020) with a median of 23.1 weeks versus 12.7 weeks. Similar results were found for stratum 2 subgroup. Overall response rate was 27.5% for topotecan and 16.0% for treosulfan (p=0.0307). In stratum 1 progression-free survival was 18.1 weeks for topotecan and 9.4 weeks for treosulfan (p=0.0476), but there was no difference in overall survival in this prognostic poor subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized phase III trial could detect superiority of topotecan versus treosulfan in patients with recurrent disease after platinum-paclitaxel combination therapy. Our experience indicates that optimization of systemic treatment could improve outcome even in this poor prognostic subgroup of patients with relapsed ovarian cancer.

Gemcitabine plus carboplatin compared with carboplatin in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: an intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR, the NCIC CTG, and the EORTC GCG.

PURPOSE: Most patients with advanced ovarian cancer develop recurrent disease. For those patients who recur at least 6 months after initial therapy, paclitaxel platinum has shown a modest survival advantage over platinum without paclitaxel; however, many patients develop clinically relevant neurotoxicity, frequently resulting in treatment discontinuation. Thus, an alternative regimen without significant neurotoxicity was evaluated by comparing gemcitabine plus carboplatin with single-agent carboplatin in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone, every 21 days. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six patients (178 gemcitabine plus carboplatin; 178 carboplatin) were randomly assigned. Patients received a median of six cycles in both arms. With a median follow-up of 17 months, median PFS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 9.7 months) for gemcitabine plus carboplatin and 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 7.1 months) for carboplatin. The hazard ration (HR) for PFS was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.90; P = .0031). Response rate was 47.2% (95% CI, 39.9% to 54.5%) for gemcitabine plus carboplatin and 30.9% (95% CI, 24.1% to 37.7%) for carboplatin (P = .0016). The HR for overall survival was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.75 to1.23; P = .7349). While myelosuppression was significantly more common in the combination, sequelae such as febrile neutropenia or infections were uncommon. No statistically significant differences in quality of life scores between arms were noted. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus carboplatin significantly improves PFS and response rate without worsening quality of life for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Randomized phase III trial of topotecan following carboplatin and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a gynecologic cancer intergroup trial of the AGO-OVAR and GINECO.

BACKGROUND: The combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel is the standard of care for the treatment of ovarian cancer, yet rates of recurrence and death remain high. We performed a prospective randomized phase III study to examine whether sequential administration of topotecan can improve the efficacy of carboplatin and paclitaxel in first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A total of 1308 patients with previously untreated ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IIB-IV) were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by either four cycles of topotecan (TC-Top; 658 patients) or surveillance (TC; 650 patients) on a 3-week per cycle schedule. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and a stratified log-rank test was used to compare distributions between treatment groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Categorical data were compared using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 18.2 months in the TC-Top arm versus 18.5 months in the TC arm (stratum-adjusted HR = 0.97 [95% CI = 0.85 to 1.10]; P = .688). Median overall survival was 43.1 months for the TC-Top arm versus 44.5 months for the TC arm (stratum-adjusted HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.86 to 1.18]; P = .885). At 3 years, overall survival in both arms was 57% (58.5% in the TC arm and 55.7% in the TC-Top arm). Compared with patients in the TC arm, patients in the TC-Top arm had more grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effects (requiring more supportive care) and more grade 3-4 infections (5.1% versus 2.7%; P = .034) but did not have a statistically significant increase in febrile neutropenia (3.3% versus 3.1%; P = .80). Among patients who had measurable disease (TC, n = 147; TC-Top, n = 145), overall (i.e., complete or partial) response was 69.0% (95% CI = 61.4% to 76.5%) in the TC-Top arm and 76.2% (95% CI = 69.3% to 83.1%) in the TC arm (P = .166). CONCLUSIONS: The sequential addition of topotecan to carboplatin-paclitaxel did not result in superior overall response or progression-free or overall survival. Therefore, this regimen is not recommended as standard of care treatment for ovarian cancer.

Addition of epirubicin as a third drug to carboplatin-paclitaxel in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a prospectively randomized gynecologic cancer intergroup trial by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Ovarian Cancer Study Group and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens.

