Search

Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We aimed to assess disease-free survival and overall survival after a median follow-up of 4 years for patients enrolled on the Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial., Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We aimed to assess disease-free survival and overall survival after a median follow-up of 4 years for patients enrolled on the Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial., Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: Mitoxantrone plus prednisone reduces pain and improves the quality of life in men with advanced, hormone-refractory prostate cancer, but it does not improve survival. We compared such treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone in men with this disease. METHODS: From March 2000 through June 2002, 1006 men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer received 5 mg of prednisone twice daily and were randomly assigned to receive 12 mg of mitoxantrone per square meter of body-surface area every three weeks, 75 mg of docetaxel per square meter every three weeks, or 30 mg of docetaxel per square meter weekly for five of every six weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were pain, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, and the quality of life. All statistical comparisons were against mitoxantrone. RESULTS: As compared with the men in the mitoxantrone group, men in the group given docetaxel every three weeks had a hazard ratio for death of 0.76 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.94; P=0.009 by the stratified log-rank test) and those given weekly docetaxel had a hazard ratio for death of 0.91 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.11; P=0.36). The median survival was 16.5 months in the mitoxantrone group, 18.9 months in the group given docetaxel every 3 weeks, and 17.4 months in the group given weekly docetaxel. Among these three groups, 32 percent, 45 percent, and 48 percent of men, respectively, had at least a 50 percent decrease in the serum PSA level (P<0.001 for both comparisons with mitoxantrone); 22 percent, 35 percent (P=0.01), and 31 percent (P=0.08) had predefined reductions in pain; and 13 percent, 22 percent (P=0.009), and 23 percent (P=0.005) had improvements in the quality of life. Adverse events were also more common in the groups that received docetaxel. CONCLUSIONS: When given with prednisone, treatment with docetaxel every three weeks led to superior survival and improved rates of response in te

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline quality of life (QoL) and changes in QoL scores from baseline are prognostic for time to progression (TTP) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced breast cancer receiving docetaxel (T) or sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Survival curves and probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both the univariate and multivariate analyses to explore relationships between baseline QoL variables and TTP, as well as OS. In the univariate analysis, more severe pain and fatigue at baseline were predictive for a shorter OS; global QoL, physical functioning and appetite loss had a borderline significance (P=0.0130 for global QoL; P=0.0256 for physical functioning: P=0.0149 for appetite loss). World Health Organization (WHO) performance status was significantly predictive for OS. In the multivariate analysis, more severe pain at baseline was predictive for a shorter OS. In contrast, baseline QoL had no prognostic value for the duration of TTP. QoL change scores from baseline QoL predicted neither OS nor TTP. Our findings suggest that while QoL measurements are important in evaluating patients' QoL, they have no great importance in predicting primary clinical endpoints such as TTP or OS in advanced breast cancer patients.

The aim of this study was to study the relationship between physician-assessed quality of life parameters, i.e., toxicity and physical performance, and patients' self-reports of their quality of life (QoL). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. The WHO performance score (PS) and toxicity were assessed in physician interviews. The correlations between the WHO PS and the QLQ-C30 functioning scale scores varied from weak to moderate, depending on the scale. Strongest associations were found in physical-, social-, and role functioning, and in the global QoL. The QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea scales correlated moderately to corresponding WHO scores. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the contribution of WHO PS and toxicity variables to the global QoL. The best model explained only 16% of the variance of the global QoL score. The present findings highlight the importance of independent QoL assessments focused on those aspects of QoL not captured in clinical interviews with the physician.

The aim of this study was to study the relationship between physician-assessed quality of life parameters, i.e., toxicity and physical performance, and patients' self-reports of their quality of life (QoL). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. The WHO performance score (PS) and toxicity were assessed in physician interviews. The correlations between the WHO PS and the QLQ-C30 functioning scale scores varied from weak to moderate, depending on the scale. Strongest associations were found in physical-, social-, and role functioning, and in the global QoL. The QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea scales correlated moderately to corresponding WHO scores. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the contribution of WHO PS and toxicity variables to the global QoL. The best model explained only 16% of the variance of the global QoL score. The present findings highlight the importance of independent QoL assessments focused on those aspects of QoL not captured in clinical interviews with the physician.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To produce an empirical estimate of the nature and magnitude of the error produced by incorrect timing quality of life (QoL) measurements in patients receiving chemotherapy. DESIGN: In a multicentre trial, 283 patients were randomized to receive either docetaxel (T) or sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF). The QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). The study design was retrospective. Data were analysed using t-tests. RESULTS: Erroneous timing affected the QoL findings in both treatment arms. At baseline, there were statistically significant differences in the MF group on the nausea/vomiting scale, with ill-timed assessment showing more symptoms, and in the T group on the physical functioning scale with ill-timed assessments indicating better QoL. The mean scores of correct vs. incorrect timings over the first 14 cycles showed statistically significant differences on several scales. In the MF group, ill-timed assessments indicated significantly worse physical functioning and global QoL, and significantly more of the following symptoms: fatigue, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation. In the T group, ill-timed assessment showed better physical functioning, less dyspnoea and more insomnia than correctly timed assessments. The reasons for erroneous timing were not always detectable retrospectively. However, in some cases the MF group, being in standard treatment, seemed to have followed a clinical routine not involving the active participation of the study nurse responsible, whereas patients in the experimental T group were more consistently taken care of by the study nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Incorrect timing of QoL assessments in oncological trials jeopardises both the reliability of the QoL findings within treatment and the validity of QoL outcome comparisons between treatments. This issue shou

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of two alternative chemotherapy regimes on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with advanced breast cancer. In a multicentre trial, 283 patients were randomised to receive either docetaxel (T) or sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Initial compliance in the QoL study was 96% and the overall compliance 82%. QoL data were available for 245 patients (T 130 and 115 MF). Both treatment groups showed some improvement in emotional functioning during treatment, with a significant difference favouring the MF group at treatment cycles 5 and 6. In the T group, the scores on the other functional scales remained stable throughout the first six cycles. There were significant differences favouring the MF group on the social functioning scale at treatment cycle 6 and on the Global QoL scale at treatment cycles 5 and 6. On most symptom and single-item scales there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, at baseline, the T patients reported more appetite loss, at treatment cycles 2-4, the MF patients reported more nausea/vomiting, and at treatment cycle 6, the T patients reported more symptoms of fatigue, dyspnoea and insomnia. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the mean change scores of the functional and symptom scales. Interindividual variance was, however, larger in the T group. Differences in QoL between the two treatment groups were minor. Hence, given the expectancy of comparable QoL outcomes, the choice of treatment should be made on the basis of the expected clinical effect.