ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship. DESIGN AND METHODS: Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research. RESULTS: We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of creatine for the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome (N02C4): an Alliance trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pilot studies, including one in colorectal cancer patients, suggest that creatine, an amino acid derivative, augments muscle, improves strength, and thereby could palliate the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, incurable patients with this syndrome were assigned creatine (20 g/day load×5 days followed by 2 g/day orally) versus identical placebo. Patients were weighed once a week for 1 month and then monthly. Patients were also assessed over 1 month for appetite and quality of life (validated questionnaires), fist grip strength, body composition (bioelectrical impedance), and adverse events. The primary endpoint was 10% or greater weight gain from baseline during the first month. RESULTS: Within this combined cohort of 263 evaluable patients (134 received creatine and 129 placebo), only 3 gained ≥10% of their baseline weight by 1 month: two creatine-treated and the other placebo-exposed (P = 1.00). Questionnaire data on appetite, quality of life, and activities of daily living showed no statistically significant differences between groups. Similarly, no statistically significant differences between groups were observed for fist-grip strength or body composition. Rates and severity of adverse events were comparable between groups. Finally, a median survival of 230 and 239 days were observed in the creatine and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.70). CONCLUSION: Creatine, as prescribed in this trial, had no effect on the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome.

Statistical controversies in clinical research: Value of adverse events relatedness to study treatment: analyses of data from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Collection and reporting of adverse events (AEs) and their relatedness to study treatment, known commonly as attribution, in clinical trials is mandated by regulatory agencies (the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration). Attribution is assigned by the treating physician using judgment based on various factors including patient's baseline status, disease history, and comorbidity as well as knowledge about the safety profile of the study treatments. We evaluate the patterns of AE attribution (unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably, and definitely related to the treatment) in treatment, symptom intervention (cancer patients) and cancer prevention (participants at high risk for cancer) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine multicenter placebo-controlled trials (two treatment, two symptom intervention, and five cancer prevention) were analysed separately (2155 patients). Frequency and severity of AEs were summarized by arm. Attribution and percentage of repeated AEs whose attribution changed overtime were summarized for the placebo arms. Percentage of physician over- or under-reporting of AE relatedness was calculated for the treatment arms using the placebo arm as the reference. RESULTS: Across all trials and settings, a very high proportion of AEs reported as related to treatment were classified as possibly related, a significant proportion of AEs in the placebo arm were incorrectly reported as related to treatment, and clinician-reported attribution over-estimated the rate of AEs related to treatment. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and neurosensory were the common AEs that were over reported by clinician as related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate that assigning causality to AE is a complex and difficult process that produces unreliable and subjective data. In randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials where data are available to objectively assess relatedness of AE to treatment, attribution assignment should be eliminated.

Predictors of duloxetine response in patients with oxaliplatin-induced painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): a secondary analysis of randomised controlled trial - CALGB/alliance 170601.

Duloxetine is an effective treatment for oxaliplatin-induced painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). However, predictors of duloxetine response have not been adequately explored. The objective of this secondary and exploratory analysis was to identify predictors of duloxetine response in patients with painful oxaliplatin-induced CIPN. Patients (N = 106) with oxaliplatin-induced painful CIPN were randomised to receive duloxetine or placebo. Eligible patients had chronic CIPN pain and an average neuropathic pain score ≥4/10. Duloxetine/placebo dose was 30 mg/day for 7 days, then 60 mg/day for 4 weeks. The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and the EORTC QLQ-C30 were used to assess pain and quality of life, respectively. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify demographic, physiologic and psychological predictors of duloxetine response. Higher baseline emotional functioning predicted duloxetine response (≥30% reduction in pain; OR 4.036; 95% CI 0.999-16.308; p = 0.050). Based on the results from a multiple logistic regression using patient data from both the duloxetine and placebo treatment arms, duloxetine-treated patients with high emotional functioning are more likely to experience pain reduction (p = 0.026). In patients with painful, oxaliplatin-induced CIPN, emotional functioning may also predict duloxetine response. ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT00489411.

Endpoint comparison for bone mineral density measurements in North Central Cancer Treatment Group cancer clinical trials N02C1 and N03CC (Alliance).