PURPOSE: Despite the progress that has been achieved, long-term survival rates in patients with advanced ovarian cancer are still disappointing. One attempt to improve results could be the addition of non-cross-resistant drugs to platinum-paclitaxel combination regimens. Anthracyclines were among the candidates for incorporation as a third drug into first-line regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospectively randomized phase III study comparing carboplatin-paclitaxel (TC; area under the curve 5/175 mg/m2, respectively) with epirubicin 60 mg/m2 added to the same combination (TEC) in previously untreated patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. All drugs were administered intravenously on day 1 of a 3-week schedule for a planned minimum of six courses. RESULTS: Between November 1997 and February 2000, 1,282 patients were randomly assigned to receive either TC (635 patients) or TEC (647 patients), respectively. Grade 3/4 hematologic and some nonhematologic toxicities (nausea/emesis, mucositis, and infections) occurred significantly more frequently in the TEC arm. Accordingly, quality-of-life analysis showed inferiority of TEC versus TC. Median progression-free survival time was 18.4 months for the TEC arm and 17.9 months for the TC arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.07; P = .3342). Median overall survival time was 45.8 months for the TEC arm and 41.0 months for the TC arm (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.08; P = .3652). Similar nonsignificant differences were observed when strata were analyzed separately. CONCLUSION: Addition of epirubicin to TC did not improve survival or time to treatment failure in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer; therefore, it cannot be recommended for clinical use in this population.

Her-2/neu gene amplification and response to paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: HER-2/neu overexpression appears to be associated with improved response to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, but its association with response to taxane-based chemotherapy is unclear. In this retrospective subset analysis of patients with metastatic breast cancer enrolled in a randomized treatment trial, we investigated the response of patients with known HER-2/neu status to treatment with taxane-based epirubicin-paclitaxel (ET) chemotherapy compared with treatment with epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (EC) chemotherapy. METHODS: HER-2/neu status (positive [i.e., HER-2/neu amplification] or negative [i.e., no HER-2/neu amplification]) of archival specimens of primary tumors from 297 patients with metastatic breast cancer was determined by use of fluorescence in situ hybridization. Associations between HER-2/neu status and the efficacy of randomly assigned chemotherapy (ET versus EC) were investigated. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Patients with HER-2/neu-positive tumors had a statistically significantly greater objective response rate than patients with HER-2/neu-negative tumors to treatment with ET (76% versus 50%, respectively; P =.005) but not to treatment with EC (46% versus 33%; P =.130). The objective response rate associated with ET was greater than that associated with EC for both HER-2/neu-positive tumors (76% versus 46%; P =.004) and HER-2/neu-negative tumors (50% versus 33%; P =.002). However, the improvement in the objective response rate associated with ET, compared with that associated with EC, was greater for patients with HER-2/neu-positive tumors (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 3.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 8.92; P=.005) than for patients with HER-2/neu-negative tumors (adjusted OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.01 to 3.64; P=.046). Among patients with HER-2/neu-positive tumors, those who received ET had better progression-free survival and overall survival than those who received EC (for progression-free survival, adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.42 to 1.02; P=.062; for overall survival, adjusted RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.36 to 1.02; P=.059). However, among patients with HER-2/neu-negative tumors, those who received ET and those who received EC had similar progression-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: HER-2/neu amplification does not adversely influence response to first-line chemotherapy with either ET or EC. Furthermore, a taxane-containing regimen such as ET may provide a preferential benefit to patients with HER-2/neu-positive tumors.

A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable improvement in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, the optimization of efficacy and tolerability remains an important issue. Therefore, we performed a randomized, phase III non-inferiority trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin (PT) with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. METHODS: A total of 798 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB-IV were randomly assigned to receive six courses of either PT or TC at 3-week intervals. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without progression at 2 years. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, response to treatment, quality of life, and overall and progression-free survival time. Quality of life was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, version 2.0. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The proportion of patients without progression at 2 years was not statistically significantly different between the two treatment arms (40.0% for PT versus 37.5% for TC, difference = 2.5%, one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] = - infinity to 8.2%). Median progression-free survival time in the TC arm (17.2 months, 95% CI = 15.2 to 19.3 months) and the PT arm (19.1 months, 95% CI = 16.7 to 21.5 months) were also not statistically significantly different; the same was true of median overall survival time (43.3 months, 95% CI = 37.2 to 47.8 months versus 44.1 months, 95% CI = 40.2 to 49.4 months, for the TC and PT arms, respectively). The TC regimen was associated with a higher frequency of hematologic toxicity, but a lower frequency of gastrointestinal and neurologic toxicity, than the PT regimen. Mean global quality-of-life scores at the end of treatment were statistically significantly better in the TC arm than in the PT arm (65.25 versus 51.97, respectively; difference = -13.28, 95% CI = -18.88 to -7.68). CONCLUSION: The TC regimen achieved comparable efficacy to the PT regimen but was associated with better tolerability and quality of life, and should, therefore, be considered as an important alternative for standard first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.