Lung Cancer Symptom Scale outcomes in relation to standard efficacy measures: an analysis of the phase III study of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:30-36. [PMID: 18166838 DOI: 10.1097/jto.0b013e31815e8b48]

Understanding health-related quality of life measures used in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: A review

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in cancer clinical research, which can be substantially influenced by cancer treatment procedures and medications. The treatment landscape for early-stage (stage I-III) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. In this light, it is important to evaluate the most suitable instruments for HRQoL assessment and timing. Given there is often a requirement for patients with early-stage disease to receive long-term treatment to reduce the risk of disease recurrence after surgery, maintenance or improvement in HRQoL is an important goal of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments. Key challenges with assessing HRQoL relate to the suitability of existing instruments to measure relevant treatment-related adverse effects, consistency in HRQoL assessment approach between similar studies, gaps in data collection and reporting, and interpretation of longitudinal data. Frequent assessments during and after treatment are warranted to capture the true impact of treatment and disease progression on HRQoL, and changes in the relative importance of these factors over time. There is scope for improving existing HRQoL approaches, including ease of use and integration of digital tools to facilitate analysis and interpretation, to enhance the experience of both patients and healthcare professionals. In this narrative review, we discuss key considerations for HRQoL assessment and evaluate the tools currently available to measure HRQoL in NSCLC, many of which were designed with advanced disease in mind. We focus on the key challenges of measuring HRQoL for the specific needs of patients with early-stage disease, and consider future perspectives, to determine the most appropriate HRQoL instruments and analysis methods to use in early-stage NSCLC clinical trials.1.

Quality of life with adjuvant gefitinib versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the ADJUVANT (CTONG1104) study

OBJECTIVES

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data complement conventional clinical endpoints when comparing adjuvant gefitinib with chemotherapy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. This study aimed to assess changes in HRQoL with adjuvant gefitinib vs chemotherapy in this patient group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the phase III ADJUVANT trial, patients with completely resected, stage II-IIIA (N1-N2), EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive either gefitinib for 24 months or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VP) every 3 weeks for four cycles. HRQoL was assessed as a secondary endpoint using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Cancer (FACT-L), Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) questionnaires, and Trial Outcome Index (TOI) composite score. HRQoL dynamics, improvements, and time to deterioration were compared between groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, 104 of 106, and 80 of 87 patients receiving gefitinib and VP, respectively, completed two questionnaires (FACT-L and LCSS). Baseline scores were balanced between groups. Although HRQoL fluctuated and gradually improved in both groups, longitudinally higher scores were reported with gefitinib than VP (FACT-L, odds ratio 418.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.75-63509.05, p =  0.019; LCSS, 1.13, 1.04-1.22, p =  0.003; TOI, 88.39, 4.40-1775.05, p =  0.003). Time to deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with gefitinib compared with VP (FACT-L, median 69 vs 6 weeks, hazard ratio 0.62, 95 % CI 0.42-0.90, p =  0.013; LCSS, median 45 vs 6 weeks, 0.63, 0.43-0.93, p =  0.020; TOI, median 164 vs 9 weeks, 0.51, 0.33-0.77, p =  0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant gefitinib is associated with improved HRQoL over VP, supporting its use in patients with stage II-IIIA (N1-N2), EGFR-mutant NSCLC.

US Food and Drug Administration review of statistical analysis of patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer clinical trials approved between January, 2008, and December, 2017

With the advent of patient-focused drug development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials submitted as part of a drug's marketing application. This Review aims to characterise the statistical analysis of PRO data from pivotal lung cancer trials submitted to support FDA drug approval between January, 2008, and December, 2017. For each trial and PRO instrument identified, we evaluated prespecified PRO concepts, statistical analysis, missing data and sensitivity analysis, instrument completion, and clinical relevance. Of the 37 pivotal lung cancer trials used to support FDA drug approval, 25 (68%) trials included PRO measures. The most common prespecified PRO concepts were cough, dyspnoea, and chest pain. At the trial level, the most common statistical analyses were descriptive (24 trials [96%]), followed by time-to-event analyses (19 trials [76%]), longitudinal analyses (12 trials [48%]), and basic inferential tests or general linear models (10 trials [40%]). Our findings indicate a wide variation in the analytic techniques and data presentation methods used, with very few trials reporting clear PRO research objectives and sensitivity analyses for PRO results. Our work further supports the need for focused research objectives to justify and to guide the analytic strategy of PROs to facilitate the interpretation of patient experience.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Methodological Appraisal Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Background: The majority of lung cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the bulk of which receive palliative systemic treatment with the goal to provide effective symptom palliation and safeguard health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Advanced NSCLC trials with HRQoL endpoints face methodological constraints limiting interpretability.

Objectives: We provide a comprehensive overview of recent clinical trials evaluating the impact of systemic therapies on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC, focusing on the methodological quality, with the ultimate goal to improve interpretation, comparison and reporting of HRQoL data.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. Prospective studies published over the last decade evaluating the impact of systemic treatments on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC were included. Methodological quality of HRQoL reporting was assessed with the CONSORT-PRO extension.

Results: Hundred-twelve manuscripts describing 85 trials met all criteria. No formal conclusion can be drawn regarding the impact on HRQoL of different treatments. We report an important variety in methodological quality in terms of definitions of HRQoL, missing data points, lack of standardization of analyzing and presenting HRQoL and no standard follow-up time. The quality of HRQoL data reporting varies substantially between studies but improves over time.

Conclusion: This review shows that in the heterogeneous landscape of trials addressing HRQoL in advanced stage NSCLC. Methodology reporting remains generally poor. Adequate reporting of HRQoL outcome data is equally important to support clinical decision-making as to correctly inform health policy regarding direct approval and reimbursement of the new drugs and combinations that will come online.

Positive plasma cotinine during platinum-based chemotherapy is associated with poor response rate in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are most of the time treated with a first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy. Tobacco use is responsible for 90% of lung cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of smoking continuation during first-line chemotherapy on tumor response in advanced-stage NSCLC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with an advanced-stage NSCLC (IIIb or IV), treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in our Department between June 2013 and July 2017 were included. Smoking status was assessed at inclusion by self-report, then at the tumor assessment consultation after 2 months of treatment, by both self-report and plasmatic cotinine measurement. Chemotherapy response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and stage 3-4 toxicity were registered.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were included: 8 (8%) declared to be non-smokers, 56 (58%) current smokers and 33 (34%) former smokers at diagnosis. At the first tumor evaluation, 24 (25%) self-reported as active smokers and 73 (75%) as non-smokers; overall response rate (ORR) was respectively 38% and 48% (p = 0.373). Fifty-four patients had a plasmatic cotinine evaluation at the first tumor evaluation. Seventeen patients (32%) had a positive cotinine rate (median 108ng/mL, IQR 31-236). Six patients (35%) had positive cotinine rate whereas declaring to be non-smokers at the first tumor evaluation. ORR was 18% in case of positive cotinine rate, and 57% when negative (p = 0.007). Regardless of the method for smoking status evaluation, PFS, OS and grade 3-4 toxicities were similar between smoker and non-smoker patients at the first tumor evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Smoking continuation during platinum-based chemotherapy, reflected by positive plasma cotinine rate, was associated with a poor ORR.

Quality-adjusted Outcomes Stratified by Response in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Receiving First-line nab-Paclitaxel/Carboplatin or Paclitaxel/Carboplatin

BACKGROUND

First-line nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin was associated with a significantly improved overall response rate (primary endpoint) versus paclitaxel/carboplatin in a phase III trial of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of an analysis evaluating the correlation of response and the time to response with survival and quality-adjusted outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a landmark approach, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) were compared between patients with a confirmed partial or complete response at or before 6 weeks (≤ 6-week responders) and those without (≤ 6-week nonresponders). The outcomes were also analyzed in two 12-week landmark analyses: ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders and early responders (≤ 6 weeks) versus late responders (6-12 weeks) versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders.