UNLABELLED: Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can vary depending upon anatomical site, machine, and normative values used. This analysis compared different BMD endpoints in two clinical trials. Trial results differed across endpoints. Future clinical trials should consider inclusion of multiple endpoints in sensitivity analysis to ensure sound overall study conclusions. INTRODUCTION: Methodological issues hamper efficacy assessment of osteoporosis prevention agents in cancer survivors. Osteoporosis diagnosis can vary depending upon which bone mineral density (BMD) anatomical site and machine is used and which set of normative values are applied. This analysis compared different endpoints for osteoporosis treatment efficacy assessment in two clinical studies. METHODS: Data from North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase III clinical trials N02C1 and N03CC (Alliance) were employed involving 774 patients each comparing two treatments for osteoporosis prevention. Endpoints for three anatomical sites included raw BMD score (RawBMD); raw machine-based, sample-standardized, and reference population-standardized T scores (RawT, TSamp, TRef); and standard normal percentile corresponding to the reference population-standardized T score (TPerc). For each, treatment arm comparison was carried out using three statistical tests using change and percentage change from baseline (CB, %CB) at 1 year. RESULTS: Baseline correlations among endpoints ranged from 0.79 to 1.00. RawBMD and TPerc produced more statistically significant results (14 and 19 each out of 36 tests) compared to RawT (11/36), TSamp (8/36), and TRef (7/36). Spine produced the most statistically significant results (26/60) relative to femoral neck (20/60) and total hip (13/60). Lastly, CB resulted in 44 statistically significant results out of 90 tests, whereas %CB resulted in only 15 significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment comparisons and interpretations were different across endpoints and anatomical sites. Transforming via sample statistics provided similar results as transforming via reference or machine-based norms. However, RawBMD and TPerc may be more sensitive to change as clinical trial endpoints.

Survival following early-stage colon cancer: an ACCENT-based comparison of patients versus a matched international general population†.

BACKGROUND: Post-treatment survival experience of early colon cancer (CC) patients is well described in the literature, which states that cure is probable for some patients. However, comparisons of treated patients' survival versus that expected from a matched general population (MGP) are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 32 745 patients from 25 randomized adjuvant trials conducted from 1977 to 2012 in 41 countries were pooled. Observed long-term survival of these patients was compared with expected survival matched on sex, age, country, and year, both overall and by stage (II and III), sex, treatment [surgery, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 5-FU + oxaliplatin], age (<70 and 70+), enrollment year (pre/post 2000), and recurrence (yes/no). Comparisons were made at randomization and repeated conditional on survival to 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. CC and MGP equivalence was tested, and observed Kaplan-Meier survival rates compared with expected MGP rates 3 years out from each landmark. Analyses were also repeated in patients without recurrence. RESULTS: Within most cohorts, long-term survival of CC patients remained statistically worse than the MGP, though conditional survival generally improved over time. Among those surviving 5 years, stage II, oxaliplatin-treated, elderly, and recurrence-free patients achieved subsequent 3-year survival rates within 5% of the MGP, with recurrence-free patients achieving equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional on survival to 5 years, long-term survival of most CC patients on clinical trials remains modestly poorer than an MGP, but achieves MGP levels in some subgroups. These findings emphasize the need for access to quality care and improved treatment and follow-up strategies.

Palliative communications: addressing chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer.

Patients with advanced cancers often endure chemotherapy late in their disease course leading to unnecessary adverse effects, loss of quality of life, and delay in hospice referral. Compassionate and honest communication about the use of chemotherapy can facilitate better patient care. This manuscript will explore communication issues regarding palliative-intent chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: prevention and treatment.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common, dose-limiting side effect of many chemotherapeutic agents. Although many therapies have been investigated for the prevention and/or treatment of CIPN, there is no well-accepted proven therapy. In addition, there is no universally accepted, well-validated measure for the assessment of CIPN. The agents for which there are the strongest preliminary data regarding their potential efficacy in preventing CIPN are intravenous calcium and magnesium (Ca/Mg) infusions and glutathione. Agents with the strongest supporting evidence for efficacy in the treatment of CIPN include topical pain relievers, such as baclofen/amitriptyline/ketamine gel, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, such as venlafaxine and duloxetine. Other promising therapies are also reviewed in this paper. Cutaneous electrostimulation is a nonpharmacological therapy that appears, from an early pilot trial, to be potentially effective in the treatment of CIPN. Finally, there is a lack of evidence of effective treatments for the paclitaxel acute pain syndrome (P-APS), which appears to be caused by neurologic injury.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of gabapentin in the management of hot flashes in men (N00CB).

