nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin induction in squamous NSCLC: longitudinal quality of life while on chemotherapy

Background: Longitudinal data on the impact of treatment on quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. In this palliative setting, treatment that does not deteriorate QoL is key. Here we report longitudinal QoL in patients with squamous NSCLC, receiving ≤4 cycles of Methods: Patients received Results: Two-hundred and six lesion-response-evaluable patients completed baseline + ≥1 postbaseline QoL assessment and were QoL evaluable. LCSS average total score and symptom burden index improved from baseline throughout four cycles. In the LCSS pulmonary symptoms score, 46% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 mm visual analog scale) from baseline. Individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions remained stable/improved in ≥83% of patients; ≈33% reported complete resolution of baseline problems at least once during four cycles. Generally, responders (unconfirmed complete/partial response) had higher scores vs nonresponders. Conclusion: In patients with squamous NSCLC, four cycles o

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: A phase III, randomized, open-label trial

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for 65 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected] RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs. CONCLUSION: The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cance