General condition of asymptomatic patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy. A longitudinal study. Cost-effectiveness of palliative chemotherapy in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. Randomized comparison between chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Supportive care versus supportive care and combination chemotherapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Does chemotherapy make a difference? Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life. Is first-line single-agent mitoxantrone in the treatment of high-risk metastatic breast cancer patients as effective as combination chemotherapy? No difference in survival but higher quality of life were found in a multicenter randomized trial. Randomised phase 2 trial of SIR-Spheres plus fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy versus fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy alone in advanced colorectal cancer. Five-day oral etoposide treatment for advanced small-cell lung cancer: randomized comparison with intravenous chemotherapy. A randomized trial comparing defined-duration with continuous irinotecan until disease progression in fluoropyrimidine and thymidylate synthase inhibitor-resistant advanced colorectal cancer. A randomised trial of cisplatin and vindesine versus supportive care only in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Hepatic arterial infusion versus systemic therapy for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a randomized trial of efficacy, quality of life, and molecular markers (CALGB 9481).
A Nordic multicenter study in asymptomatic patients with advanced colorectal cancer compared initial chemotherapy with sequential methotrexate-5-FU with leucovorin rescue (MFL) for 6 months versus primary expectancy with chemotherapy only after the appearance of symptoms. The study (183 patients randomized between January 1985 and February 1990) showed that symptom-free survival, progression-free survival and survival respectively were about 6 months longer in the group of patients randomized to initial MFL. Whether these prolongations could be achieved without an impaired 'quality of life' was studied in an associated study. Between January 1985 and March 1987, 43 patients were randomized at one of the hospitals, 36 of which were interviewed with a questionnaire at randomization. Even if all these patients were considered, by the physician, to be 'free of symptoms from their disease', 16/36 (44%) had symptoms that could be referred to the disease. In spite of this, the patients were in a good general condition, and considerably better off than patients considered to have 'symptoms from the disease' who were interviewed with the same questionnaire when randomized in a parallel study of symptomatic patients. Patients randomized to initial chemotherapy and interviewed longitudinally maintained their good condition throughout treatment. Toxicity was mild, although the patients expressed more adverse effects than the physicians recorded. Since symptom-free survival, progression-free survival and survival were statistically significantly longer in the group of patients randomized to MFL also in this associated study, it is concluded that initial chemotherapy can prolong symptom-free survival and survival without reduced 'quality of life' during the treatment period. Chemotherapy may relieve tumor-related symptoms, may improve quality of life and prolong survival in advanced gastrointestinal cancer. The extent of such improvements is unclear despite the extensive use of this treatment modality, and there are no studies concerning the economic cost of any gain achieved in the quantity and quality of life by chemotherapy.
                Between January 1991 and May 1992, 61 patients with inoperable cancer (18 gastric, 22 pancreatic or biliary, and 21 colorectal) were randomized to either primary chemotherapy in addition to best supportive care or to best supportive care. Chemotherapy was allowed in the latter group if the supportive measures did not achieve palliation. All economic costs for medical care were prospectively recorded, and marginal cost-effectiveness analyses were performed.
                More patients in the primary chemotherapy group (19/33, 58%) had improved/prolonged high quality of life (QoL-patient, minimum duration 4 months) than in the best supportive care group (8/28, 29%, p < 0.05). Overall survival and quality-adjusted survival were significantly longer in the primary chemotherapy group (median 9 vs. 4 months, p < 0.05), and median 7 vs. 2 months, p < 0.05, respectively). When analysed by cancer site, survival was significantly prolonged in gastric cancer patients (median 10 vs. 4 months, p < 0.02), but not in colorectal (median 12 vs. 6 months, p = 0.1) and pancreatic-biliary cancer patients (median 8 vs. 5 months, p = 0.8). The average cost for all medical care was approximately 50% higher in the primary chemotherapy group, but the average cost per day was the same in the two groups. Hospitalization accounted for most of the costs in both groups. The incremental costs per gained year of life was SEK 166,400 ($21,300), per gained quality-adjusted year of life SEK 157,200 ($20,200), and per QoL-patient SEK 160,300 ($20,600). These costs were lower for gastric and colorectal cancer patients, and much higher for pancreatic-biliary cancer patients.