INTRODUCTION: Hot flashes represent a significant problem in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, men with hot flashes, on a stable androgen deprivation therapy program for prostate cancer, received a placebo or gabapentin at target doses of 300, 600, or 900 mg/day. Hot flash frequencies and severities were recorded daily during a baseline week and for 4 weeks while the patients took the study medication. RESULTS: In the 214 eligible patients who began the study drug on this trial, comparing the fourth treatment week to the baseline week, mean hot flash scores decreased in the placebo group by 4.1 units and in the three increasing dose gabapentin groups by, 3.2, 4.6, and 7.0 units. Comparing the three combined gabapentin arms to the placebo arm did not result in significant hot flash differences. Wilcoxon rank-sum P values for change in hot flash scores and frequencies after 4 weeks of treatment were 0.10 and 0.02, comparing the highest dose gabapentin arm to the placebo arm, respectively. The gabapentin was well tolerated in this trial. CONCLUSION: These results support that gabapentin decreases hot flashes, to a moderate degree, in men with androgen ablation-related vasomotor dysfunction.

Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies.

PURPOSE: In the course of conducting a series of prospective clinical trials devoted to defining new treatment opportunities for hot flashes in cancer survivors, considerable experience has been acquired with related methodologic issues. This article has been written in response to many queries regarding this methodology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of seven different clinical trials that involved 968 patients was used for this work. Reliable and valid definitions of hot flash intensity were developed from patient-reported descriptions. Concomitant validity and reliability assessment of patient-completed diaries was undertaken to compare hot flash data with toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) end points and to examine consistency across patient groups using variability analysis and correlation procedures. Parametric data from this meta-analysis was used to examine relative power considerations for the design of phase II and phase III clinical trials. RESULTS: Daily diaries used in these studies exhibited consistency and reliability and had few missing data. Hot flash frequency and hot flash score (frequency multiplied by average severity) variables produced almost identical end point results. For phase III placebo-controlled studies, 50 patients per treatment arm seem appropriate to provide sufficient power specifications to detect a clinically meaningful change in hot flash activity. For phase II trials, 25 patients per trial seem to provide reasonable estimates of eventual hot flash efficacy to screen potential agents for more definitive testing. CONCLUSION: Given the data gained from these experiences, we can plan and carry out more efficient trials to identify efficacious agents for the reduction of hot flash activity.

Soy for breast cancer survivors: a critical review of the literature.

A variety of health benefits, including protection against breast cancer, have been attributed to soy food consumption, primarily because of the soybean isoflavones (genistein, daidzein, glycitein). Isoflavones are considered to be possible selective estrogen receptor modulators but possess nonhormonal properties that also may contribute to their effects. Concern has arisen over a possible detrimental effect of soy in breast cancer patients because of the estrogen-like effects of isoflavones. Genistein exhibits a biphasic effect on the growth of MCF-7 cells in vitro, stimulating proliferation at low concentrations but inhibiting it at high concentrations. In ovariectomized athymic mice implanted with MCF-7 cells, both genistein and soy protein stimulate tumor growth in a dose-dependent manner. In contrast, in intact mice fed estrogen, genistein inhibits tumor growth. Although two studies in premenopausal women suggested that soy exerts estrogenic-like effects on breast tissue, recently conducted year-long studies indicated that isoflavone supplements do not affect breast tissue density in premenopausal women and may decrease density in postmenopausal women. These latter effects are opposite to those of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Importantly, substantial data suggest that the progestogen, not the estrogen, component of HRT increases risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, recently conducted studies have failed to find that even HRT reduces survival in breast cancer patients. Overall, the data are not impressive that the adult consumption of soy affects the risk of developing breast cancer or that soy consumption affects the survival of breast cancer patients. Consequently, if breast cancer patients enjoy soy products, it seems reasonable for them to continue to use them.

Hot flashes: aetiology and management.

Menopause, an event often accompanied by symptoms such as hot flashes, can have a significant impact on a woman's quality of life. A majority of women will experience hot flashes at some point in their life, given a normal life span. Despite multiple theories, the exact pathophysiology of hot flashes is not yet known. Many types of treatment options exist for women with hot flashes, from hormonal and nonhormonal pharmacological therapies to nonpharmacological interventions. Choosing the best treatment option for specific women involves knowledge of the risks and benefits of each treatment. Hormones (estrogen and/or progesterone, or tibolone alone) are still the most effective option available, resulting in an 80 to 90% reduction in hot flashes. The best nonhormonal treatment to date is in the class of newer antidepressants that comprises various selective reuptake inhibitors; for example, venlafaxine provides about a 60% reduction in hot flashes. This article provides evidence-based information about available treatment options for hot flash management, with special consideration of populations such as breast cancer survivors.

