Search

Background: Evidence on adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer is poor. We tested whether weekly docetaxel is more effective than standard chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: We carried out a multicenter, randomized phase III study. Women aged 65-79, operated for breast cancer, with average to high risk of recurrence, were allocated 1 : 1 to CMF (cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m², methotrexate 40 mg/m², fluorouracil 600 mg/m², days 1, 8) or docetaxel (35 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15) every 4 weeks, for four or six cycles according to hormone receptor status. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). A geriatric assessment was carried out. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed with EORTC C-30 and BR-23 questionnaires., Results: From July 2003 to April 2011, 302 patients were randomized and 299 (152 allocated CMF and 147 docetaxel) were eligible. After 70-month median follow-up, 109 DFS events were observed. Unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of DFS for docetaxel versus CMF was 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.76, P = 0.32]; DFS estimate at 5 years was 0.69 with CMF and 0.65 with docetaxel. HR of death was 1.34 (95% CI 0.80-2.22, P = 0.26). There was no interaction between treatment arms and geriatric scales measuring patients' ability or comorbidities. Hematological toxicity, mucositis and nausea were worse with CMF; allergy, fatigue, hair loss, onychopathy, dysgeusia, diarrhea, abdominal pain, neuropathy, cardiac and skin toxicity were worse with docetaxel. One death was attributed to CMF and two to docetaxel. Increasing age, impairment in instrumental daily living activities, number of comorbidities and docetaxel treatment were independently associated with severe nonhematological toxicity. QoL was worse with docetaxel for nausea-vomiting, appetite loss, diarrhea, body image, future perspective, treatment side-effects and hair loss items., Conclusions: Weekly docetaxel is not more effective than standard CMF as adjuvant treatment of older women with breast cancer and worsens QoL and toxicity., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00331097., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: To measure bone mineral density (BMD) reduction produced by letrozole as compared with tamoxifen and the benefit of the addition of zoledronic acid., Patients and Methods: A phase 3 trial comparing tamoxifen, letrozole or letrozole+zoledronic acid in patients with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer was conducted; triptorelin was given to premenopausal patients. Two comparisons were planned: letrozole versus tamoxifen and letrozole+zoledronic acid versus letrozole. Primary end point was the difference in 1-year change of T-score at lumbar spine (LTS) measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scan., Results: Out of 483 patients enrolled, 459 were available for primary analyses. Median age was 50 (range 28-80). The estimated mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in 1-year change of LTS was equal to -0.30 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.17) in the letrozole versus tamoxifen comparison (P<0.0001) and to +0.60 (95% CI +0.46 to +0.77) in the letrozole+zoledronic acid versus letrozole comparison (P<0.0001). Bone damage by letrozole decreased with increasing baseline body mass index in premenopausal, but not postmenopausal, patients (interaction test P=0.004 and 0.47, respectively)., Conclusions: In the HOBOE (HOrmonal BOne Effects) trial, the positive effect of zoledronic acid on BMD largely counteracts damage produced by letrozole as compared with tamoxifen. Letrozole effect is lower among overweight/obese premenopausal patients.

The elderly and patients with Performance Status (PS) of 2, constitute the so-called special patient population. The tolerability of chemotherapy in this population is globally worse, and treatment approaches should be different. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is currently recommended as the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its role in special patient population is controversial. The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC is still debated. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. However, the role of platin-based chemotherapy needs to be defined in prospective randomised trials. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) should be the recommended option for non-selected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Also for PS2 patients there is no consensus on standard treatment. On the basis of current evidence, chemotherapy treatment appears justified for patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. Single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) could be the preferred option, although carboplatin-based or low-dose cisplatin-based doublets may represent alternative options. Stronger evidence is expected from new clinical research specifically focused on PS2 patients. High priority should be given to the evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of platinum-based combinations and role of new targeted therapies.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer deaths in both men and women worldwide and has a poor prognosis. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents approximately 80% of all lung cancers. Surgery is the only curative treatment of NSCLC but only 15-20% of tumours can be radically resected with a survival of about 40% at 5 years. Considering these disappointing results NSCLC is one of the most frequent subjects of clinical research worldwide. Italy is playing an important role in the clinical research of NSCLC performing phase I, II and III trials, prevalently by cooperative groups, and achieving important results that contributed to define the standard treatment for NSCLC patients. In particular, Italy is leader in the clinical research of the treatment of advanced NSCLC elderly patients. Today, large controlled clinical trials are ongoing. In this paper we analyse and discuss the main trials performed by Italian groups in the fields of NSCLC.