RESULTS

The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 6-week responders versus ≤ 6-week nonresponders were 14.5 versus 10.3 months (P < .001) and 5.5 versus 4.5 months (P = .002), respectively. The ≤ 6-week responders gained 2.1 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders were 16.3 versus 8.4 months and 5.3 versus 2.8 months (both P < .001), respectively, and the ≤ 12-week responders gained 3.2 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS was 13.1, 16.6, and 8.4 months (P < .001), the median PFS was 4.1, 6.7, and 2.8 months (P < .001), and the mean Q-TWiST was 10.2, 11.7, and 7.8 months for the early responders, late responders, and ≤ 12-week nonresponders, respectively. Both early and late responders had significantly longer Q-TWiST compared with the ≤ 12-week nonresponders (difference, +2.4 and +3.9 months, respectively; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

These results underscore response as an important surrogate for assessment of long-term treatment outcomes in advanced NSCLC.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in OAK: A Phase III Study of Atezolizumab Versus Docetaxel in Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The randomized phase III OAK (a study of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel in participants with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC] who have failed platinum-containing therapy) trial investigated the anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab for advanced or metastatic, previously treated, NSCLC. Atezolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P = .0003; median OS, 13.8 vs. 9.6 months, respectively). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected to evaluate disease-related symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to support the finding of a survival benefit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The first 850 patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 3 weeks). PROs were collected on day 1 of cycle 1, day 1 of every subsequent cycle, and at the end-of-treatment visit for patients who completed ≥ 1 baseline and 1 postbaseline PRO assessment. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer module were used to assess PROs.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab delayed the time to deterioration (TTD) in physical function (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98) and role function (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00) and numerically improved patients' HRQoL from baseline compared with docetaxel. Atezolizumab also prolonged the TTD in chest pain (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .0823), although both arms showed an objective reduction relative to baseline. Overall, the patients had no clinically significant worsening in treatment-related symptoms, although the scores favored atezolizumab.

CONCLUSION

These PRO data support the clinical benefit of atezolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Atezolizumab prolonged the TTD of patients' limitations in role and physical functions compared with docetaxel.

nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin induction in squamous NSCLC: longitudinal quality of life while on chemotherapy

Background

Longitudinal data on the impact of treatment on quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. In this palliative setting, treatment that does not deteriorate QoL is key. Here we report longitudinal QoL in patients with squamous NSCLC, receiving ≤4 cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin combination chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² days 1, 8, 15 + carboplatin area under the curve 6 mg•min/mL day 1 (q3w) for four cycles. QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and Euro-QoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline and each cycle (day 1).

Results

Two-hundred and six lesion-response-evaluable patients completed baseline + ≥1 postbaseline QoL assessment and were QoL evaluable. LCSS average total score and symptom burden index improved from baseline throughout four cycles. In the LCSS pulmonary symptoms score, 46% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 mm visual analog scale) from baseline. Individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions remained stable/improved in ≥83% of patients; ≈33% reported complete resolution of baseline problems at least once during four cycles. Generally, responders (unconfirmed complete/partial response) had higher scores vs nonresponders.

Conclusion

In patients with squamous NSCLC, four cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin demonstrated clinically meaningful QoL improvements, with greater benefits in responders vs nonresponders.

Necitumumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Stage IV EGFR- Expressing Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: German Subgroup Data from an Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Phase 3 Study (SQUIRE)

BACKGROUND

In the SQUIRE study, adding the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) IgG1 antibody necitumumab to first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC + N) in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) significantly improved overall survival (OS); the safety profile was acceptable. We explored data for the German subpopulation (N = 96) of SQUIRE patients with EGFR-expressing tumors.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Patients with stage IV sqNSCLC were randomized 1:1 to up to 6 cycles of open-label GC + N or GC alone. GC + N patients with no progression continued on necitumumab monotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was OS; the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS)).

RESULTS

The 96 German SQUIRE patients with EGFR-expressing tumors (GC + N 42, GC 54) received a median of 4 GC cycles; the GC + N patients received 5 cycles of necitumumab. Adding necitumumab was associated with 41% risk reduction of death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.94, p = 0.026) and 44% risk reduction of progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.95, p = 0.029). Adverse events typically associated with EGFR antibody treatment (including rash, hypomagnesemia) were more common with GC + N. The time to deterioration of the EQ-5D and LCSS scores showed no notable differences between the treatment arms, except for appetite loss (delayed for GC + N).

CONCLUSION

The survival benefit from adding necitumumab to first-line GC was more pronounced in the German SQUIRE subpopulation with EGFR-expressing tumors than in the overall (intention-to-treat) population; toxicity was manageable and consistent with the overall population.

The Effect of Necitumumab in Combination with Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin on Tolerability and on Quality of Life: Results from the Phase 3 SQUIRE Trial

INTRODUCTION

Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results.

METHODS

A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected.

RESULTS

Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL.

