Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 233–243 | Cite as

Quality of life in randomized trials of cytotoxic or hormonal treatment of advanced breast cancer. Is there added value?

  • Roldano Fossati
  • Carlo Confalonieri
  • Paola Mosconi
  • Vanna Pistotti
  • Giovanni Apolone
Article

Abstract

Background. Since most advanced cancers are still incurable, oncologic clinical research pays considerable attention to palliation, increasingly valuing subjective measures of outcome such as quality of life (QoL). We reviewed randomised clinical trials (RCT) of cytotoxic or hormonal treatments in advanced breast cancer (ABC), published before December 2003, to evaluate the methodological quality of QoL assessment and assess its added value (over classical clinical endpoints (CCE), i.e. survival, response, time to progression, toxicity) in the choice of the best treatment option.

Methods. RCTs were classified according to treatment characteristics and the CCEs. A descriptive analysis was based on the methodological aspects of QoL assessment and the clinical value of QoL findings was judged by counting the frequency of reporting in the study abstracts and the assessment of QoL combined with CCEs.

Results. We retrieved 33 eligible RCTs (10,791 patients); only 20 reported the number of patients considered in QoL principal analysis and only 69% of randomized patients were included in such analyses. A total of 17 different QoL questionnaires were used, 11 only once. QoL assessment lasted from less than 12 weeks to progression, and timing of questionnaires from 2 to 12 weeks. Compliance rates were 85.7% for baseline forms and 67% for overall assessment, but this information was available for only 18 and 20 trials, respectively. Wide variability emerged in analysis strategies and statistical approaches. QoL findings were reported in 12 study abstracts (37% of patients). Eight studies reported a significant difference in QoL scores but since QoL data often failed to parallel the clinical findings (e.g. better QoL scores were reported in two of 17 trials with better CCEs and in six of 20 with significant differences in toxicity profiles), the QoL added value was difficult to ascertain and, on the whole, only moderate.

Conclusion. In ABC trials, QoL assessment added relatively little value to CCEs in helping select the best treatment option, apparently largely because of sub-optimal methodological standards.

