Search

Background A recent prospective randomised trial did not reveal significant differences in median progression-free survival between two chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer patients. This secondary analysis aimed to describe the impact of CRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), physical functioning, dysphagia, fatigue and pain and to evaluate whether baseline HRQOL domains can predict overall survival. Patients and methods A total of 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive with 50 Gy of radiotherapy in 25 fractions six cycles of FOLFOX or four cycles of fluorouracil and cisplatin on day 1. HRQOL was prospectively assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 with the oesophageal cancer module (QLQ-OES18). Results Both groups showed high baseline compliance. Subsequently, compliance reduced to 41% at the 6-month follow-up. Baseline HRQOL scores showed no statistical differences between treatment arms. During treatment, both groups exhibited lower physical and social functioning and increased fatigue and dyspnoea, although dysphagia moderately improved in the fluorouracil–cisplatin arm only ( p = 0.047). During follow-up, HRQOL scores revealed no significant differences between chemotherapy regimens. Linear mixed model exhibited a treatment-by-time interaction effect for dysphagia ( p = 0.017) with a greater decrease in dysphagia in the fluorouracil–cisplatin group. Time until definitive deterioration analysis showed no significant differences in global HRQOL, functional or main symptom domains. However, time until definitive deterioration was significantly longer for the fluorouracil and cisplatin arm compared with FOLFOX for appetite loss ( p = 0.002), QLQ-OES-18 pain ( p = 0.008), trouble swallowing saliva ( p = 0.011) and trouble talking ( p = 0.020). Conclusion Analyses of HRQOL scores revealed no statistically significant differences between patients with inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer treated by FOLFOX versus those treated with a fluorouracil–cisplatin regimen as part of definitive CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The ACCORD 16 phase II trial aimed to evaluate the objective response rate after combination of conventional chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and cetuximab in locally advanced anal canal carcinoma (LAACC). Patients and methods Immunocompetent patients with histologically confirmed LAACC received CRT [45 gray (Gy)] in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, fluorouracil and cisplatin during weeks 1 and 5), in combination with weekly dose of cetuximab (250 mg/m2 with a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 1 week before irradiation), and a standard dose boost (20 Gy). The trial was originally designed to include 81 patients to detect a 15% of objective response increase with the new combination in comparison with CRT. Results The trial was prematurely stopped after the declaration of 15 serious adverse events (SAEs) in 14 out of 16 patients. Five patients received the entire planned treatment, and the compliance was higher after amendments of the protocol. Among the 15 SAEs, 6 were unexpected. Grade (G) 3/4 acute toxic effects, observed in 88% patients, were general (n = 13, 81%), digestive (n = 9, 56%), dermatological (n = 5, 31%), infectious (n = 4, 25%), haematological (n = 3, 19%), and others (n = 9); and three patients suffered from six G3/4 late toxic effects. No treatment-related death was reported. All 11 assessable patients had an objective response consisting of six complete (55%) and five partial (45%) response 2 months after the end of the treatment. Thirteen patients were followed up with a median of 22 months [95% confidence interval (CI ): 18–27] and had a 1-year colostomy-free survival, progression-free and overall survival rate of 67% (95% CI: 40%–86%), 62% (95% CI: 36%–82%), and 92% (95% CI: 67%–99%), respectively. Conclusion CRT plus cetuximab was unacceptably toxic in this population of patients. Results of others phase II trials evaluating this combination are awaited to confirm these findings. Eudra CT No 2007-007029-38. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become a major endpoint to assess the clinical benefit of new therapeutic strategies in oncology clinical trials. Typically, HRQoL outcomes are analyzed using linear mixed models (LMMs). However, longitudinal analysis of HRQoL in the presence of missing data remains complex and unstandardized. Our objective was to compare the modeling alternatives that account for informative dropout.Methods: We investigated three alternative methods-the selection model (SM), pattern-mixture model (PMM), and shared-parameters model (SPM)-in relation to the LMM. We first compared them on the basis of methodological arguments highlighting their advantages and drawbacks. Then, we applied them to data from a randomized clinical trial that included 267 patients with advanced esophageal cancer for the analysis of four HRQoL dimensions evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire.Results: We highlighted differences in terms of outputs, interpretation, and underlying modeling assumptions; this methodological comparison could guide the choice of method according to the context. In the application, none of the four models detected a significant difference between the two treatment arms. The estimated effect of time on HRQoL varied according to the method: for all analyzed dimensions, the PMM estimated an effect that contrasted with those estimated by the SM and SPM; the LMM estimated effects were confirmed by the SM (on two of four HRQoL dimensions) and SPM (on three of four HRQoL dimensions).Conclusions: The PMM, SM, or SPM should be used to confirm or invalidate the results of LMM analysis when informative dropout is suspected. Of these three alternative methods, the SPM appears to be the most interesting from both theoretical and practical viewpoints.Trial Registration: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00861094 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]