BACKGROUND: We evaluate trade-offs between quality of life (QoL) and survival improvement for two chemotherapy regimens in advanced breast cancer. We also report on the long-term survival of patients in the ANZ 8614 clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 391 patients were randomized to mitoxantrone (14 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days) or a combination of cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) and prednisone 40 mg/m(2) orally days 1 to 14 plus methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) intravenously days 1 and 8 every 28 days (CMFP). QoL was self-assessed on 14 linear analog scales. We computed the mean differences between the two treatments as products of the mean differences in global QoL, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: CMFP led to a higher overall tumor response (39% vs. 25%, P=0.004) and longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.6 vs 3.9 months, P=0.02) but with significantly more toxicity from alopecia, mucositis, diarrhea, anemia and lethargy. Overall survival (OS) was similar in the two groups (median 10.1 vs 11.6 months, P=0.81). QoL over the first 12 weeks was rated better by patients on CMFP for mood (P=0.04), nausea and vomiting (P=0.01), and feeling sick (P=0.02) but worse for hair loss (P<0.0001). A weighted combination of individual QoL items favoured CMFP (subset score mean difference 2.4, P=0.03). A global QoL score tended to favour CMFP (global score mean difference 1.7, P=0.18). Quality-adjusted PFS was significantly longer with CMFP (mean 7.208 vs 5.965 months, P=0.04), but quality-adjusted OS was not significantly different (mean 11.832 vs 11.315 months, P=0.57). CONCLUSION: Despite the greater toxicity, the superior antitumor activity of CMFP led to an overall improvement in quality-adjusted PFS. In advanced breast cancer, in clinical decision making about treatment for palliative intent, the principle used to assess trade-offs between antitumor efficacy and toxicity remains relevant and applicable to all modern therapeutic agents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: