Search

Purpose To test the efficacy of adding cisplatin to first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within a combined analysis of two parallel phase III trials, MILES-3 and MILES-4. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than age 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed, without or with cisplatin. In each trial, 382 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of death of 0.75, with 80% power and two-tailed α of .05. Trials were closed prematurely because of slow accrual, but the joint database allowed us to analyze the efficacy of cisplatin on the basis of intention-to-treat and adjusted by trial, histotype, non-platinum companion drug, stage, performance status, sex, age, and size of the study center. Results From March 2011 to August 2016, 531 patients (MILES-3, 299; MILES-4, 232) were assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed without (n = 268) or with cisplatin (n = 263). Median age was 75 years, 79% were male, and 70% had nonsquamous histology. At a median 2-year follow-up, 384 deaths and 448 progression-free survival events were recorded. Overall survival was not significantly prolonged with cisplatin (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P = .14) and global health status score of quality of life was not improved, whereas progression-free survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92; P = .005) and objective response rate (15.5% v 8.5%; P = .02) were significantly better. Significantly more severe hematologic toxicity, fatigue, and anorexia were found with cisplatin. Conclusion The addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy does not significantly prolong overall survival, and it does not improve global health status score of quality of life in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Purpose Platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) for patients with progressing ovarian cancer (OC) is more effective with a longer time interval from previous platinum treatment (platinum-free interval [PFI]). In 1999, it was hypothesized that prolonging PFI with single-agent non-PBC (NPBC) may offer a strategy to improve overall outcome. MITO-8 aimed to verify this hypothesis commonly used in clinical practice although it has not been prospectively tested. Methods MITO-8 is an open-label, prospective, randomized, superiority trial. Patients with OC who experienced disease progression 6 to 12 months after their last platinum treatment were randomly assigned 1:1 to the experimental sequence of NPBC followed by PBC at subsequent relapse or the standard reverse treatment sequence. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end point. Results Two hundred fifteen patients were enrolled (standard arm [n = 108]; experimental arm [n = 107]). The trial ended before planned because of slow enrollment. PFI was prolonged in the experimental arm (median, 7.8 v 0.01 months). There was no OS benefit in the experimental arm (median, 21.8 v 24.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.94; P = .06). Progression-free survival after the sequence was significantly shorter in the experimental arm (median, 12.8 v 16.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.92; P = .025). Global quality-of-life change after three cycles was worse in the experimental arm. Slight differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Conclusion MITO-8 supports the recommendation that PBC not be delayed in favor of an NPBC in patients with partially platinum-sensitive OC. PBC should be used as a control arm in future trials of new drugs in this setting.

Purpose: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials., Patients and Methods: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were "not at all," "a little," "quite a bit," and "very much." Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated., Results: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported "very much" toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%., Conclusion: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Erlotinib prolonged survival of unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were not eligible for further chemotherapy, and two phase II studies suggested it might be an alternative to first-line chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial was designed to test whether first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was not inferior in terms of survival to the standard inverse sequence., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion or supraclavicular nodes) to IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. With a 95% CI upper limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided α = .025, and two interim analyses, a sample size of 900 patients was planned., Results: At the first planned interim analysis with half the events, the inferiority boundary was crossed, and the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the study. Seven hundred sixty patients (median age, 62 years; range, 27 to 81 years) had been randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms. As of June 1, 2011, median follow-up was 24.3 months, and 536 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm). Median survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 13.3 months) in the standard arm and 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.5 months) in the experimental arm. Adjusted HR of death in the experimental arm was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.47). There was no heterogeneity across sex, smoking habit, histotype, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation., Conclusion: In unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was significantly inferior in terms of overall survival compared with the standard sequence of first-line chemotherapy followed by erlotinib.