                The results of this study suggest that palliative chemotherapy is cost-effective in patients with advanced gastric and colorectal cancer. Knowledge about survival and quality of life benefits is still limited in patients suffering from gastric and pancreatic-biliary cancer. The extent to which chemotherapy may relieve tumour-related symptoms, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with gastric cancer is not known in spite of the extensive use of this treatment modality. The aim of this study was to estimate any gain in the quantity and quality of life produced by chemotherapy in these patients.
                Between January 1991 and February 1995, 61 patients with gastric cancer were randomized to either chemotherapy in addition to best supportive care or to best supportive care. Chemotherapy was allowed in the latter group if the supportive measures did not lead to palliation. Chemotherapy was the ELF-regimen consisting of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and etoposide, or, in elderly patients with poor performance, a 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimen (FLv). Quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 instrument.
                More patients in the chemotherapy group (45%, 14/31) had an improved or prolonged high quality of life for a minimum period of 4 months compared to those in the best supportive care group (20%, 6/30, P < 0.05). A similar difference was seen in the treating physician's evaluation of whether the patient was subjectively improved or continued to do well for at least 4 months (17/31, 55% versus 6/30, 20%, P < 0.01). Overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy group (median 8 vs. 5 months) although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). After corrections for imbalances in pretreatment characteristics, chemotherapy treatment was, however, associated with a survival benefit (P = 0.003). Also, the quality-adjusted survival time and time to disease progression were longer for patients randomized to chemotherapy (median 5 vs. 2 months, P = 0.03).
                The results show that chemotherapy can add to both quantity and quality of life in advanced gastric cancer. The number of patients who benefit from treatment is, however, still rather limited. Current chemotherapy treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer has demonstrated some objective responses, but is still largely palliative. This report reviews the results of a randomized trial in patients with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer which compared treatment with supportive care (treatment with palliative radiation, psychosocial support, analgesics, nutritional support) to supportive care plus combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and vinblastine. Although the patients receiving combination chemotherapy had a slightly longer median survival (20.43 weeks versus 13.57 weeks), it was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). In addition, the patients receiving chemotherapy experienced serious toxicity, and showed no significant benefit in terms of quality of life as measured by Karnofsky performance status score. The authors conclude that contemporary combination chemotherapy provides only modest survival benefit to patients with advanced metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and should not be considered standard therapy. Future investigations of chemotherapy in patients with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer should continue to utilize control arms which provide high-quality supportive care. In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens.
                The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364).
                65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival.
                The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices. To determine whether patients with high-risk metastatic breast cancer draw benefit from combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment.
                A total of 260 women with measurable metastatic breast cancer fulfilling high-risk criteria, previously untreated with chemotherapy for their metastatic disease, were randomized to receive either mitoxantrone 12 mg/m(2) or the combination of fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) (FEC) every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued until complete remission plus two cycles, or until disease progression. In the case of partial remission or stable disease, treatment was stopped after 12 cycles. Second-line treatment was vindesine, mitomycin and prednisolone. Gain from treatment was estimated using a modified Brunner's score composed of time to progression, patients' rating of the treatment benefit, alopecia, vomiting and performance status.
                After recruitment from 1992 to 1997 and observation from 1997 to 1999, the final evaluation showed that single-agent treatment with mitoxantrone does not differ significantly from combination treatment with FEC in terms of response, objective remission rate, remission duration, time to response, time to best response, time to progression or overall survival. There was, however, a significant difference in gain from treatment using a modified Brunner's score favoring the single-agent treatment arm. There was no evidence that any subgroup would fare better with combination treatment.
                No significant difference was detected between the treatment with mitoxantrone as a single agent and the combination of low-dose FEC in terms of response or survival; therefore, the imperative of the necessity of first-line combination chemotherapy for patients with high-risk metastatic breast cancer may be questioned. Since toxicity and quality of life score favored the single-agent mitoxantrone treatment arm, this treatment may be offered to patients preferring quality of life to a potential small prolongation of survival. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with SIR-Spheres(R) is a new technique for selectively targeting high doses of radiation to tumours within the liver. The primary objectives of this randomised trial were to compare the response rate, time to progressive disease (PD), and toxicity of a regimen of systemic fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy versus the same chemotherapy plus a single administration of SIR-Spheres in patients with advanced colorectal liver metastases. The trial was designed to presage a larger trial that would have survival as the primary outcome.