Is there a role of nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer? The data suggest yes

Nab-paclitaxel is a novel therapeutic agent, which was approved in combination with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regardless of histologic subtype in the United States of America by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 and by the European Commission in 2015. This approval was based on the results of a phase III clinical trial showing superior response rates compared with solvent-based paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin. This review will focus on the early development and clinical data to date supporting the use of nab-paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC. The clinical question central to this review is whether nab-paclitaxel has a place in the current therapeutic landscape of advanced NSCLC.

First-Line Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin Followed by Gefitinib Maintenance Therapy Versus Gefitinib Monotherapy in East Asian Never-Smoker Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: Quality of Life Results From a Randomized Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy results from an open-label, randomized, multicenter study found no significant difference in progression-free survival between pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by maintenance gefitinib (PC/G) and gefitinib monotherapy (G) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and unknown epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status (hazard ratio favored PC/G). The present report describes the quality of life (QoL) results from that trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive, East Asian, light ex-smokers or never-smokers with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and unknown EGFR mutation status (n = 236) were randomly assigned (1:1) to PC/G or G. EGFR mutation status was subsequently determined for 74 patients. The symptoms and QoL were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). The time to worsening of symptoms (TWS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the TWS was generally longer in the G group (n = 109) than in the PC/G group (n = 109) for the LCSS symptoms classified as treatment-related (loss of appetite, fatigue) and tumor-related (cough, dyspnea, hemoptysis, pain). In the subgroup of patients with wild-type EGFR, the TWS was generally longer in the PC/G group (n = 13) than in the G group (n = 8) for the tumor-related LCSS symptoms.

CONCLUSION

In this study population clinically selected to respond to gefitinib, the LCSS scores were more favorable in the G group than in the PC/G group. Patients with wild-type EGFR tended to show greater improvement in tumor-related LCSS symptoms with chemotherapy than with gefitinib alone. These LCSS outcomes provide further evidence that patients with wild-type EGFR might not benefit from first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with gefitinib.

A significant response to sorafenib in a woman with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and a BRAF non-V600 mutation

Lung adenocarcinoma includes recurrent activating oncogenic mutations (EGFR, EML4-ALK, ROS1) that have been associated with response to EGFR and ALK inhibitors. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard therapy for non-oncodrivers population. Sorafenib is a small molecule that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3 and PDGFR approved for advanced renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma (b, c). Many studies have evaluated sorafenib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with different results. We present a case report of a patient with NSCLC and the BRAF G469R mutation who showed a dramatic response to sorafenib.

Statistical considerations and endpoints for clinical lung cancer studies: Can progression free survival (PFS) substitute overall survival (OS) as a valid endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer?

In the last decades significant progress has been achieved in the biological understanding of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and its tumor heterogeneity has become more evident. The identification of novel tumor targets with different pathways has stimulated the search for anti-tumor agents with a specific target directed mode of action, stipulating the need of testing these agents in clinical trials with an appropriate choice of the study endpoint. Gold standard as an endpoint has been so far overall survival (OS). By definition there are 3 categories of classical endpoints applied generally in clinical lung cancer studies: survival time endpoints, symptom endpoints, and endpoints relying on patients' reporting. Beside classical endpoints like OS which are tending to show the direct clinical effect of treatment, efforts have been taken to substitute these classical endpoints by surrogates. As a surrogate candidate for OS progression-free survival (PFS) should have the inherent considerable advantage, that it can detect subpopulations with longer PFS intervals early. Based on the (sub-) population treated and having in mind the risk-benefit profile of the drug under consideration, PFS can be considered for regulatory decision making. If accompanied by some independent measures like quality of life or treatment toxicity, PFS should be able to cover the clinical benefit achieved by treatment. Selecting PFS as primary endpoint in Phase III trials of advanced NSCLC may be based on a number of questions such as: Does the definition of PFS fit into the setting used by other trials? Are there accepted consensus standards? Are there consistent surveillance intervals? Is validation for each agent group planned? Is the incremental improvement of PFS big enough (≥30%)? And are there some additional measures to confine clinical benefit? OS is still accepted as the gold standard in trials investigating advanced NSCLC. OS is easy to measure and precise but it may be difficult to interpret if treatment action takes place only in a small subinterval of overall survival. PFS with some additional measures has become attractive when it seems advisable to make study results available earlier. Candidates for supporting PFS as "additional measures" may be treatment toxicity and quality of life measures. PFS allows a more precise detection and attribution to effects of the investigational treatment without being compromised by subsequent treatments. Therefore "enriched PFS" can be considered as an alternative primary endpoint replacing OS in studies investigating advanced NSCLC. The endpoint selection process should always be performed carefully considering all true and surrogate endpoint options in respect to the hypotheses to be proven.

