Time until definitive quality of life score deterioration as a means of longitudinal analysis for treatment trials in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Introduction
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fifth cause of death from cancer in Western countries with less than 5% of patients still living at 5 years.1 Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is the gold standard for the systemic treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer2 with a 5.6 month median overall survival (OS). Others trials with new therapeutic protocols3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 have failed to demonstrate any benefit in OS and one study has showed a modest but significant increase in OS when gemcitabine is combined with erlotinib.9 The 5FU, folinic acid and cisplatin combination (LV5FU2-P) is an alternative option but the optimal order of the regimens needed be evaluated. The Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive no. 0301 phase III trial was performed to compare LV5FU2-P followed by gemcitabine versus gemcitabine followed by LV5FU2-P. This trial did not show any benefit in survival whatever the sequence administration.10 The Food and Drug Administration reported that QoL is the main outcome to judge efficacy of treatment modalities when no OS differences are demonstrated.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Furthermore, because of the poor prognosis of advanced pancreatic cancer and the symptom burden, palliation and finding a balance between health-related quality of life (QoL) and OS in these therapeutic strategies is of paramount importance. Based on these therapeutic goals, Burris et al.2 used clinical benefit (definition based on pain and performance status) as the primary aim of the phase III trial to show that gemcitabine first-line therapy was the gold standard.
The primary aim of this study was to longitudinally compare QoL according to treatment sequence of the FFCD 0301 trial The secondary aim was to explore definitions of ‘time until definitive deterioration’ (TUDD) in the QoL score according to the ‘minimal clinically important difference’ (MCID) cut-off.
Section snippets
Method
The design of this study has been described in detail elsewhere.10
Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) patients with WHO performance status (PS) ⩽2 and a life expectancy >2 months were randomised 1:1 (minimisation) between Arm A, LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine after progression and Arm B gemcitabine followed by LV5FU-cisplatin after progression. Patients were stratified according to WHO PS (0, 1 versus 2), tumour localisation (head versus other) and participating institutions
Population
Between August 2003 and May 2006, 102 patients were included in Arm A (LV5FU2-cisplatin first line) and 100 patients were included in Arm B (Gemcitabine first line) with a median follow-up of 44 months (Fig. 1).
According to treatment arm patient characteristics were well balanced, details had been presented elsewhere.10
QoL scores at baseline and completion
As shown in Fig. 2, 179 patients (88.61%) completed the QoL questionnaire at baseline, 114 at the 1st follow-up, 83 at the 2nd and 57 at the 3rd. Age, sex, prior treatments, as
Discussion
Studies have shown that most oncologists or patients are unwilling to prolong survival at the expense of worsening QoL.25, 26 From this point of view, the results of QoL as a secondary end-point in the FFCD trial10 are important to analyse the impact of sequence line administration. Our study shows that LV5FU2-P followed by gemcitabine or the opposite sequence did not significantly influence longitudinal QoL in patients with MPA. Progression and tumour localisation other than in the head of the
Contributorship statement
Study concepts: F. Bonnetain, L. Dahan, J.F. Seitz, L. Bedenne, J.L. Legoux, P. Rougier, P. Hammel, M. Ychou, E. Mitry, B. Chauffert & L. Bedenne.
Study design: F. Bonnetain, L. Dahan, J.F. Seitz, L. Bedenne, J.L. Legoux, P. Rougier, P. Hammel, M. Ychou, E. Mitry, B. Chauffert & L. Bedenne.
Data acquisition: All authors.
Quality control of data and algorithms: F. Bonnetain, Emilie Maillard, L. Dahan & J.F. Seitz.
Data analysis and interpretation: F. Bonnetain, E. Maillard, L. Dahan, J.F. Seitz, P.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
References (38)
- et al.
Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with long-acting octreotide: a phase III multicentre, randomised, double blind placebo-controlled study
Eur J Cancer
(2009) - et al.
Multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing tamoxifen alone or with transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients (FFCD 9402)
Eur J Cancer
(2008) Cancer of the pancreas. 50 years of surgery
Cancer
(1987)- et al.
Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial
J Clin Oncol
(1997) - et al.
Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial
J Clin Oncol
(2005) - et al.
Phase III trial of bevacizumab in combination with gemcitabine and erlotinib in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer
J Clin Oncol
(2009) - et al.
Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate
J Clin Oncol
(2004) - et al.
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
(2003) - et al.
A randomized phase III study comparing gemcitabine + pemetrexed versus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
(2004) - et al.
Phase III study of gemcitabine plus cetuximab versus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: SWOG S0205 study
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
(2007)