Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: a pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncologists tend to under-report subjective symptoms during cancer treatment. This study describes the under-reporting rate of selected symptoms and explores its association with overall survival (OS). A secondary aim is to test the association of patient-reported symptoms with OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis on data pooled from 12 randomized trials, promoted by the National Cancer Institute of Naples (Italy), enrolling patients between 2002 and 2019, with published primary analyses. Occurrence and grade of six side-effects (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea and fatigue) reported by physicians were compared with corresponding symptoms reported by patients in quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires. Under-reporting was defined as the rate of cases reported grade 0 by the physician while grade ≥1 by the patient. Prognostic value was tested in a multivariable model stratified by trial, including age, sex and performance status as confounders. A landmark threshold was defined for OS analyses. RESULTS: 3792 patients with advanced lung, ovarian, pancreatic, breast or colorectal cancer were pooled; 2603 (68.6%) were eligible having at least one toxicity assessment and one QoL questionnaire, before the first planned disease restaging. Concordance between physicians' and patients' reporting was low with Cohen's k coefficients ranging from 0.03 (fatigue) to 0.33 (vomiting). Under-reporting ranged from 52.7% (nausea) to 80.5% (anorexia), and was not associated with OS. Patient-reported anorexia, vomiting and fatigue ('a little' or more) were significantly associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSIONS: Under-reporting of treatment side-effects is frequent, but it does not affect OS. Patients' reported symptoms should be used for prognostic evaluation.

Confirmatory validation analysis of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants. CONCLUSIONS: External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies.

Regorafenib monotherapy as second-line treatment of patients with RAS-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (STREAM): an academic, multicenter, single-arm, two-stage, phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining angiogenesis inhibition and switching the chemotherapy backbone represent the current second-line therapy in patients with RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, prolonged overall survival (OS) in the chemorefractory setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: STREAM was an academic, multicenter, single-arm phase II trial, evaluating the activity of regorafenib in RAS-mutant mCRC, in terms of the rate of patients who were progression-free after 6 months from study entry (6mo-PF). Patients were pretreated with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab. According to Simon's two-stage design, ≥18 patients 6mo-PF were needed in the overall population (N = 46). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Early metabolic response by [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET/CT) scan was an exploratory endpoint. EudraCT Number: 2015-001105-13. RESULTS: The number of patients 6mo-PF was 8/22 at the first stage and 14/46 in the overall population. The ORR was 10.9%, disease control rate was 54.6%, median (m)PFS was 3.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-6.7 months], mOS was 18.9 months (95% CI 10.3-35.3 months), and mPFS2 (from study entry to subsequent-line progression) was 13.3 months (95% CI 8.4-19.7 months). Long benefiter patients (>6mo-PF) significantly more often had a single metastatic site and lung-limited disease. No unexpected toxicity was reported. Grade ≥3 events occurred in 39.1% of patients, with hand-foot syndrome (13%), fatigue, and hyperbilirubinemia (6.5%) occurring mostly. Baseline metabolic assessment was associated with OS in the multivariate analysis, while early metabolic response was not associated with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. However, regorafenib was well tolerated and did not preclude subsequent treatments. Patients with good prognostic features (single metastatic site and lung-limited disease) reported clinical benefit with regorafenib. The exploratory metabolic analysis suggests that baseline [18F]-FDG PET/CT might be useful to select patients with a favorable outcome. A chemotherapy-free interval with regorafenib was associated with durable disease control in a selected group of patients with favorable clinical characteristics.

Quality-of-life analysis of the MITO-8, MaNGO, BGOG-Ov1, AGO-Ovar2.16, ENGOT-Ov1, GCIG study comparing platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with partially platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

Background: MITO-8 showed that prolonging platinum-free interval by introducing non-platinum-based chemotherapy (NPBC) does not improve prognosis of patients with partially platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary outcome. Patients and methods: Ovarian cancer patients recurring or progressing 6-12 months after previous platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) were randomized to receive PBC or NPBC as first treatment. QoL was assessed at baseline, third and sixth cycles, with the EORTC C-30 and OV-28 questionnaires. Mean changes and best response were analysed. Progression-free survival, response rate, and toxicity are also reported for proper interpretation of data. All analyses were based on intention-to-treat. Results: Out of the 215 patients, 151 (70.2%) completed baseline questionnaire, balanced between the arms; thereafter, missing rate was higher in the NPBC arm. At mean change analysis, C30 scores were prevalently worse in the NPBC than PBC arm, statistical significance being attained for emotional functioning, global health status/QoL, fatigue, and dyspnoea (effect sizes ranging from 0.30 to 0.51). Conversely, as for OV28 scale, the other chemotherapy side-effects item was significantly worse with PBC at three and six cycles, with a larger effect size (0.70 and 0.54, respectively). At best response analysis, improvement of emotional functioning and pain and worsening of peripheral neuropathy and other chemotherapy side-effects were significantly more frequent in the PBC arm. Progression-free survival (median 9 versus 5 months, P = 0.001) and objective response rate (51.6% versus 19.4%, P = 0.0001) were significantly better with PBC. Allergy, blood cell count, alopecia, nausea, musculoskeletal, and neurological side-effects were more frequent and severe with PBC; hand-foot skin reaction, rash/desquamation, mucositis, and vascular events were more frequent with NPBC. Conclusion: MITO-8 QoL analysis shows that deterioration of some functioning and symptom scales is lower with PBC, with improvement of emotional functioning and pain, despite worsening of toxicity-related items. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00657878.