Neuropeptide Y, leptin, and cholecystokinin 8 in patients with advanced cancer and anorexia: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group exploratory investigation.

BACKGROUND: Anorexia is a noxious symptom, and over half of patients with advanced cancer experience it. Neuropeptide Y (NPY), leptin, and cholecystokinin 8 (CCK8) have been implicated. METHODS: This exploratory study 1) compared circulating concentrations of NPY and leptin between anorectic cancer patients and historic controls and 2) explored whether NPY, leptin, or CCK8 may serve as correlates of anorexia severity. Cancer patients met predefined eligibility criteria: 1) weight loss > or = 2.3 kg over the preceding 2 months and/or a physician-estimated caloric intake of < 20 calories per kilogram of body weight per day and 2) patient acknowledgment that appetite or weight loss was an ongoing problem. RESULTS: Seventy-three cancer patients were studied, and > 90% reported a > or = 50% decline in appetite from baseline in the preceding 2 months. NPY levels were lower than control values: mean +/- standard deviation, 466 pg/mL +/- 161 pg/mL versus 560 pg/mL +/- 151 pg/mL, respectively (P = 0.004). Because a few (but not all) earlier studies suggested an age-related decline in NPY levels, a subgroup analysis was performed and found no age-adjusted difference in NPY levels between groups. Similarly, leptin concentrations were not different between groups. Significant correlations were not observed between anorexia severity and NPY, leptin, or CCK8 levels. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in leptin and CCK8 levels between anorectic cancer patients and historic controls. Circulating concentrations of NPY, leptin, and CCK8 did not correlate with anorexia severity. However, the current results suggest a need for further examination of NPY in cancer-associated anorexia.

An update: cancer-associated anorexia as a treatment target.

Loss of appetite is pervasive among patients with advanced cancer. Cancer patients cite it as one of their most troubling symptoms. To date, however, palliative options remain limited. Megestrol acetate and dexamethasone provide only modest relief. Novel agents such as thalidomide, adenosine triphosphate, and other cytokine inhibitors merit further investigation.

A simple stratification factor prognostic for survival in advanced cancer: the good/bad/uncertain index.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the third step of a research program to identify variables that supplement the predictive power of the the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) for survival. The objective was to produce a simple, practical, stratification factor for phase III oncology clinical trials involving patients with advanced malignant disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 729 patients with metastatic colorectal or lung cancers. Patients provided a Karnofsky index and appetite rating while physicians provided a survival estimate and the ECOG-PS. Scores for each item were categorized as having a positive, neutral, or negative indication for survival. A patient was classified as having a relatively good prognosis if three or more of the four items showed a positive indication, a bad prognosis if three or more items were negative, and an uncertain prognosis otherwise (Good/Bad/Uncertain [GBU] index). RESULTS: The GBU index improved on the prognostic power of a Cox model quartile index and PS alone and increased the accuracy of survival classification estimates by 5% to 10% more than ECOG-PS alone. For patients with PS of 0 or 1, significant survival patterns exist between GBU groups (P=.002 and.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GBU index may be recommended as a supplementary stratification factor for certain future phase III trials in metastatic lung or colorectal cancer where patient heterogeneity is a particular concern. The GBU represents a relatively modest increase to the cost and patient burden of a clinical trial given the additional control that is achieved over the potentially confounding concomitant to the treatment variable.

Current management of cancer-associated anorexia and weight loss.

Loss of appetite and weight predict a poor prognosis for cancer patients. Although caloric supplementation might benefit subgroups of patients--specifically, perioperative, severely malnourished cancer patients, stem cell and bone marrow transplant patients and head and neck cancer patients--its use remains controversial and is not recommended for the majority of patients with cancer-associated weight loss. Most patients with advanced cancer, anorexia, and/or weight loss do not appear to benefit from nutritional supplementation. Instead, discussions with patients and families about realistic eating goals ans, at time armacologic interventions with progestational agents or corticosteroids--both of which are aimed at palliating anorexia--provide clinical benefit. Other phamalogic interventions such as eicosapentaenoic acid, thalidomide (Thalomid), adenosine triphosphate and nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory agents focus on the fact that cancer-assciated weight loss is an enitty dintinct for simple starvation These interventions promise to replenish lean tissue but require further investigation before they can be recommndedas standard clinical practice.