Is the Evaluation of Quality of Life in NSCLC Trials Important? Are the Results to be Trusted?

The majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer present at the time of diagnosis with stage IV metastatic disease and they experience 2 or more disease-related symptoms. These symptoms may have a negative impact on their health-related quality of life (HR QOL). Data has shown many of these patients prefer a therapy to improve their symptoms rather than receive a therapy which slightly prolongs their survival without improving their symptoms. The improvement of disease-related symptoms on a specific drug or regimen augments the significance of prolongation of the progression-free survival or the response rate as well as symptom worsening. The choice of the questionnaires to evaluate patients’ reported outcomes and HR QOL benefits and the methods of collecting the data and their interpretations are very important. Only if the data are collected and analyzed properly will they be meaningful and can then be viewed as components that add the total value to a treatment and provide a comprehensive picture of the benefits and risks of a certain anticancer therapy.

Are the data on quality of life and patient reported outcomes from clinical trials of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer important?

Majority of the patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience two or more disease related symptoms, which may have a negative impact on their health-related quality of life (HR QOL). These patients prefer a therapy that would improve disease related symptoms, as opposed or treatment that slightly prolongs their survival without improving symptoms. The improvements of the symptoms augment the significance of improved response rates or progression free survivals. The choice of the questionnaires to evaluate patients-reported outcomes (PROs) and HRQOL benefits and methods of collecting the data and their interpretations are very important and are discussed in this manuscript. PROs and HR QOL outcomes are important in patients with advanced NSCLC only when the data are collected and analyzed correctly. Then they can be viewed as components of the total value of a treatment, providing a comprehensive picture of the benefits and risks of anticancer therapies. Enabling the patients to feel during the last months of their lives more comfortable and not be dependent on their loved ones is a very important task in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Safety and efficacy analysis by histology of weekly nab-paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This analysis compared the efficacy and safety outcomes by histology of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus carboplatin (C) versus solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-P) plus C in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on preplanned stratification factors specified in the phase III trial protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with untreated stage III/IV NSCLC received 100 mg/m(2) nab-P weekly and C (area under the curve, AUC = 6) every 3 weeks (q3w) or 200 mg/m(2) sb-P plus C (AUC = 6) q3w. Primary end point was objective overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

nab-P/C versus sb-P/C produced a significantly higher ORR (41% versus 24%; response rate ratio [RRR] 1.680; P < 0.001) in patients with squamous cell (SCC) NSCLC. For nab-P/C versus sb-P/C, ORRs were 26% versus 27% (RRR 0.966; P = 0.814) in patients with adenocarcinoma, 33% versus 15% (RRR 2.167; P = 0.323) in patients with large cell carcinoma (LC), and 24% versus 15% (RRR 1.593; P = 0.372) in patients with not otherwise specified histology. Median overall survival for nab-P/C versus sb-P/C in patients with SCC was 10.7 versus 9.5 months (HR 0.890; P = 0.310), and 12.4 versus 10.6 months (HR 1.208; P = 0.721) for patients with LC. nab-P/C produced significantly (P < 0.05) less grade 3/4 neuropathy and arthralgia, whereas sb-P/C produced less thrombocytopenia and anemia.

CONCLUSION(S)

First-line nab-P/C demonstrated a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with NSCLC regardless of histology.

Lung adenocarcinoma in the era of targeted therapies: histological classification, sample prioritization, and predictive biomarkers

The arrival of targeted therapies has presented both a conceptual and a practical challenge in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). The relationship of these treatments with specific histologies and predictive biomarkers has made the handling of biopsies the key factor for success. In this study, we highlight the balance between precise histological diagnosis and the practice of conducting multiple predictive assays simultaneously. This can only be achieved where there is a commitment to multidisciplinary working by the tumor board to ensure that a sensible protocol is applied. This proposal for prioritizing samples includes both recent technological advances and the some of the latest discoveries in the molecular classification of NSCLCs.

