Temporal changes in the incidence and predictors of severe hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study.

AIM: To determine the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and its predictors in community-based patients with type 2 diabetes studied between 2008 and 2013 compared with those in a cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes from the same geographical area assessed a decade earlier. METHODS: We studied 1551 participants (mean age 65.7 years, 51.9% men) with type 2 diabetes from the longitudinal observational Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II (FDS2). Severe hypoglycaemia was ascertained as that requiring ambulance attendance, emergency department services and/or hospitalization. Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to determine predictors of a first episode of severe hypoglycaemia, and negative binomial regression was used to identify predictors of frequency. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants (4.1%) experienced 83 episodes, representing an incidence of 1.34/100 participant-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.67; vs 1.67/100 participant-years [95% CI 1.31-2.13] in the Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase I [FDS1]; P = 0.18). Those experiencing severe hypoglycaemia experienced one to four episodes in both cohorts. The independent predictors of incident severe hypoglycaemia in the FDS2 were: older age; higher educational attainment; alcohol consumption; current smoking; sulphonylurea/insulin treatment; prior severe hypoglycaemia; renal impairment; and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The same variables except smoking were associated with frequency of severe hypoglycaemia. Most of these risk factors paralleled those in the FDS1, but current smoking and plasma NT-proBNP were novel. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and frequency of severe hypoglycaemia did not change between the Fremantle Diabetes Study phases but novel risk factors, including plasma NT-proBNP, were observed in the FDS2.

The relationship between intensification of blood glucose-lowering therapies, health status and quality of life in type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II.

AIMS: To determine whether therapeutic intensification in type 2 diabetes influences health status and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We studied 930 participants in the longitudinal observational Fremantle Diabetes Study Phase II (mean age 65.3 years, 53.8% males, median diabetes duration 8.0 years) with valid data from baseline assessment and two biennial reviews (4 years of follow-up) between 2008 and 2015. The main outcome measures were the Short Form-12 version 2 physical and mental health composite scores (PCS, MCS) and the average weighted impact (AWI) score from the Audit of Diabetes Dependent QoL. RESULTS: There were reductions in PCS at Year 4 compared with baseline and Year 2 in patients on stable diet-based management (n = 160), oral glucose-lowering medication (OGLM; n = 387), and insulin with/without OGLM (n = 168; P < 0.05), but no statistically significant temporal changes in MCS/AWI. Insulin-treated patients had the lowest PCS, MCS and AWI compared to the other two subgroups at each time-point (P ≤ 0.012). In participants initiating OGLM (n = 84) or insulin (n = 85), there were no differences in PCS, MCS or AWI at the biennial assessments either side of these therapeutic changes (P ≥ 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: These real-life data show that treatment intensification, including insulin initiation, does not impact adversely on patient well-being in community-based type 2 diabetes. Since insulin use at entry was associated with longer diabetes duration, worse glycaemic control, and a greater risk of chronic complications, the burden of disease rather than treatment modality appears the primary determinant of health status and QoL.

Temporal changes in glycaemic thresholds for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes in an urban Australian setting: the Fremantle Diabetes Study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy and supportive care for diabetes in Australia are improving, with potential beneficial effects on therapeutic procrastination. AIM: To determine whether glycaemic thresholds for therapeutic intensification in type 2 diabetes changed over the 15 years between phases of the community-based Fremantle Diabetes Study (FDS). METHODS: We studied 531 Phase 1 participants (mean age 62.4 years, 54.2% males, median diabetes duration 3.0 years) with valid data from baseline assessment and five subsequent annual reviews between 1993 and 2001 and 930 Phase 2 participants (mean age 65.3 years, 53.8% males, median diabetes duration 8.0 years) with valid data from baseline and two subsequent biennial reviews between 2008 and 2015. The main outcome measure was HbA1c at assessments before and after change in blood glucose-lowering therapy (average 6 months in Phase 1, 12 months in Phase 2). RESULTS: Ninety-seven participants in Phase 1 and 84 in Phase 2 progressed from diet-based management to oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHA) and 45 and 85 participants, respectively, progressed from diet/OHA to insulin. The median HbA1c was 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) and 6.9% (52 mmol/mol) before OHA initiation in Phases 1 and 2, respectively, and 9.1% (76 mmol/mol) and 7.8% (62 mmol/mol), respectively, before insulin initiation. There were median HbA1c falls of 0.3% (3 mmol/mol) and 1.5% (16 mmol/mol) after OHA and insulin initiation in Phase 1, but no statistically significant changes in Phase 2. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c thresholds triggering treatment intensification fell between FDS phases, suggesting a more proactive approach to management of glycaemia over time.