The association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes in cancer patients: secondary analysis of 16 academic prospective clinical trials conducted in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from 'not at all' to 'very much'. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the abstract.

Weekly docetaxel versus CMF as adjuvant chemotherapy for older women with early breast cancer: final results of the randomized phase III ELDA trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer is poor. We tested whether weekly docetaxel is more effective than standard chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a multicenter, randomized phase III study. Women aged 65-79, operated for breast cancer, with average to high risk of recurrence, were allocated 1 : 1 to CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m², methotrexate 40 mg/m², fluorouracil 600 mg/m², days 1, 8) or docetaxel (35 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15) every 4 weeks, for four or six cycles according to hormone receptor status. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). A geriatric assessment was carried out. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed with EORTC C-30 and BR-23 questionnaires. RESULTS: From July 2003 to April 2011, 302 patients were randomized and 299 (152 allocated CMF and 147 docetaxel) were eligible. After 70-month median follow-up, 109 DFS events were observed. Unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of DFS for docetaxel versus CMF was 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.76, P = 0.32]; DFS estimate at 5 years was 0.69 with CMF and 0.65 with docetaxel. HR of death was 1.34 (95% CI 0.80-2.22, P = 0.26). There was no interaction between treatment arms and geriatric scales measuring patients' ability or comorbidities. Hematological toxicity, mucositis and nausea were worse with CMF; allergy, fatigue, hair loss, onychopathy, dysgeusia, diarrhea, abdominal pain, neuropathy, cardiac and skin toxicity were worse with docetaxel. One death was attributed to CMF and two to docetaxel. Increasing age, impairment in instrumental daily living activities, number of comorbidities and docetaxel treatment were independently associated with severe nonhematological toxicity. QoL was worse with docetaxel for nausea-vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, body image, future perspective, treatment side-effects and hair loss items. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly docetaxel is not more effective than standard CMF as adjuvant treatment of older women with breast cancer and worsens QoL and toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00331097.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRI+bevacizumab in patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative treatment of resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) is a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and activity of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in this setting. METHODS: Patients aged 18-75 years, PS 0-1, with resectable liver-confined metastases from CRC were eligible. They received bevacizumab 5 mg kg(-1) followed by irinotecan 180 mg m(-)(2), leucovorin 200 mg m(-)(2), 5-fluorouracil 400 mg m(-)(2) bolus and 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg m(-)(2) 46-h infusion, biweekly, for 7 cycles. Bevacizumab was stopped at cycle 6. A single-stage, single-arm phase 2 study design was applied with 1-year progression-free rate as the primary end point, and 39 patients required. RESULTS: From October 2007 to December 2009, 39 patients were enrolled in a single institution. Objective response rate was 66.7% (95% exact CI: 49.8-80.9). Of these, 37 patients (94.9%) underwent surgery, with a R0 rate of 84.6%. Five patients had a pathological complete remission (14%). Out of 37 patients, 16 (43.2%) had at least one surgical complication (most frequently biloma). At 1 year of follow-up, 24 patients were alive and free from disease progression (61.6%, 95% CI: 44.6-76.6). Median PFS and OS were 14 (95% CI: 11-24) and 38 (95% CI: 28-NA) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preoperative treatment of patients with resectable liver metastases from CRC with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI is feasible, but further studies are needed to define its clinical relevance.

