Summary Background Many randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook two comprehensive systematic reviews ...and meta-analyses to establish the effects of adding adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery, or to surgery plus radiotherapy. Methods We included randomised trials, not confounded by additional therapeutic differences between the two groups and that started randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1965, which compared surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone, or surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy. Updated individual patient data were collected, checked, and included in meta-analyses stratified by trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death by any cause. All analyses were by intention to treat. Findings The first meta-analysis of surgery plus chemotherapy versus surgery alone was based on 34 trial comparisons and 8447 patients (3323 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·81–0·92, p<0·0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% (95% CI 3–6) at 5 years (from 60% to 64%). The second meta-analysis of surgery plus radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy was based on 13 trial comparisons and 2660 patients (1909 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·81–0·97, p=0·009), representing an absolute improvement in survival of 4% (95% CI 1–8) at 5 years (from 29% to 33%). In both meta-analyses we noted little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics, or patient subgroup. Interpretation The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer improves survival, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was adjuvant to surgery alone or adjuvant to surgery plus radiotherapy. Funding UK Medical Research Council, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (AOM 05 209), Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis.
Background
To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non‐small cell ...lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010.
Objectives
To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence‐free survival:
A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy
B. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy
in patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.
(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin‐based chemotherapy in terms of survival.
Search methods
We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations.
Selection criteria
We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment.
Data collection and analysis
We carried out a quantitative meta‐analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow‐up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention‐to‐treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin‐based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status.
Main results
We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.
We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.
For both meta‐analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.
We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low.
Authors' conclusions
Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up‐to‐date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis that has been carried out.
Background: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit ...for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. Methods: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). Results: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. Conclusions: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.
Chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. We describe the two largest reported, randomized, parallel trials designed to determine whether the addition of chemotherapy ...influences duration and quality of life in localized, unresectable (mitomycin, ifosfamide, cisplatin MIC1 trial) and extensive (MIC2 trial) disease.
Ambulatory patients with NSCLC, aged 75 years or younger, with localized disease, were randomized in MIC1 to receive up to four cycles of chemotherapy (CT: mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3 g/m(2), and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2)) every 21 days, followed by radical radiotherapy (CT + RT) or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Extensive-stage patients were randomized in MIC2 to identical chemotherapy plus palliative care (CT + PC) or palliative care (PC) alone. Short-term change in quality of life (QOL) was assessed in a subgroup of patients. Data from the two trials were combined to allow multivariate and stratified survival analyses.
Seven hundred ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized, 446 in MIC1 and 351 in MIC2. MIC CT improved survival in both trials (significantly in MIC2). The median survival time in MIC1 was 11.7 months (CT + RT) versus 9.7 months (RT alone) (P =.14); whereas in MIC2, median survival time was 6.7 months (CT + PC) compared with 4. 8 months (PC alone) (P =.03). QOL, assessed in 134 patients from start of trial to week 6, showed improvement with chemotherapy and deterioration with standard treatment. In the combined analysis of 797 randomized patients, the positive effect of MIC on survival was significant overall (P =.01) and after adjusting for prognostic factors (P =.01).
MIC chemotherapy prolongs survival in unresectable NSCLC without compromising QOL.
Small-cell lung cancer has common association with paraneoplastic neurological disorders, including Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Favorable prognosis in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome and ...small-cell lung carcinoma is discussed.
A previous trial by the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) suggested that a short intensive chemotherapy regimen with doxorubicin and cisplatin might produce survival of operable, non-metastatic ...osteosarcoma similar to that obtained with complex and longer-duration drug regimens based on the widely used T10 multi-drug protocol. We undertook a randomised multicentre trial to compare these two approaches.
407 patients with operable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma were randomly assigned the two-drug regimen (six cycles 18 weeks of doxorubicin 25 mg/m
2
on days 1–3 and cisplatin 100 mg/m
2
on day 1) or a multi-drug regimen (preoperatively vincristine, high-dose methotrexate, and doxorubicin; postoperatively bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, dactinomycin, vincristine, methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin; this protocol took 44 weeks). Surgery was scheduled for week 9 for the two-drug group and week 7 for the multi-drug group. Analyses of survival and progression-free survival were by intention to treat.
Of 407 randomised patients, 391 were eligible and have been followed up for at least 4 years (median 5–6 years). Toxic effects were qualitatively similar with the two regimens. However, 188 (94%) of 199 patients completed the six cycles of two-drug treatment, whereas only 97 (51%) of 192 completed 18 or more of the 20 cycles of the multi-drug regimen. The proportion showing a good histopathological response (>90% tumour necrosis) to preoperative chemotherapy was about 29% with both regimens and was strongly predictive of survival. Overall survival was 65% at 3 years and 55% at 5 years in both groups (hazard ratio 0·94 95% Cl 0·69–1·27). Progression-free survival at 5 years was 44% in both groups (hazard ratio 1·01 0·77–1·33).
We found no difference in survival between the two-drug and multi-drug regimens in operable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma. The two-drug regimen is shorter in duration and better tolerated, and is therefore the preferred treatment. However, 5-year survival is still unsatisfactory and new approaches to treatment, such as dose intensification, are needed to improve results.
THE role of thoracic radiotherapy in the management of limited small-cell lung cancer remains controversial. Most investigators agree that it decreases the risk of thoracic recurrence significantly, ...but no agreement has been reached concerning its possible effect on survival.