Health-related quality of life questionnaires in lung cancer trials: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. Treatment goals are the relief of symptoms and the increase of overall survival. With the rising number of treatment alternatives, the need for comparable assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) parameters grows. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe measurement instruments applied in lung cancer patients under drug therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review at the beginning of 2011 using the electronic database Pubmed.

RESULTS

A total of 43 studies were included in the review. About 17 different measurement instruments were identified, including 5 generic, 5 cancer-specific, 4 lung cancer-specific and 3 symptom-specific questionnaires. In 29 studies at least 2 instruments were used. In most cases these were cancer and lung cancer-specific ones. The most frequently used instruments are the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer modules LC13 or LC17. Only 5 studies combined (lung) cancer-specific questionnaires with generic instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The EORTC-C30 and EORTC-LC13 are the most frequently used health-related quality of life measurement instruments in pharmacological lung cancer trials.

Tumor response and health-related quality of life in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with first-line gefitinib: post hoc analyses from the IPASS study

BACKGROUND

In IPASS (NCT00322452), progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) was significantly longer with first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in never/light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma in Asia, both in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup. To further characterize the clinical relevance of these data, we investigated objective response rate (ORR) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with gefitinib.

METHODS

Objective response was assessed (RECIST) 6-weekly (previously reported). Post hoc assessments included median time to response, median duration of response and change in tumor size. The analysis of response population included those patients treated with gefitinib who responded (n = 262 from ITT; n = 94 from EGFR mutation-positive subgroup). The percentage of patients with deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L], Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) and symptoms (Lung Cancer Subscale [LCS]) at 4 months post-randomization was analyzed according to progression status (EFQ population grouped by progressors/non-progressors in both treatment arms). The ORR (ITT) and incidence of skin rash/acne (evaluable-for-safety) were summarized.

RESULTS

In patients whose tumors responded to gefitinib, median time to response was 6.1 weeks in the ITT population (n = 262) and 6.0 weeks in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 94); median duration of response was 9.7 and 8.7 months in these groups, respectively. There was significant tumor shrinkage with gefitinib. A greater percentage of patients in the EFQ population whose tumors progressed experienced deterioration in HRQoL and symptoms at 4 months versus patients whose tumors did not progress (FACT-L 33.7% vs 16.3%; TOI 33.7% vs 13.2%; LCS 31.7% vs 15.5%). In the gefitinib arm of the EFS population, incidence of rash was 75.8% and 68.1% in EGFR mutation-positive and -negative subgroups, respectively (with ORR for the gefitinib arm of the ITT 71.2% vs 1.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients whose tumors responded to first-line gefitinib experienced significant tumor shrinkage and a rapid, durable response. Deterioration in HRQoL and lung cancer symptoms at 4 months post-randomization was found to be associated with tumor progression, highlighting the role of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of advanced NSCLC disease. Rash was not supported as a predictive marker of response to gefitinib.

Pemetrexed Versus Pemetrexed and Carboplatin As Second-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the GOIRC 02-2006 Randomized Phase II Study and Pooled Analysis With the NVALT7 Trial

Purpose

To compare efficacy of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin in pretreated patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Patients and Methods

Patients with advanced NSCLC, in progression during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed (arm A) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin (arm B). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A preplanned pooled analysis of the results of this study with those of the NVALT7 study was carried out to assess the impact of carboplatin added to pemetrexed in terms of overall survival (OS).

Results

From July 2007 to October 2009, 239 patients (arm A, n = 120; arm B, n = 119) were enrolled. Median PFS was 3.6 months for arm A versus 3.5 months for arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.36; P = .706). No statistically significant differences in response rate, OS, or toxicity were observed. A total of 479 patients were included in the pooled analysis. OS was not improved by the addition of carboplatin to pemetrexed (HR, 90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; P = .316; P heterogeneity = .495). In the subgroup analyses, the addition of carboplatin to pemetrexed in patients with squamous tumors led to a statistically significant improvement in OS from 5.4 to 9 months (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; P interaction test = .039).

Conclusion

Second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with pemetrexed plus carboplatin does not improve survival outcomes as compared with single-agent pemetrexed. The benefit observed with carboplatin addition in squamous tumors may warrant further investigation.