                Twenty-one patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal liver metastases, with or without extrahepatic metastases, were randomised into the study.
                Using RECIST criteria, the response rate for 11 patients receiving the combination treatment was significantly greater than for 10 patients receiving chemotherapy alone (First Integrated Response; 10 PR, 1 SD vs. 0 PR, 6 SD, 4 PD, P < 0.001 and Best Confirmed Response; 8 PR, 3 SD vs. 0 PR, 6 SD, 4 PD P < 0.001). The time to PD was greater for patients receiving the combination treatment (18.6 months vs. 3.6 months, P < 0.0005). Median survival was significantly longer for patients receiving the combination treatment (29.4 months vs. 12.8 months, P = 0.02). One patient in the combination arm died from chemotherapy induced neutropenic sepsis after the fourth chemotherapy cycle. There were more Grade 3 and 4 toxicity events in patients receiving the combination treatment. There was no difference in quality-of-life over a 3 month period between the two treatments when rated by patients (P = 0.96) or physicians (P = 0.98).
                This small phase 2 randomised trial demonstrated that the addition of a single administration of SIR-Spheres to a regimen of systemic fluorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy significantly increased both treatment related response, time to PD, and survival with acceptable toxicity. The combination of SIR-Spheres plus systemic chemotherapy is now the subject of ongoing trials to further define patient benefit.
                (c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Oral etoposide is an active single agent in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and is widely prescribed as first-line treatment as an alternative to intravenous combination chemotherapy in patients with extensive disease.
                The intention of this study was to determine if the effects of oral etoposide therapy on survival and quality of life are equivalent to those of intravenous chemotherapy.
                In a randomized trial of palliative treatment in advanced SCLC, oral etoposide (100 mg given twice daily for 5 days) was compared with intravenous chemotherapy consisting of alternating cycles of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV). Six cycles of chemotherapy were administered every 21 days in both regimens. Symptom control and quality of life were measured with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and a daily diary card. In January 1996, after 155 patients had been randomly assigned from a projected intake of 365 patients, an independent Data Monitoring Committee examined the interim results. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the logrank test was used to compare treatments. For quality-of-life comparisons, average scores were calculated for each time point. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine any significant overall differences between treatments. For the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, separate analyses were done for each subset (psychological well-being, physical symptoms, lung cancer symptoms, treatment symptoms, activity, and quality of life). Response rates and toxicity scores were compared by using chi2. All statistical tests were two-sided.
                Survival was inferior at 1 year in the oral etoposide group compared with intravenous therapy (9.8% for oral versus 19.3% for intravenous; difference = 9.5%; 95% confidence interval of difference = 0.3%-18.7%; P<.05), and there was a trend toward inferior overall survival. Median survival was 4.8 months for oral treatment and 5.9 months for intravenous therapy. Progression-free survival was worse in the oral etoposide arm (median = 3.6 months versus 5.6 months; P<.001), as well as overall response rate (32.9% versus 46.3%; P<.01). With the exception of acute nausea and vomiting associated with intravenous chemotherapy, all aspects of symptom control and quality of life were either the same or worse in the oral etoposide group. Study closure was recommended.
                These interim results show that this schedule of oral etoposide is inferior to intravenous chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced SCLC and should not be used as first-line treatment of this disease. Irinotecan given until disease progression is an accepted standard treatment for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) resistant to fluoropyrimidines. It is not known whether a predefined period of irinotecan treatment would result in similar duration of disease control. We performed a multicenter phase III trial to compare the two policies of defined-duration versus continuous irinotecan treatment.