1
Sixteen randomized trials have been conducted in the past 15 years, with inconsistent results (Appendix 2); thus, the controversy persists. If the heterogeneity of the patients studied is assumed not to be too great, there are three main possible explanations for the inconsistency: (1) that technical factors such as the radiation dose, tissue volume treated, drug administered, and timing of radiotherapy . . .
Oral etoposide is an active single agent in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and is widely prescribed as first-line treatment as an alternative to intravenous combination chemotherapy in patients with ...extensive disease.
The intention of this study was to determine if the effects of oral etoposide therapy on survival and quality of life are equivalent to those of intravenous chemotherapy.
In a randomized trial of palliative treatment in advanced SCLC, oral etoposide (100 mg given twice daily for 5 days) was compared with intravenous chemotherapy consisting of alternating cycles of cisplatin and etoposide (PE) and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV). Six cycles of chemotherapy were administered every 21 days in both regimens. Symptom control and quality of life were measured with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and a daily diary card. In January 1996, after 155 patients had been randomly assigned from a projected intake of 365 patients, an independent Data Monitoring Committee examined the interim results. Survival was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the logrank test was used to compare treatments. For quality-of-life comparisons, average scores were calculated for each time point. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine any significant overall differences between treatments. For the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, separate analyses were done for each subset (psychological well-being, physical symptoms, lung cancer symptoms, treatment symptoms, activity, and quality of life). Response rates and toxicity scores were compared by using chi2. All statistical tests were two-sided.
Survival was inferior at 1 year in the oral etoposide group compared with intravenous therapy (9.8% for oral versus 19.3% for intravenous; difference = 9.5%; 95% confidence interval of difference = 0.3%-18.7%; P<.05), and there was a trend toward inferior overall survival. Median survival was 4.8 months for oral treatment and 5.9 months for intravenous therapy. Progression-free survival was worse in the oral etoposide arm (median = 3.6 months versus 5.6 months; P<.001), as well as overall response rate (32.9% versus 46.3%; P<.01). With the exception of acute nausea and vomiting associated with intravenous chemotherapy, all aspects of symptom control and quality of life were either the same or worse in the oral etoposide group. Study closure was recommended.
These interim results show that this schedule of oral etoposide is inferior to intravenous chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced SCLC and should not be used as first-line treatment of this disease.
The aim of this study was to test an instrument which might be useful for doctors in explaining the randomisation procedure to an individual patient. The sample comprised 323 patients with cancer ...attending for out-patient appointments and/or chemotherapy treatment in two major cancer centres in the U.K. 315 patients completed a self-report questionnaire—The Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ). The results show that the majority of subjects 287 (91.1%) believe that patients should be asked to take part in medical research, but only 242 (76.8%) would be prepared to take part in a study comparing two treatments. If treatment was randomised, only 141 (44.8%) would agree to participate. When given further information about the randomisation procedure, 119 (68.4%) of the 174 (55.2%) who initially said ‘no’ to randomisation or who were unsure, would change their minds and take part in a trial. The ARTQ discriminated between three categories of patient with the following prevailing attitudes: (a) those who seem comfortable with the concept of randomisation; (b) those with some concerns, who with fuller explanation are prepared to consider randomisation; and (c) those firmly against randomisation and participation in trials whatever information is provided. Prior knowledge of patients’ attitudes might assist communication about trials and encourage more doctors to approach eligible patients.
Adolescent cancer is uncommon and presents an exceptional stress for the young patient and their parents. The emotional needs of adolescents with cancer are a major factor in the recommendation for ...the establishment of adolescent cancer units in major cancer centres in the U.K. However, there have been no prospective, longitudinal studies assessing the psychological impact of a diagnosis of cancer on the adolescent patient and their family. In 1994 we began a longitudinal study of the emotional impact of the diagnosis of cancer in patients and their families presenting to an adolescent cancer unit and of the coping strategies they employ. This first report presents the results of the study at the time of diagnosis in 42 adolescents, 34 mothers and 27 fathers. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to assess depression and anxiety levels were measured using Spielberger's State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Adolescents and their parents completed the questionnaires on first admission to the adolescent cancer unit. The median tune since cancer diagnosis was approximately 3 weeks. To provide normative data for the U.K. adolescent population, control values were obtained from 173 pupils of the same age and background. The results showed that, contrary to expectation, adolescents with cancer were no more anxious or depressed than the control adolescent population. Nevertheless, a substantial minority of patients and controls had elevated anxiety or depression scores. Girls were significantly more anxious (
P = 0.011) and depressed (
P < 0.0001) than boys. Mothers were the most anxious family members and were significantly more anxious than fathers (
P = 0.038). Parental anxiety scores, especially mothers, were much higher than reported norms. There was no significant difference between mothers' and fathers' depression scores. Although at the time of diagnosis adolescent cancer patients are not more anxious or depressed than their healthy peers, many adolescents without cancer are anxious or depressed. Staff on adolescent cancer units should therefore be aware of the frequency of emotional disturbance in this population. Mothers are the most anxious family members. Although the findings are relatively reassuring at the time of diagnosis, follow-up data from this cohort will show whether anxiety and depression change with treatment involving intensive chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy and will indicate the coping strategies which patients and their families adopt in dealing with both the disease and its treatment.