Purpose: Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments., Patients and Methods: A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test., Results: Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Purpose: Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IC to IV ovarian cancer (age ≤ 75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2) were randomly assigned to carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus PLD 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks for six cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With 632 events in 820 enrolled patients, the study would have 80% power to detect a 0.80 hazard ratio (HR) of PFS., Results: Eight hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned. Disease stages III and IV were prevalent. Occurrence of PFS events substantially slowed before obtaining the planned number. Therefore, in concert with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, final analysis was performed with 556 events, after a median follow-up of 40 months. Median PFS times were 19.0 and 16.8 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = .58). Median overall survival times were 61.6 and 53.2 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .32). Carboplatin/PLD produced a similar response rate but different toxicity (less neurotoxicity and alopecia but more hematologic adverse effects). There was no relevant difference in global quality of life after three and six cycles., Conclusion: Carboplatin/PLD was not superior to carboplatin/paclitaxel, which remains the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. However, given the observed CIs and the different toxicity, carboplatin/PLD could be considered an alternative to standard therapy.

Purpose: Single-agent gemcitabine became standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after demonstration of superiority compared with fluorouracil. The Gruppo Italiano Pancreas 1 randomized phase III trial aimed to compare gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00813696)., Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or = 50, were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (arm A) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B). Arm A: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 weeks, and, after a 1-week rest, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Arm B: cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) added weekly to gemcitabine, except cycle 1 day 22. Primary end point was overall survival. To have 8% power of detecting a 0.74 hazard ratio (HR) of death, with bilateral alpha .05, 355 events were needed and 400 patients planned., Results: Four hundred patients were enrolled (arm A: 199; arm B: 201). Median age was 63, 59% were male, 84% had stage IV, and 83% had KPS > or = 80. Median overall survival was 8.3 months versus 7.2 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.35; P = .38). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months versus 3.8 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.19; P = .80). The objective response rate was 10.1% in A and 12.9% in B (P = .37). Clinical benefit was experienced by 23.0% in A and 15.1% in B (P = .057). Combination therapy produced more hematologic toxicity, without relevant differences in nonhematologic toxicity., Conclusion: The addition of weekly cisplatin to gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any improvement as first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE We compared the endocrine effects of 6 and 12 months of adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with hormone-responsive early breast cancer within an ongoing phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen, letrozole, or letrozole plus zoledronic acid. Serum values of estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulphate (DHEA-S), progesterone, and cortisol were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. For each hormone, changes from baseline at 6 and 12 months were compared between treatment groups, and differences over time for each group were analyzed. Results Hormonal data were available for 139 postmenopausal patients with a median age of 62 years, with 43 patients assigned to tamoxifen and 96 patients assigned to letrozole alone or combined with zoledronic acid. Baseline values were similar between the two groups for all hormones. Many significant changes were observed between drugs and for each drug over time. Namely, three hormones seemed significantly affected by one drug only: estradiol that decreased and progesterone that increased with letrozole and cortisol that increased with tamoxifen. Both drugs affected FSH (decreasing with tamoxifen and slightly increasing with letrozole), LH (decreasing more with tamoxifen than with letrozole), testosterone (slightly increasing with letrozole but not enough to differ from tamoxifen), and DHEA-S (increasing with both drugs but not differently between them). Zoledronic acid did not have significant impact on hormonal levels. CONCLUSION Adjuvant letrozole and tamoxifen result in significantly distinct endocrine effects. Such differences can explain the higher efficacy of letrozole as compared with tamoxifen.

Purpose: Doublet chemotherapy is more effective than single-agent as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As second-line treatment, several randomized trials have been performed comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy, but each trial had an insufficient power to detect potentially relevant differences in survival., Methods: We performed meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials, both published and unpublished, comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial., Results: Eight eligible trials were identified. Data of two trials were not available, and data of six trials (847 patients) were collected. Median age was 61 years. Performance status was 0 or 1 in 90%; 80% of patients had received previous platin-based chemotherapy. OS was not significantly different between arms (P = .32). Median OS was 37.3 and 34.7 weeks in the doublet and single-agent arms, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08). Response rate was 15.1% with doublet and 7.3% with single-agent (P = .0004). Median progression-free survival was 14 weeks for doublet and 11.7 weeks for single agent (P = .0009; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91). There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the three efficacy outcomes. Patients treated with doublet chemotherapy had significantly more grade 3 to 4 hematologic (41% v 25%; P < .0001) and grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity (28% v 22%; P = .034)., Conclusion: Doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC significantly increases response rate and progression-free survival, but is more toxic and does not improve overall survival compared to single-agent.