Relationship between depression and diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review.

AIM: To systematically review the literature on women with both diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) and depression during or after pregnancy. METHODS: In this systematic literature review, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (13 November 2015) using terms for diabetes (type 1, type 2, or gestational), depression, and pregnancy (no language or date restrictions). Publications that reported on women who had both DIP (any type) and depression or depressive symptoms before, during, or within one year after pregnancy were considered for inclusion. All study types were eligible for inclusion; conference abstracts, narrative reviews, nonclinical letters, editorials, and commentaries were excluded, unless they provided treatment guidance. RESULTS: Of 1189 articles identified, 48 articles describing women with both DIP and depression were included (sample sizes 36 to > 32 million). Overall study quality was poor; most studies were observational, and only 12 studies (mostly retrospective database studies) required clinical depression diagnosis. The prevalence of concurrent DIP (any type) and depression in general populations of pregnant women ranged from 0% to 1.6% (median 0.61%; 12 studies). The prevalence of depression among women with gestational diabetes ranged from 4.1% to 80% (median 14.7%; 16 studies). Many studies examined whether DIP was a risk factor for depression or depression was a risk factor for DIP. However, there was no clear consensus for either relationship. Importantly, we found limited guidance on the management of women with both DIP and depression. CONCLUSION: Given the increasing prevalence of diabetes and depression, high-quality research and specific guidance for management of pregnant women with both conditions are warranted.

Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance in Patients with Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Review of Two East Asian Trials in Reference to PARAMOUNT.

PURPOSE: A recent phase III study (PARAMOUNT) demonstrated that pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy is a new treatment paradigm for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The majority of patients enrolled in PARAMOUNT were Caucasian (94%). We reviewed efficacy and safety data from two clinical trials, which enrolled East Asian (EA) patients, to supplement data from PARAMOUNT on pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study S110 was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label trial in never-smoker, chemonaïve, EA patients (n=31) with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC (n=27). Study JMII was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, post-marketing, clinical trial in Japanese patients (n=109) with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. PARAMOUNT was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. RESULTS: In EA patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, the median progression-free survival (PFS) for pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy was 4.04 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.22 to 5.29 months) in study S110 and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.2 to 5.2 months) in study JMII. The median PFS for pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in PARAMOUNT was 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.2 to 4.6 months). Pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in EA patients in studies S110 and JMII did not lead to any unexpected safety events, and was consistent with PARAMOUNT's safety profile. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety data in the EA trials were similar to those in PARAMOUNT despite differences in patient populations and study designs. These data represent consistent evidence for pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in EA patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

