Purpose: Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments. Patients and Methods: A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test. Results: Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Purpose: Information about symptomatic toxicities of anticancer treatments is not based on direct report by patients, but rather on reports by clinicians in trials. Given the potential for under-reporting, our aim was to compare reporting by patients and physicians of six toxicities (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, and hair loss) within three randomized trials. Patients and Methods: In one trial, elderly patients with breast cancer received adjuvant chemotherapy; in two trials, patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer received first-line treatment. Toxicity was prospectively collected by investigators (graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3]). At the end of each cycle, patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaires, including toxicity-related symptom items. Possible answers were “not at all,” “a little,” “quite a bit,” and “very much.” Analysis was limited to the first three cycles. For each toxicity, agreement between patients and physicians and under-reporting by physicians (ie, toxicity reported by patients but not reported by physicians) were calculated. Results: Overall, 1,090 patients (2,482 cycles) were included. Agreement between patients and physicians was low for all toxicities. Toxicity rates reported by physicians were always lower than those reported by patients. For patients who reported toxicity (any severity), under-reporting by physicians ranged from 40.7% to 74.4%. Examining only patients who reported “very much” toxicity, under-reporting by physicians ranged from 13.0% to 50.0%. Conclusion: Subjective toxicities are at high risk of under-reporting by physicians, even when prospectively collected within randomized trials. This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in clinical trials.

Purpose: Single-agent gemcitabine became standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after demonstration of superiority compared with fluorouracil. The Gruppo Italiano Pancreas 1 randomized phase III trial aimed to compare gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00813696).Patients and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 50, were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (arm A) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B). Arm A: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m²weekly for 7 weeks, and, after a 1-week rest, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Arm B: cisplatin 25 mg/m²added weekly to gemcitabine, except cycle 1 day 22. Primary end point was overall survival. To have 8% power of detecting a 0.74 hazard ratio (HR) of death, with bilateral α .05, 355 events were needed and 400 patients planned.Results: Four hundred patients were enrolled (arm A: 199; arm B: 201). Median age was 63, 59% were male, 84% had stage IV, and 83% had KPS ≥ 80. Median overall survival was 8.3 months versus 7.2 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.35; P = .38). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months versus 3.8 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.19; P = .80). The objective response rate was 10.1% in A and 12.9% in B (P = .37). Clinical benefit was experienced by 23.0% in A and 15.1% in B (P = .057). Combination therapy produced more hematologic toxicity, without relevant differences in nonhematologic toxicity.Conclusion: The addition of weekly cisplatin to gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any improvement as first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Tamoxifen has been the mainstay of hormonal therapy in both early and advanced breast cancer patients for approximately three decades. The availability of novel compounds such as aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and fulvestrant, with different mechanism of action, is changing the scenario of endocrine treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients. In this review article, we have summarized the current knowledge of the mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy, in order to derive information that might be useful for therapeutic intervention. We propose that resistance to endocrine therapy is a progressive, step-wise phenomenon induced by the selective pressure of hormonal agents, which leads breast cancer cells from an estrogen-dependent, responsive to endocrine manipulation phenotype to a non-responsive phenotype, and eventually to an estrogen-independent phenotype. In particular, evidence suggests for each ‘action’ introduced to block estrogen stimulation of breast cancer cells (i.e. treatment with anti-estrogen), there are one or more corresponding ‘reactions’ that tumor cells can use to escape our attempts to block their growth: estrogen hypersensitivity associated with increased transcriptional activity of estrogen receptor α (ERα) and/or increased non-genomic activity of ERα, estrogen supersensitivity, increased growth factor signaling, suppression of ERα expression and finally estrogen independence. Activation of growth factor signaling is involved in each step of this phenomenon, and might ultimately substitute estrogen in sustaining the growth and the survival of breast cancer cells. In this respect, results of pre-clinical and clinical studies with AIs, fulvestrant and signaling inhibitors sustain this hypothesis. More importantly, the knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the resistance of breast cancer cells to endocrine therapy offers potential for novel therapeutic strategies.