Purpose: To compare the endocrine effects of 6 months of adjuvant treatment with letrozole + triptorelin or tamoxifen + triptorelin in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer within an ongoing phase 3 trial (Hormonal Adjuvant Treatment Bone Effects study)., Patients and Methods: Prospectively collected hormonal data were available for 81 premenopausal women, of whom 30 were assigned to receive tamoxifen + triptorelin and 51 were assigned letrozole + triptorelin +/- zoledronate. Serum 17-beta-estradiol (E2), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), Delta4-androstenedione, testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate, progesterone, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and cortisol were measured at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. For each hormone, 6-month values were compared between treatment groups by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney exact test., Results: Median age was 44 years for both groups of patients. Letrozole + triptorelin (+/- zoledronate) induced a stronger suppression of median E2 serum levels (P = .0008), LH levels (P = .0005), and cortisol serum levels (P < .0001) compared with tamoxifen + triptorelin. Median FSH serum levels were suppressed in both groups, but such suppression was lower among patients receiving letrozole, who showed significantly higher median FSH serum levels (P < .0001). No significant differences were observed for testosterone, progesterone, ACTH, androstenedione, and dehydroepiandrosterone between the two groups of patients., Conclusion: Letrozole in combination with triptorelin induces a more intense estrogen suppression than tamoxifen + triptorelin in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

Purpose: Two phase I/II trials were done to evaluate the feasibility of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine or vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than 70 years of age and who had a performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. Cisplatin was given on day 1 (a starting dose of 50 mg/m2 with increasing increments of 10 mg/m2 at each level) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or vinorelbine (25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. A two-stage flexible optimal design was applied in the phase II study, and unacceptable toxicity was the primary end point., Results: Overall, 159 patients were enrolled: 38 in phase I and 121 in phase II studies. Cisplatin was feasible at 60 mg/m2 with gemcitabine and at 40 mg/m2 with vinorelbine. With the former combination, 50 of 60 (83.3%) patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 26 of 60 patients (43.5%; 95% CI, 30.6 to 56.8); median progression-free and overall survivals were 25.3 and 43.6 weeks, respectively. With the latter combination, 50 (82.0%) of 61 patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 22 of 61 patients (36.1%; 95% CI, 24.2 to 49.4); median progression-free and overall survivals were 21.1 and 33.1 weeks, respectively., Conclusion: Both cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (40 mg/m2) plus vinorelbine are feasible and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. The former combination, which provides a higher dose of cisplatin, deserves comparison versus single-agent chemotherapy in this setting of patients.

Purpose: Although several randomized trials have been performed comparing weekly docetaxel (wD) with standard docetaxel once every 3 weeks (3wD) as second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no single trial had sufficient power to detect clinically relevant differences in survival., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data from all identified randomized trials comparing wD with 3wD as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Baseline characteristics, treatment assigned, and outcome data were collected for each patient. The primary end point was overall survival. All statistical analyses were stratified by trial., Results: Five eligible trials were identified for a total of 865 patients: 433 patients had been assigned to 3wD, and 432 patients had been assigned to wD. Median age was 62 years (range, 26 to 80 years). Performance status was 0 in 23%, 1 in 58%, and 2 in 16% of patients; 91% of the patients had received previous platinum, and 14% had received previous paclitaxel. With 733 deaths recorded (85%), median survival was 27.4 weeks for patients treated with 3wD, and 26.1 weeks for patients treated with wD (P = .24, log-rank test). There was no significant heterogeneity among the five trials. No relevant differential effect was detected in subgroup analyses. Significantly less severe and febrile neutropenia was reported with wD (P < .00001 for both), whereas no significant differences were observed for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and nonhematologic toxicity., Conclusion: wD shows similar efficacy compared with 3wD, and represents an alternative for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Purpose: To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm., Results: Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival., Conclusions: Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