Optimizing the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a personal view

The management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (a-nsclc) is currently undergoing one of its rare paradigm shifts. Just as the nihilism of the 1970s gave way to the empiricism of the 1980s and 1990s, so the current decade has seen the first truly rational therapies based on informed design. In addition, molecular markers and traditional parameters can now be combined to provide a framework of knowledge that will guide the application of not just the new therapies, but also the older ones that remain effective. This framework—as important a component of the rational paradigm as the new drugs themselves are—is necessary to decide who should and, crucially, who should not receive the various components of this rapidly expanding armamentarium. Here, I have provided a historical overview of the drug treatment of a-nsclc, a mini-review of important new data, and an integrative approach that tries to ensure that patients receive the optimal treatment choice at the appropriate time.

The speed at which new knowledge now arrives, coupled with the persistent high level of unmet medical need, suggests that the traditional pace of evidence-based review needs to be accelerated. Indeed, the increased scope for personalized management constitutes something of a challenge to “business as usual” evidence-based medicine. As a result, substantial investment on the part of payers, which may or may not be possible, will be required. In the meantime, some patients may wish and may be financially able to take advantage of modern developments before they have been fully digested by the public-payer system. Responsive clinicians face difficult tradeoffs as they try to balance the pros and cons of early adoption versus excessive conservatism.

The present article is my personal view of how to navigate these waters, and although it is written especially for patients who like to be the captain of their own ship, there is good reason to believe that all patients will eventually be managed by similar, if not identical, means. Nonetheless, the recommendations herein should not be construed as appropriately reviewed provincial or national guidelines. Finally, if appropriate, a clinical trial should always be offered.

Vandetanib plus pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial

PURPOSE

Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 534) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 100 mg/d plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 256) or placebo plus pemetrexed (n = 278). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point; overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, time to deterioration of symptoms, and safety were secondary assessments.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in PFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 97.58% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; P = .108). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 97.54% CI, 0.65 to 1.13; P = .219). Statistically significant improvements in objective response rate (19% v 8%; P < .001) and time to deterioration of symptoms (HR, 0.71; P = .0052; median, 18.1 weeks for vandetanib and 12.1 weeks for placebo) were observed in patients receiving vandetanib. Adding vandetanib to pemetrexed increased the incidence of some adverse events, including rash, diarrhea, and hypertension, while showing a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, anemia, fatigue, and asthenia with no reduction in the dose intensity of pemetrexed.

CONCLUSION

This study did not meet the primary end point of statistically significant PFS prolongation with vandetanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed. The vandetanib combination showed a significantly higher objective response rate and a significant delay in the time to worsening of lung cancer symptoms versus the placebo arm as well as an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

Relationship between cytokine gene single nucleotide polymorphisms and symptom burden and quality of life in lung cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Previous research has demonstrated that many lung cancer survivors report difficulties with symptom control and experience a poor quality of life (QOL). Although recent studies have suggested a relationship of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in several cytokine genes with cancer susceptibility and prognosis, associations with symptom burden and QOL have not been examined. The current study was conducted to identify SNPs related to symptom burden and QOL outcomes in lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

All participants were enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Lung Cancer Cohort following diagnosis of lung cancer. A total of 1149 Caucasian lung cancer survivors completed questionnaires and had genetic samples available. The main outcome measures were symptom burden as measured by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and health-related QOL as measured by the Short-Form General Health Survey.

RESULTS

Twenty-one SNPs in cytokine genes were associated with symptom burden and QOL outcomes. Our results suggested both specificity and consistency of cytokine gene SNPs in predicting outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide support for genetic predisposition to QOL and symptom burden and may aid in identification of lung cancer survivors at high risk for symptom management and QOL difficulties.

The use of P63 immunohistochemistry for the identification of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung

Introduction

While some targeted agents should not be used in squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), other agents might preferably target SCCs. In a previous microarray study, one of the top differentially expressed genes between adenocarcinomas (ACs) and SCCs is P63. It is a well-known marker of squamous differentiation, but surprisingly, its expression is not widely used for this purpose. Our goals in this study were (1) to further confirm our microarray data, (2) to analize the value of P63 immunohistochemistry (IHC) in reducing the number of large cell carcinoma (LCC) diagnoses in surgical specimens, and (3) to investigate the potential of P63 IHC to minimize the proportion of “carcinoma NOS (not otherwise specified)” in a prospective series of small tumor samples.