Efficacy and safety of pemetrexed/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Retrospective subgroup analysis in JMDB study indicates that the between-arm differences in overall survival (OS) in the East Asian subgroup were consistent with those observed in the entire JMDB study population. This bridging study (JMIL) further evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line pemetrexed/cisplatin (PC) versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) in Chinese patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary endpoint of this local registration trial was designed to compare OS in the combined dataset, consisting of Chinese patients in JMIL and 1252 nonsquamous patients in JMDB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chinese patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to 6 cycles maximum (21 days/cycle) of pemetrexed 500mg/m(2)+cisplatin 75mg/m(2) (day 1), or gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8)+cisplatin 75mg/m(2) (day 1). RESULTS: In JMIL, 256 Chinese patients were randomized (PC, n=126; GC, n=130). Patient baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms. In the combined dataset, PC was superior to GC in prolonging OS, with adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.98, p=0.023) and median OS of 11.76 versus 10.94 months. In the JMIL-only population, no significant OS difference observed between treatment arms (adjusted HR=1.03 [95% CI: 0.77-1.39, p=0.822]; unadjusted HR=0.996 [95% CI: 0.74-1.33, p=0.980]), nor for other secondary efficacy endpoints. Significantly fewer patients in the PC arm experienced drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities, 54 (43.2%) versus 71 (55.9%) for GC (p=0.045), with significantly lower rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in the combined population, OS of PC was superior to GC, while in the Chinese-only population, no significant difference was observed; a better safety and risk/benefit profile was found in the PC arm. A PC regimen should be considered as a standard of care in Chinese nonsquamous NSCLC patients in a first-line setting.

First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Iressa Pan-ASia Study (IPASS), gefitinib claimed improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus carboplatin-paclitaxel in clinically selected lung cancer patients. The primary objective of this study was to assess the PFS of pemetrexed-cisplatin (PC) followed by gefitinib maintenance versus gefitinib monotherapy in an IPASS-like population. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, eligible patients were ⩾18 years, chemonaïve, East Asian, light ex-smokers/never-smokers with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and unknown epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status who enrolled at 12 sites in Asia. Patients randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75mg/m(2)) for six 21-day cycles, followed by gefitinib maintenance or gefitinib monotherapy (250 mg/day). Patient tissue was retrospectively analysed for EGFR mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01017874. FINDINGS: Between 23rd November 2009 and 27th April 2012, 253 patients entered, and 236 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with PC therapy (N=114) and gefitinib monotherapy (N=118). Between-arm baseline characteristics were balanced. PFS was not significantly different between treatment arms (p=0.217). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.13). The HR should be cautiously interpreted as it was not constant. EGFR mutation status was determined for 74 tissue samples; 50 (67.6%) had mutations. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, only the treatment-by-EGFR mutation interaction was significant (p=0.008) for PFS. For the entire treatment period, a higher proportion of patients in the PC/gefitinib arm versus gefitinib experienced possibly drug-related grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events (39 of 114 [34%] versus 19 of 118 [16%]; p=0.002). INTERPRETATION: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, PFS was not significantly different. In the biomarker-assessable population, front-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy was not efficacious in patients with wild-type EGFR. Identification of EGFR mutation status is key in the management of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Elderly subset analysis of randomized phase III study comparing pemetrexed plus carboplatin with docetaxel plus carboplatin as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many physicians consider platinum-doublet chemotherapy inappropriate for elderly patients, regardless of their medical fitness. OBJECTIVE: This was a retrospective subgroup analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, phase III clinical trial evaluating pemetrexed + carboplatin versus docetaxel + carboplatin in elderly chemo-naive patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Data from elderly patients (aged ≥65 years and ≥70 years) were evaluated using the same statistical methods as those used in patients aged <70 years and qualified intent-to-treat (Q-ITT) populations. The primary objective of the clinical trial was comparison of pemetrexed + carboplatin with docetaxel + carboplatin in terms of survival without grade 3 or 4 toxicity in chemo-naive NSCLC patients. RESULTS: The ≥65- and ≥70-year age groups had 68 and 37 patients, respectively. Among patients aged ≥65 years, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for survival without grade 3-4 toxicity (HR 0.40, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.70) favored pemetrexed + carboplatin; this was similar to the HRs in patients aged ≥70 years (HR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.20-0.92), patients aged <70 years (HR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.32-0.62), and the Q-ITT population (HR 0.45, 95 % CI 0.34-0.61). The median values for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were similar across all age-group subsets and the Q-ITT population. The HRs for OS and PFS were similar for all age-group subsets, except for the ≥70-year age group, which favored pemetrexed + carboplatin to a greater extent. The toxicity profile was similar across age groups, with the exception of diarrhea, mucosal inflammation, and grade 3-4 neutropenia and leukopenia, which were slightly more common in elderly patients in both treatment arms. Between-arm differences in the toxicity profiles for the ≥65-, ≥70- and <70-year age subgroups were similar to those in the Q-ITT population. There were no on-study deaths or unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION: The benefits of pemetrexed + carboplatin were maintained, and toxicity was manageable in both elderly subgroups. The favorable risk-benefit profile of pemetrexed + carboplatin makes it an appropriate first-line treatment option for elderly patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know--prognostic and predictive factors.