                Three hundred thirty-three eligible patients with advanced CRC progressing on or within 24 weeks of completing fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were prospectively registered. After receiving eight cycles of irinotecan given at 350 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks, 55 patients with responding or stable disease were randomly assigned to stop irinotecan (n = 30) or continue until disease progression (n = 25). Registered patients were not randomly assigned predominantly due to disease progression (n = 236) and intolerable toxicity (n = 38).
                From the time of random assignment, there were no differences in failure-free survival (P = .999) or overall survival (P = .11) between the two arms. No difference was seen in mean global health status quality-of-life score between the two arms at 12 weeks after random assignment. No grade 3 diarrhea and febrile neutropenia was seen in the continue-irinotecan arm after random assignment.
                For most patients, the decision to continue on irinotecan beyond 24 weeks is influenced by disease progression or treatment-related toxicity. However, for 17% of patients in whom this decision is clinically relevant, there seems to be little benefit from continuing irinotecan, though the drug was well tolerated without any deterioration in quality of life.
                Copyright 2004 American Society of Clinical Onocology The value of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains contentious. Because of this two separate but very similar trials were set up in Australia and Southampton (UK). Two hundred and one patients with stage IIIb or IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to cisplatin 120 mg m-2 on days 1 and 29 and vindesine 3 mg m-2 weekly x 6 or to no chemotherapy. Both groups were eligible to receive radiotherapy or other palliative treatment as required. Of 188 evaluable patients, 97 received chemotherapy and 91 were in the control arm. Response was assessed between days 42 and 49. Responders continued chemotherapy at the same doses though cisplatin being given 6 weekly x 4 and the vindesine 2 weekly x 12. The overall response rate to chemotherapy was 28%; there were no significant differences according to major prognostic criteria. Although the overall survival of the chemotherapy group (median 27 weeks) was longer than that of the no chemotherapy group (median 17 weeks) this was not statistically significant (log rank P = 0.33). For patients without dissemination (IIIb), median survival was 45 weeks in the chemotherapy arm and 26 weeks in the non-chemotherapy (log rank P = 0.075). Toxicity was universal and frequently severe: of 17 patients discontinuing chemotherapy after one cycle, 13 did so because of unacceptable toxicity. This chemotherapy cannot be recommended as routine treatment. Further phase III studies of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC should continue to use a no chemotherapy control and should also attempt to measure quality of life, an issue not addressed effectively in this or other recent trials. Hepatic metastases derive most of their blood supply from the hepatic artery; therefore, for patients with hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy may improve outcome.
                In a multi-institutional trial, 135 patients were randomly assigned to receive HAI versus systemic bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. The primary end point was survival; secondary end points were response, recurrence, toxicity, quality of life, cost, and the influence of molecular markers.
                Overall survival was significantly longer for HAI versus systemic treatment (median, 24.4 v 20 months; P = .0034), as were response rates (47% and 24%; P = .012) and time to hepatic progression (THP; 9.8 v 7.3 months; P = .034). Time to extrahepatic progression (7.7 v 14.8 months; P = .029) was significantly shorter in the HAI group. Quality-of-life measurements showed improved physical functioning in the HAI group at the 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Toxicity included grade > or = 3 neutropenia (2% and 45%; P < .01), stomatitis (0% and 24%; P < .01), and bilirubin elevation (18.6% and 0; P < .01) in the HAI and systemic treatment groups, respectively. A greater proportion of men versus women receiving HAI experienced biliary toxicity (37% and 15%, respectively; P = .05). For HAI patients with thymidylate synthase levels in tumor less than or > or = 4, the median survival was 24 and 14 months, respectively (P = .17).
                HAI therapy increased overall survival, response rate, THP, and was associated with better physical functioning compared with systemic therapy. Additional studies need to address the overall benefit and cost of new chemotherapy agents versus HAI alone or the combination of HAI with new agents.
Chemotherapy is effective in prolonging time to disease progression and survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The survival benefit may be underestimated by this meta-analysis, as a proportion of patients in the control arms of some trials received chemotherapy. No age related differences were found in the effectiveness of chemotherapy, but elderly patients were under represented in trials. Treatment toxicity and impact upon quality of life and symptom control have been inadequately assessed in the majority of trials and further research is needed to clarify the palliative benefit of chemotherapy.