Final overall survival results of phase III GCIG CALYPSO trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin vs paclitaxel and carboplatin in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The CALYPSO phase III trial compared CD (carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)) with CP (carboplatin-paclitaxel) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Overall survival (OS) data are now mature. METHODS: Women with ROC relapsing > 6 months after first- or second-line therapy were randomised to CD or CP for six cycles in this international, open-label, non-inferiority trial. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The OS analysis is presented here. RESULTS: A total of 976 patients were randomised (467 to CD and 509 to CP). With a median follow-up of 49 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between arms in OS (hazard ratio = 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.85, 1.16); log-rank P = 0.94). Median survival times were 30.7 months (CD) and 33.0 months (CP). No statistically significant difference in OS was observed between arms in predetermined subgroups according to age, body mass index, treatment-free interval, measurable disease, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, or performance status. Post-study cross-over was imbalanced between arms, with a greater proportion of patients randomised to CP receiving post-study PLD (68%) than patients randomised to CD receiving post-study paclitaxel (43%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Carboplatin-PLD led to delayed progression and similar OS compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel in platinum-sensitive ROC.

Bone effect of adjuvant tamoxifen, letrozole or letrozole plus zoledronic acid in early-stage breast cancer: the randomized phase 3 HOBOE study.

BACKGROUND: To measure bone mineral density (BMD) reduction produced by letrozole as compared with tamoxifen and the benefit of the addition of zoledronic acid. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen, letrozole or letrozole+zoledronic acid in patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer was conducted; triptorelin was given to premenopausal patients. Two comparisons were planned: letrozole versus tamoxifen and letrozole+zoledronic acid versus letrozole. Primary end point was the difference in 1-year change of T-score at lumbar spine (LTS) measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scan. RESULTS: Out of 483 patients enrolled, 459 were available for primary analyses. Median age was 50 (range 28-80). The estimated mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in 1-year change of LTS was equal to -0.30 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.17) in the letrozole versus tamoxifen comparison (P<0.0001) and to +0.60 (95% CI +0.46 to +0.77) in the letrozole+zoledronic acid versus letrozole comparison (P<0.0001). Bone damage by letrozole decreased with increasing baseline body mass index in premenopausal, but not postmenopausal, patients (interaction test P=0.004 and 0.47, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In the HOBOE (HOrmonal BOne Effects) trial, the positive effect of zoledronic acid on BMD largely counteracts damage produced by letrozole as compared with tamoxifen. Letrozole effect is lower among overweight/obese premenopausal patients.

Bevacizumab in non small cell lung cancer: development, current status and issues.

Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF). Evidence about its efficacy in addition to first-line chemotherapy in non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) has been produced by two large randomized phase III clinical trials (ECOG 4599 and AVAiL), conducted in a clinically selected population with non-squamous histology and without major risk factors for bleeding. In the ECOG 4599 trial, the addition of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) to carboplatin plus paclitaxel produced a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in overall survival (OS), that was the primary endpoint of the trial (12.3 months vs 10.3 months, HR 0.79; p=0.003). Furthermore, patients receiving bevacizumab showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and in objective response rates. Treatment with bevacizumab was well tolerated by the majority of patients, but was still associated with increased risk of clinically significant bleeding (4.4% vs 0.7%, p0.001). In the AVAiL trial the addition of bevacizumab (at the dose of 7.5 and 15 mg/kg) to cisplatin plus gemcitabine produced a small improvement in PFS, but no differences in OS. Information from retrospective analysis and two large observational studies (SAIL and ARIES) have confirmed the safety profile of first-line bevacizumab with a wide range of chemotherapy partners, but whether its efficacy is comparable when combined with the different regimens is still unknown. The identification of predictive factors of efficacy would be relevant for the optimal use of the drug, but to date we have no conclusive data in this direction.

Vandetanib: An overview of its clinical development in NSCLC and other tumors.

Vandetanib is an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and Ret tyrosine kinases involved in tumor growth, progression and angiogenesis. Phase I studies indicated that the recommended dose of vandetanib as a single agent is 300 mg/day. Rash, diarrhea, hypertension and asymptomatic Q-Tc prolongation were the most common adverse events. Four randomized phase III clinical trials evaluated the efficacy of vandetanib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with docetaxel (ZODIAC), pemetrexed (ZEAL) or as a single agent (ZEST and ZEPHYR). Only the ZODIAC trial met its primary endpoint (progression-free survival [PFS]), while no study showed an advantage in overall survival with vandetanib. No significant antitumor activity has been observed in small cell lung cancer, advanced ovarian, colorectal, breast, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. In advanced metastatic medullary thyroid cancer, one randomized phase III clinical trial has demonstrated that vandetanib can significantly improve response rate, PFS and time to worsening of pain. Several key questions remain to be addressed regarding the identification of clinical or molecular biomarkers predictive of response, the choice of the optimal dose or schedule of vandetanib and the safety of long-term administration. The results of ongoing trials in untreated patients with advanced NSCLC and other tumors should better define the optimal clinical application of vandetanib.