Several prognostic factors in oncology have been established over the years, such as performance status, tumor size, and disease stage. The identification of prognostic and predictive factors is becoming increasingly important in medical research, particularly as scientific discoveries have led to better understanding of diseases and genetics, resulting in tailored therapy. Advances in drug discovery and better understanding of the mechanism of action, may also identify factors that may be prognostic and/or predictive. Prognostic or predictive factors may include patient characteristics such as age, ethnicity, sex, or smoking status, disease characteristics such as disease stage or nodal status, and molecular markers such as HER2 amplification and K ras mutation.It can be challenging to distinguish whether a factor is prognostic or predictive, based on what is reported in the literature. This article is intended to help the reader assess whether a factor is prognostic and/or predictive.

A phase 2 study of sequential neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and doxorubicin followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with large or locally advanced operable breast cancer: results from long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is being increasingly used for patients with large-size operable breast cancer. This phase 2 study of sequential NACT with gemcitabine and doxorubicin (Gem + Dox) followed by gemcitabine and cisplatin (Gem + Cis) was conducted in women with large or locally advanced breast cancer. The objectives were to evaluate the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, toxicity, pathological and genetic markers predicting response, the proportion of patients undergoing breast conservation surgery, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after 5 years, and time to treatment failure (TtTF). In this manuscript, we report the long-term OS, PFS, and TtTF results. METHODS: Female patients aged at least 18 years with large T2 (at least 3 cm) or locally advanced (T3, T4, or N2) breast carcinoma were included. Treatment consisted of 4 cycles of Gem + Dox (gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle), followed by 4 cycles of Gem + Cis (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle), and then surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were enrolled. The pCR rate was 20%. The 5-year OS probability was 71% (95% CI 56-82%), and the 4-year PFS and TtTF probabilities were 63% (95% CI 48-74%) and 45% (95% CI 32-57%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NACT with Gem + Dox followed by Gem + Cis was efficacious in patients with operable breast cancer.

Smoking history as a predictive factor of treatment response in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

Recent trials in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggest that nonsmokers may benefit more from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy than will smokers. The aim of this systematic review was to assess smoking history as a predictive factor for treatment outcomes in patients with NSCLC. Relevant published literature was identified through systematic searches of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), oncology and thoracic journals, and abstracts from major oncology conferences using prespecified criteria. Articles reporting treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and/or response rate) in smoking history subgroups from randomized controlled trials of targeted therapy and/or chemotherapy were reviewed. Data from 30 trials (32 articles, 4 abstracts) were included. Of these, 23 trials tested first-line therapy. Treatment arms included EGFR TKIs (13 trials), EGFR monoclonal antibodies (2 trials), non-EGFR targeted treatments (9 trials), chemotherapy (27 trials), and placebo or best supportive care only (3 trials). Smoking history definitions and analyses of its effect on treatment outcomes varied widely. Only 11 trials reported testing for a treatment-by-smoking history interaction. The available evidence supports but does not confirm smoking history as a predictive factor for the response to TKIs, particularly in previously treated patients. The evidence does not support smoking history as a predictor of response to non-EGFR-targeted therapies or chemotherapy. Smoking history and its effect on treatment response are inadequately reported. More rigorous collection, analysis, and reporting may clarify whether smoking history is a predictor of treatment response in advanced NSCLC.