advanced breast cancer cytotoxic-hormonal treatment quality of life 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tassinari D:Surrogate end points of quality of life assessment:have we really found what we are looking for?Health Qual Life Outcomes 1 (1):71,2003Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL:Measuring health related quality of life.Ann Intern Med 118:622–629,1993Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bottomley A, Therasse P:Quality of life in patients undergoing systemic therapy for advanced breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 3:620–628,2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goodwin PJ, Black JT, Bordeleau LJ, Ganz PA:Health-related quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer-taking stock.J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 263–281,2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P et al.:Patient reported outcomes:the example of health related quality of life-a European guidance for the improved integration of HRQoL assessment in the drug regulatory process.Drug Inf J 36:209–238,2002Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jadad AR:Randomized controlled trias.A user 's guide. BMJ Books,BMA House,Tavistock Square,London WC1H 9JR,1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bennet JM, Muss HB, Doroshow JH et al.:A randomized multicenter trial comparing mitoxantrone,cyclophospha-mide,and uorouracil with doxorubicin,cyclophospha-mide,and uorouracil in the therapy of metastatic breast carcinoma.J Clin Oncol 6:1611–1620,1988Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernhard J, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Hsu Schmitz SF et al.: Quality of life in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer after failure of tamoxifen:formestane versus meges-trol acetate as second-line hormonal treatment.Eur J Cancer 35:913–920,1999Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertsch LA and Donaldson G:Quality of life analyses from vinorelbine (Navelbine)clinical trials of women with metastatic breast cancer.Semin Oncol22(Suppl 5):45–54,1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bishop JF, Dewar J, Toner GC et al.:Initial paclitaxel improves outcome compared with CMFP combination chemotherapy as front-line therapy in untreated metastatic breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 17:2355–2364,1999Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brufman G, Colatori E, Ghilezan N et al.:Doubling epirubicin dose intensity (100 mg/m2versus 50 mg/m2)in the FEC regimen signi cantly increases response rates.An international randomised phase III study in metastatic breast cancer.Ann Oncol 8:155–162,1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buzdar AU, Jones SE, Vogel CL et al.:A phase III trial comparing anastrozole (1 and 10 milligrams),a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor,with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 79:730–739,1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D et al.:Prospective rando-mised trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 17:2341–2354, 1999Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coates A, Gebski V, Stat M et al.:Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.A comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies.N Engl J Med 317:1490–1495,1987Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coates A, Gebski V:Quality of life studies of the Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trial Group:approaches to missing data.Statist Med 17:533–540,1998Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dombernowsky P, Falkson SG, Leonard R et al.:Letro-zole,a new oral aromatase inhibitor for advanced breast cancer:double-blind randomised trial showing a dose effect and improved e.cacy and tolerability compared with megestrol acetate.J Clin Oncol 16:453–461,1998Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fraser SCA, Dobbs HJ, Ebbs SR et al.:Combination or mild single agent chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer? CMF vs epirubicin measuring quality of life.Br J Cancer 67:402–406,1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goss PE, Winer EP, Tannock IF et al.:Randomised phase III trial comparing the new potent and selective third-generation aromatase inhibitor vorozole with Megestrol acetate in postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 17:52–63,1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hakamies-Blomqvist L, Luoma ML, Sjostrom J et al.: Quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving either docetaxel or sequential methotrexate and 5-uorouracil.A multicentre randomised phase III trial by the Scandinavian Breast Group.Eur J Cancer 36:1411–1417,2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harper-Wynne C, English J, Meyer L et al.:Randomized trial to compare the e.cacy and toxicity of cyclophospha-mide,methotrexate and 5-uorouracil (CMF)with meth-otrexate mitoxantrone (MM)in advanced carcinoma of the breast.Br J Cancer 81:316–322,1999Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayes DF, Van Zyl JA, Hacking A et al.:Randomised comparison of tamoxifen and two separate doses of toremifene in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 13:2556–2566,1995Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heidemann E, Souchon R, Stoger H et al.:First-line monochemotherapy with mitoxantrone versus combination with.uorouracil,epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in high-risk metastatic breast cancer:a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial.Onkologie 23:54–59,2000Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jassem J, Pienkowski T, Pluzanska A et al.:Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus.uorouracil,doxorubicin,and cyclo-phosphamide as rst-line therapy for women with meta-static breast cancer:nal results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial.J Clin Oncol 19:1707–1715,2001Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Joensuu H, Holli K, Heikkinen M et al.:Combination chemotherapy versus single-agent therapy as rst-and second-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer:a pro-spective randomized trial.J Clin Oncol 16:3720–3730,1998Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones S, Winer E, Vogel C et al.:Randomized comparison of vinorelbine and melphalan in anthracycline-refractory advanced breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 13:2567–2574, 1995Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonat W, Howell A, Blomqvist C et al.:A randomized trial comparing two doses of the new selective aromatase inhibitor anastrozole (Arimidex)with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer.Eur J Cancer32A:404–412,1996Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaufmann M, Bajetta E, Dirix LY et al.:Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double-blind trial.J Clin Oncol18:1399–1411,2000Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kloke O, Klaassen U, Oberho C et al.:Maintenance treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate in patients with advanced breast cancer responding to chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial.Breast Cancer Res Treat 55: 51–59,1999Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kornblith AB, Hollis DR, Zuckerman E et al.:Effect of megestrol acetate on quality of life in a dose-response trial in women with advanced breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 11: 2081–2089,1993Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M et al.:Randomised trial of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as rst-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer:quality of life evaluation using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist.Eur J Cancer 36:1488–1497,2000Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kramer JA, Curran D, Piccart M et al.:Identifcation and interpretation of clinical and quality of life prognostic factors for survival and response to treatment in rst-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer.Eur J Cancer 36: 1498–1506,2000Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nabholtz J-M, Senn HJ, Bezwoda WR et al.:Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pro-gressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemo-therapy.J Clin Oncol 17:1413–1424,1999Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norris B, Pritchard KI, Myles J et al.:Phase III compar-ative study of vinorelbine combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in disseminated metastatic/recur-rent