Docetaxel (75 mg m À2 3-weekly) is standard second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with significant toxicity. To verify whether a weekly schedule (33.3 mg m À2 for 6 weeks) improved quality of life (QoL), a phase III study was performed with 220 advanced NSCLC patients, p75 years, ECOG PS p2. QoL was assessed by EORTC questionnaires and the Daily Diary Card (DDC). No difference was found in global QoL scores at 3 weeks. Pain, cough and hair loss significantly favoured the weekly schedule, while diarrhoea was worse. DDC analysis showed that loss of appetite and overall condition were significantly worse in the 3-week arm in the first week, while nausea and loss of appetite were more severe in the weekly arm in the third week. Response rate and survival were similar, hazard ratio of death in the weekly arm being 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 -1.39). A 3-weekly docetaxel was more toxic for leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and hair loss; any grade 3 -4 haematologic toxicity was significantly more frequent in the standard arm (25 vs 6%). The weekly schedule could be preferred for patients candidate to receive docetaxel as second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC, because of some QoL advantages, lower toxicity and no evidence of strikingly different effect on survival.

Pain is a highly distressing symptom for patients with advanced cancer. WHO analgesic ladder is widely accepted as a guideline for its treatment. Our aim was to describe pain prevalence among patients diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), impact of pain on quality of life (QoL) and adequacy of pain management. Data of 1021 Italian patients enrolled in three randomised trials of chemotherapy for NSCLC were pooled. QoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13. Analgesic consumption during the 3 weeks following QoL assessment was recorded. Adequacy of pain management was evaluated by the Pain Management Index (PMI). Some pain was reported by 74% of patients (42% mild, 24% moderate and 7% severe); 50% stated pain was affecting daily activities (30% a little, 16% quite a bit, 3% very much). Bone metastases strongly affected presence of pain. Mean global QoL linearly decreased from 64.9 to 36.4 from patients without pain to those with severe pain (Po0.001). According to PMI, 616 out of 752 patients reporting pain (82%) received inadequate analgesic treatment. Bone metastases were associated with improved adequacy and worst pain with reduced adequacy at multivariate analysis. In conclusion, pain is common in patients with advanced NSCLC, significantly affects QoL, and is frequently undertreated. We recommend that: (i) pain self-assessment should be part of oncological clinical practice; (ii) pain control should be a primary goal in clinical practice and in clinical trials; (iii) physicians should receive more training in pain management; (iv) analgesic treatment deserves greater attention in protocols of anticancer treatment.

PurposeA phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens.MethodsThis multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1–5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint.ResultsOf 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference −3.6% (95% confidence interval, −13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0–24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2–5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116).ConclusionsPalonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

Reducing the charge of therapy in this population did not diminish the efficacy of treatment. Further studies with this strategy, including biologicals, are warranted.

Oxaliplatin/GEM (arm C) had similar activity to carboplatin/GEM (arm A), but milder hematological toxicity and may be worth testing in a phase III study against carboplatin/GEM in patients not suitable for cisplatin. The sequential regimen gave no additional benefit.

No abstract

Background: Recent guidelines do not recommend antithrombotic prophylaxis (AP) to prevent catheter-related thrombosis in cancer patients with a central line. Patients and methods:This study assessed the management of central lines in cancer patients, current attitude towards AP, catheter-related and systemic venous thromboses, and survival.Results: Of 1410 patients enrolled, 1390 were seen at least once in the 6-month median follow-up. Continuous AP, mainly low-dose warfarin, was given to 451 (32.4%); they were older, with a more frequent history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and more advanced cancer. There was no difference in catheter-related thrombosis in patients given AP or not (2.8% and 2.2%, odds ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.64-2.6). The median time to first catheter-related complication was 120 days. Systemic VTE including deep and superficial thromboses and pulmonary embolism, were less frequent with AP (4% versus 8.2%, P = 0.005). Mortality was also lower (25% versus 44%, P = 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis found only advanced cancer and no AP significantly associated with mortality. No major bleeding was recorded with AP.Conclusions: Current AP schedules do not appear to prevent catheter-related thrombosis. Systemic VTE and mortality, however, appeared lower after prophylaxis.

This randomised phase II study evaluates the safety and efficacy profile of uracil/tegafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX). One hundred and forty-three patients with measurable, non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomised in a multicentre study to receive TEGAFIRI (UFT 250 mg m À2 day days 1 -14, LV 90 mg day days 1 -14, irinotecan 240 mg m À2 day 1; q21) or TEGAFOX (UFT 250 mg m À2 day days 1 -14, LV 90 mg day days 1 -14, oxaliplatin 120 mg m À2 day 1; q21). Among 143 randomised patients, 141 were analysed (68 received TEGAFIRI and 73 TEGAFOX). The main characteristics of the two arms were well balanced. The most common grade 3 -4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (13% of cases with TEGAFIRI; 1% in the TEGAFOX group). Diarrhoea was prevalent in the TEGAFIRI arm (16%) vs TEGAFOX (4%). Six complete remission (CR) and 19 partial remission (PR) were recorded in the TEGAFIRI arm (odds ratio (OR): 41.7; 95% confidence limit (CL), 29.1 -55.1%), and six CR and 22 PR were recorded in the TEGAFOX group, (OR: 38.9; 95% CL, 27.6 -51.1). At a median time follow-up of 17 months (intequartile (IQ) range 12 -23), a median survival probability of 20 and 19 months was obtained in the TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX groups, respectively. Median time to progression was 8 months for both groups. TEGAFIRI and TEGAFOX are both effective and tolerable first-line therapies in MCRC patients. The employment of UFT/LV given in doublet combination is interesting and the presented data appear comparable to equivalent infusion regimens described in the literature. The safety profile of the two combinations also allows an evaluation with other biological agents such as monoclonal antibodies.