A randomized phase 3 trial comparing pemetrexed/carboplatin and docetaxel/carboplatin as first-line treatment for advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared survival without toxicity in patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer who were treated with first-line pemetrexed/carboplatin or docetaxel/carboplatin. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial comprised patients randomized (1:1) to pemetrexed/carboplatin (n = 128) or docetaxel/carboplatin (n = 132). Patients received treatment on day 1 of each 21-day cycle (maximum of six cycles). Treatment included carboplatin (area under the curve = 5 mg/ml × min) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)). The primary outcome measure, survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity, was defined as the time from randomization to the first treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse event or death and was analyzed using a log-rank test. The analysis population included 106 patients in the pemetrexed/carboplatin (Pem/Carb) group and 105 patients in the docetaxel/carboplatin (Doc/Carb) group. RESULTS: Survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity was significantly longer in the Pem/Carb versus the Doc/Carb group (log-rank p < 0.001; median survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity: 3.2 versus 0.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.45 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.61]). Overall survival was similar in the Pem/Carb versus the Doc/Carb group (log-rank p = 0.934; median survival: 14.9 versus 14.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.93 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.32]). Compared with the Doc/Carb group, fewer patients in the Pem/Carb group experienced grade 3/4 drug-related, treatment-emergent neutropenia, leukopenia, or febrile neutropenia, and more patients experienced anemia and thrombocytopenia. There were three study drug-related deaths during treatment in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of pemetrexed/carboplatin suggests that pemetrexed/carboplatin is an appropriate first-line treatment option for chemonaïve patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Histology as a treatment effect modifier in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCT) to examine whether histology had a treatment modifying effect (TME) on the efficacy outcomes of chemotherapeutic agents in patients with advanced (stage IIIB-IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Potentially pertinent publications were reviewed in full to determine if there was any TME by histology for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or treatment response rate (TRR). RESULTS: Data from three pemetrexed RCT, comparing (i) pemetrexed versus docetaxel, (ii) pemetrexed and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin, and (iii) pemetrexed versus placebo, showed a statistically significant TME by histology for OS and PFS. One trial comparing pemetrexed and carboplatin versus gemcitabine and carboplatin found no significant associations between histology and OS. The results of this systematic review indicate that pemetrexed appears to have the most consistent treatment-by-histology interaction effect on the efficacy outcomes of chemotherapeutic agents in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients with non-squamous histology gain the greatest benefit from treatment with pemetrexed. Conversely, patients with squamous cell disease appeared to experience poorer OS when pemetrexed was compared with other active treatments, and similar OS when compared with placebo. Reproducible patterns of TME effect by histology with other chemotherapeutic agents are less clear. CONCLUSIONS: We consider that the historical approach to treating all NSCLC patients with the same chemotherapy regimen is now no longer acceptable.

Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know: hazard ratios.

Hazard ratios (HRs) are used commonly to report results from randomized clinical trials in oncology. However, they remain one of the most perplexing concepts for clinicians. A good understanding of HRs is needed to effectively interpret the medical literature to make important treatment decisions. This article provides clear guidelines to clinicians about how to appropriately interpret HRs. While this article focuses on the commonly used methods, the authors acknowledge that other statistical methods exist for analyzing survival data.

Phase III, open-label, randomized study comparing concurrent gemcitabine plus cisplatin and radiation followed by adjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent cisplatin and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix.