breast cancer:National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA8.J Clin Oncol 18:2385–2394,2000Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paridaens R, Biganzoli L, Bruning P et al.:Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as rst-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer:a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized study with cross-over.J Clin Oncol 18:724–733,2000Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riccardi A, Tinelli C, Brugnatelli S et al.:Doubling of the epirubicin dosage within the 5-.uorouracil epirubicin and cyclophosphamide regimen:a prospective,randomized, multicentric study on antitumor effect and quality of life in advanced breast cancer.Inter J Oncol 16:769–776,2000Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richards MA, Hopwood P, Ramirez AJ et al.:Doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer:in.uence of schedule on response,survival and quality of life.Eur J Cancer28A: 1023–1028,1992Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart DJ, Evans WK, Shepherd FA et al.:Cyclophos-phamide and.uorouracil combined with mitoxantrone versus doxorubicin for breast cancer:superiority of doxo-rubicin.J Clin Oncol 15:1897–190,1997Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sjostrom J, Blomqvist C, Mouridsen H et al.:Docetaxel compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-.uorouracil in patients with advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure:a randomised phase III study with crossover on progression by the Scandinavian Breast Group.Eur J Cancer 35:1194–1201,1999Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tannock IF, Boyd NF, DeBoer G et al.:A randomised trial of two dose levels of cyclophosphamide,methotrexate,and uorouracil chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 6:1377–1387,1988Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Heidemann E, Stoeger H, Souchon R et al.:Is rst-line single-agent mitoxantrone in the treatment of high-risk metastatic breast cancer patients as effective as combination chemotherapy?No difference in survival but higher quality of life were found in a multicenter randomised trial.Ann Oncol 13:1717–1729,2002Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P et al.:Phase III trial of doxorubicin,paclitaxel,and the combination of doxorubi-cin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer:an Intergroup trial (E1193).J Clin Oncol 21: 588–592,2003Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nabholtz JM, Falkons C, Campos D et al.:Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophos-phamide as rst-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer:results of a randomized,multicenter,phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 21:968–975,2003Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE et al.:Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the e.cacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy:results of a North American trial.J Clin Oncol 20: 3386–3395,2002Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Howell A, Roberstron JFR, Quaresma Albano J et al.: Fulvestrant,formerly ICI 182,780,is as effective as anas-trozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment.J Clin Oncol 20:3396–3403,2002Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cardoso S, Di Leo A, Lohrisch C et al.:Second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer:what did we learn in the last two decades?Ann Oncol 13:197–207,2002Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ramirez AJ, Towlson KE, Leaning MS et al.:Do patients with advanced breast cancer bene t from chemotherapy?Br J Cancer 78:1488–1494,1998Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D et al.:Prognostic value of Quality-of-Life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 10:1833–1838,1992Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bernhard J, Thurlimann B, Hsu Schmitz S-F et al.:De ning clinical bene t in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer under second-line endocrine treatment:does qualitàof life matter?J Clin Oncol 17:1672–1679, 1999Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kaasa S, Mastekaasa A, Naess S:Quality of life of lung cancer patients in a randomized clinical trial evaluated by psychosocial well-being questionnaire.Ann Oncol 27:335–342,1988Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Glimelius B, Ho.mar K, Olafsdottir M et al.:Quality of life during cytostatic therapy for advanced symptomatic colo-rectal carcinoma:a randomised comparison of two regi-mens.Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 25:829–835,1989Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Apolone G et al.:Does a drug do better when is new?Ann Oncol 13:470–473,2002Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Coates AS, Hurny C, Peterson HF et al.:Quality-of-life scores predict outcome in metastatic but not early breast cancer.J Clin Oncol 18:3768–3774,2000Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McEvoy MD, McCorkle R:Quality of life issues in patients with disseminated breast cancer.Cancer 66:1416–1421, 1990Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Seidman AD, Portenoy R, Yao T-J et al.:Quality of life in phase II trials:a study of methodology and predictive value in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with paclitaxel plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1316–1322,1995Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cohen L, de Moor C, Amato RJ:The association between treatment-speci c optimism and depressive symtomatology in patients enrolled in a phase I cancer clinical trial.Cancer 91:1949–1955,2001Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hakamies-Blomqvist L,Luoma M-L,Sjostrom J et al.: Timing of quality of life (QoL)assessments as a source of error in oncological trails.J Adv Nursing 35:709–716, 2001Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bernhard J, Cella DF, Coates A et al.:Missing quality of data in cancer clinical trials:serious problems and chal-lenges.Statist Med 17:517–532,1998Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fairclough DL, Gelber RD:Quality of life:statistical issues and analysis.In:Spilker B,(ed.)Quality of life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials.Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia,pp.427–436,1996Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Simes J, Greatorex V, Gebski VJ:Practical approaches to minimize problems with missing quality of life data.Statist Med 17:725–737,1998Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fairclough DL, Peterson HF, Cella D et al.:Comparison of several model-based methods for analysing incomplete quality of life data in cancer clinical trials.Statist Med 17: 781–796,1998Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Winer EP:Quality-of-life research in patients with breast cancer.Cancer 74:410–415,1994Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cote I, Gregoire JP, Moisan J:Health-related quality of life measurement in hypertension.Pharmacoeconomics 18: 435–450,2000Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Apolone G, De Carli G, Brunetti M et al.:Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL)and regulatory issues.An assessment of the European Agency for the Evaluation for Medicinal Products (EMEA)recommendations on the use of HR-QOL measures in drug approval.Pharmaeco-nomics 19:187–195,2001Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    European Medicines Evaluation Agency.Note for guidance on evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. CPMP/EWP/205/95 rev.1 http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/hu-man/ewp/020595en.pdfGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Beitz J, Gnecco C, Justice R:Quality-of-Life end points in cancer clinical trial:the U.S.Food and Drug administration perspective.Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 20:7–9,1996Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Carelle N, Piotto E, Bellanger A et al.:Changing patient perceptions of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer 95:155–163,2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roldano Fossati
    • 1
  • Carlo Confalonieri
    • 2
  • Paola Mosconi
    • 2
  • Vanna Pistotti
    • 2
  • Giovanni Apolone
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Oncology, Laboratory of Clinical Research in OncologyIstituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario NegriItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri ”Italy

Personalised recommendations