Purpose: Topotecan is an active second-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Its efficacy as consolidation treatment after first-line standard chemotherapy is unknown., Patients and Methods: To investigate whether topotecan (1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 5, four cycles, every 3 weeks) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) for patients responding to standard carboplatin (area under the curve 5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) administered as a 3-hour infusion in six cycles; CP), a multicenter phase III study was performed with an 80% power to detect a 50% prolongation of median PFS. Patients were registered at diagnosis and randomized after the end of CP., Results: Two hundred seventy-three patients were randomly assigned (topotecan, n = 137; observation, n = 136), with a median age of 56 years. Stage at diagnosis was advanced in three fourths of patients (stage III in 65% of patients; stage IV in 10%); after primary surgery, 46% had no residual disease and 20% were optimally debulked. After CP, 87% reached a clinical complete response, and 13% achieved a partial response. Neutropenia (grade 3/4 in 58% of the patients) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3 in 21%; grade 4 in 3%) were the most frequent toxicities attributed to topotecan. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the arms (P =.83; log-rank test): median PFS was 18.2 months in the topotecan arm and 28.4 in the control arm. Hazard ratio of progression for patients receiving topotecan was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63) after adjustment for residual disease, interval debulking surgery, and response to CP., Conclusion: The present analysis indicates that consolidation with topotecan does not improve PFS for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who respond to initial chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

Purpose: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient's quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis., Results: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment., Conclusion: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.

Purpose: Factors that are predictive of prognosis in patients who are diagnosed with malignant melanoma (MM) are widely awaited. Detection of circulating melanoma cells (CMCs) by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has recently been postulated as a possible negative prognostic factor. Two main questions were addressed: first, whether the presence of CMCs, defined as the patient being positive for any of the three markers, had a prognostic role; and second, what the predictive value of each individual marker was., Patients and Methods: A consecutive series of 200 melanoma patients observed between January 1997 and December 1997, with stage of disease ranging from I to IV, was analyzed by semiquantitative RT-PCR. Tyrosinase, p97, and MelanA/MART1 were used as markers to CMCs on baseline peripheral blood samples. Progression-free survival (PFS) was used as a unique end point and was described by the product limit method. Multivariable analysis was applied to verify whether the auspicated prognostic value of these markers was independent of the stage of disease, and a subgroup analysis was performed that excluded patients with stage IV disease., Results: Overall, 32% (64 of 200) of patients progressed, and a median PFS of 52 months in the whole series was observed. The presence of CMCs and the markers individually or combined was predictive of prognosis in the univariate analysis but did not provide additional prognostic information to the stage of disease in multivariable models. In the subgroup analysis of stage (ie, I-III subgroup), similar results were observed., Conclusion: Detection of CMCs in peripheral blood samples at the time of MM diagnosis by semiquantitative RT-PCR does not add any significant predictive value to the stage of disease. Thus, this approach should not be used in clinical practice, and further studies are required to determine its usefulness.

Purpose: To review how toxicity, a main end point of phase II studies, is assessed and reported in published phase II chemotherapy trials in breast cancer., Methods: A survey was performed by hand-searching studies published in seven distinguished journals between 1995 and 1999. All selected articles were independently evaluated by two investigators using an ad hoc study report form. Descriptive statistics, contingency tables, and the chi(2) test were applied., Results: Overall, 122 articles were found; 65.6% lacked a statistical study design. Planned modalities for assessment of toxicity were inadequately reported in 20.5% of the studies. The scheduling of assessment of hematologic toxicity varied greatly. Toxicity was predominantly summarized per patient (69.7%). Although overall the World Health Organization scale was adopted more frequently (45.9%), the Common Toxicity Criteria (in different versions) were used more frequently in studies published in journals with a high impact factor (P =.001), in more recently initiated studies (P =.03), in sponsored studies (P =.0006), and in studies with an identifiable statistical design (P =.006)., Conclusion: The wide diversity in modalities of toxicity assessment and reporting observed in this study suggests that the reliability of the body of published data on the toxicity of chemotherapy in breast cancer may be questionable. Current standards should be revised and harmonized to improve the reliability of such data. A checklist is proposed to help editorial evaluation of assessment and reporting of toxicity in phase II studies.