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of gemcitabine to concurrent cisplatin chemoradiotherapy and as adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin improves progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years compared with current standard of care in locally advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naive patients with stage IIB to IVA disease and Karnofsky performance score ≥ 70 were randomly assigned to arm A (cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 125 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks with concurrent external-beam radiotherapy [XRT] 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, followed by brachytherapy [BCT] 30 to 35 Gy in 96 hours, and then two adjuvant 21-day cycles of cisplatin, 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, plus gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) or to arm B (cisplatin and concurrent XRT followed by BCT only; dosing same as for arm A). RESULTS: Between May 2002 and March 2004, 515 patients were enrolled (arm A, n = 259; arm B, n = 256). PFS at 3 years was significantly improved in arm A versus arm B (74.4% v 65.0%, respectively; P = .029), as were overall PFS (log-rank P = .0227; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.95), overall survival (log-rank P = .0224; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.95), and time to progressive disease (log-rank P = .0012; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were more frequent in arm A than in arm B (86.5% v 46.3%, respectively; P < .001), including two deaths possibly related to treatment toxicity in arm A. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy followed by BCT and adjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy improved survival outcomes with increased but clinically manageable toxicity when compared with standard treatment.

A systematic review of the interobserver variability for histology in the differentiation between squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of identifying non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) histologic subtype has increased recently because of the development of target-specific chemotherapeutic agents. This systematic review was undertaken to examine the interobserver variability for histology in differentiating between subtypes of NSCLC, specifically the ability to differentiate squamous from nonsquamous histology. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies that evaluated the reproducibility of histologic diagnosis by pathologists in their reporting of NSCLC subtypes. Studies were screened using a priori defined eligibility criteria. The National Health and Medical Research Council diagnostic levels of evidence were applied and quality assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Data were extracted and reanalyzed to permit comparison of agreement in nonsquamous and squamous cell carcinoma by 2 × 2 tables. Percentage agreement and kappa statistics were calculated for each included study. RESULTS: Out of 1480 articles identified through the literature search, six were eligible for inclusion. The percentage agreement for all subtypes of NSCLC in the included studies ranged from 67.1 to 89.6% (κ, 0.42-0.84). Based on the primary reanalysis of data (reanalysis 1), agreement between pathologists in differentiating nonsquamous and squamous histology ranged from 77.0 to 94.2% (κ = 0.48-0.88) indicating a moderate to high level of agreement. CONCLUSION: The reasonably high agreement and kappa statistics for the included studies suggest that pathologists can reproducibly differentiate between nonsquamous and squamous NSCLC. This is clinically important in guiding oncologist decision making in choosing the most appropriate therapy for their patients.

Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know: subgroup analyses.

Large randomized phase III prospective studies continue to redefine the standard of therapy in medical practice. Often when studies do not meet the primary endpoint, it is common to explore possible benefits in specific subgroups of patients. In addition, these analyses may also be done, even in the case of a positive trial to find subsets of patients where the therapy is especially effective or ineffective. These unplanned subgroup analyses are justified to maximize the information that can be obtained from a study and to generate new hypotheses. Unfortunately, however, they are too often overinterpreted or misused in the hope of resurrecting a failed study. It is important to distinguish these overinterpreted, misused, and unplanned subgroup analyses from those prespecified and well-designed subgroup analyses. This overview provides a practical guide to the interpretation of subgroup analyses.

Degree-of-spread artefact in the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a data artefact in degree-of-spread at first presentation in the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry (NSW CCR), the only Australian cancer registry that records degree-of-spread data for all solid tumours. METHOD: Trends in the proportions of cancer cases diagnosed annually over 1972-2004 by degree-of-spread categories of localised, regional, distant and unknown were calculated for each major cancer type. RESULTS: Excepting breast cancer and melanoma, the proportion of localised cancer cases reported from 1993-1998 was approximately 5% lower than expected, and was mirrored by an artefactual increase in unknown degree-of-spread cases. CONCLUSION: This artefact was caused by the introduction of the Electronic Notification System and cannot easily be remedied retrospectively. However, regional and distant categories of degree-of-spread in the NSW CCR data are reliably recorded for the 1972-2004 period. IMPLICATIONS: It is important that past and present cancer data users are notified and understand the quality issues with NSW CCR degree-of-spread data, and use it as recommended to avoid anomalous results or conclusions.