Methods

With these goals in mind, we studied (1) a tissue-microarray comprising 33 ACs and 99 SCCs on which we performed P63 IHC, (2) a series of 20 surgically resected LCCs studied for P63 and TTF-1 IHC, and (3) a prospective cohort of 66 small thoracic samples, including 32 carcinoma NOS, that were further classified by the result of P63 and TTF-1 IHC.

Results

The results in the three independent cohorts were as follows: (1) P63 IHC was differentially expressed in SCCs when compared to ACs (p<0.0001); (2) half of the 20 (50%) LCCs were positive for P63 and were reclassified as SCCs; and (3) all P63 positive cases (34%) were diagnosed as SCCs.

Conclusions

P63 IHC is useful for the identification of lung SCCs.

Pretreatment quality of life is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer

HYPOTHESIS

We conducted this pooled analysis to assess the prognostic value of pretreatment Quality of Life (QOL) assessments on overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Four hundred twenty patients with advanced NSCLC (stages IIIB with pleural effusion and IV) from six North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials were included in this study. QOL assessments included the single-item Uniscale (355 patients), Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (217 patients), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (197 patients). QOL scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale with higher scores representing better status and categorized using the sample median or clinically deficient score (CDS, <or=50 versus >50). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by study were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of QOL on OS alone and in the presence of other prognostic factors such as performance status, age, gender, body mass index, and laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Pretreatment QOL accessed by Uniscale was significantly associated with OS univariately (p < 0.0001). Uniscale (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio = 1.6 for the sample median and 2.0 for the CDS categorization) and body mass index were the only significant predictors of OS multivariately. The median survival of patients who had a Uniscale score less than or equal to the CDS (<or=50) was 5.7 versus 11.1 months for the >50 group; and 7.8 versus 13 months for the less than or equal to sample median (<or=83) group and >83 group, respectively. The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung total scores were not significant predictors of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment QOL measured by Uniscale is a significant and an independent prognostic factor for OS, and QOL should be routinely integrated as a stratification factor in advanced NSCLC trials.

Tailoring treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer by tissue type: role of pemetrexed

Pemetrexed (ALIMTA, LY231514, MTA) is a novel multitargeted antifolate that is currently approved for the treatment of metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent evidence reveals that the drug's efficacy is limited to nonsquamous lung cancer histology. As we further understand the drug's mechanisms of action, new genomic and proteomic evidence is shedding light on why some patients respond while others do not. The first goal of this review is to briefly review pemetrexed's mechanism of action, resistance patterns, toxicity profile, and pharmacokinetics. We will also review the clinical trials that led to its use in NSCLC, with special attention to data showing that pemetrexed has greater efficacy in nonsquamous histologies of NSCLC. Furthermore, we will discuss the hypotheses for the genomic and proteomic basis for this variation in efficacy. Finally, we will report the future directions for pemetrexed as a personalized agent for nonsquamous NSCLC.

Assessing quality of life following neoadjuvant therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a prospective analysis using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS)

BACKGROUND

The assessment of the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on quality of life (QL) has rarely been prospectively planned and evaluated, although validated QL instruments are available-such as the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) used in this study. The modest but significant survival gains reported with neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches need to be viewed in terms of the added risks and toxicities associated with two or three modalities of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The objective was to compare patient-determined QL ratings from baseline (prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy) with those in subsequent months of follow-up. All patients had clinical stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and participated in one of two similar randomized protocols. Patients received preoperative chemotherapy (three cycles) of gemcitabine plus carboplatin or paclitaxel in one trial or gemcitabine plus carboplatin or cisplatin in the second. Patients completed the LCSS at baseline, every 3 weeks preoperatively, and every 3 months postoperatively up to 12 months.

RESULTS

Full QL data are available for 43 patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation and for 23 patients with evaluation at 1-year postsurgery. In patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation, 84% had an ECOG performance status of 0, 93% had a complete resection, and 67% (95% CI = 52, 81) of patients experienced improved or stable symptoms. A subgroup of patients (14 of 43) reported worsening of QL (33%). These patients experienced a mean worsening of 66% in individual symptom parameters, with an average of seven of nine LCSS symptom parameters declining.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients reported improved or stable QL. Prospectively planned QL assessment is feasible with neoadjuvant trials and adds useful information not otherwise attainable.