Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.

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.

We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Docetaxel (75 mg m À2 3-weekly) is standard second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with significant toxicity. To verify whether a weekly schedule (33.3 mg m À2 for 6 weeks) improved quality of life (QoL), a phase III study was performed with 220 advanced NSCLC patients, p75 years, ECOG PS p2. QoL was assessed by EORTC questionnaires and the Daily Diary Card (DDC). No difference was found in global QoL scores at 3 weeks. Pain, cough and hair loss significantly favoured the weekly schedule, while diarrhoea was worse. DDC analysis showed that loss of appetite and overall condition were significantly worse in the 3-week arm in the first week, while nausea and loss of appetite were more severe in the weekly arm in the third week. Response rate and survival were similar, hazard ratio of death in the weekly arm being 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 -1.39). A 3-weekly docetaxel was more toxic for leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and hair loss; any grade 3 -4 haematologic toxicity was significantly more frequent in the standard arm (25 vs 6%). The weekly schedule could be preferred for patients candidate to receive docetaxel as second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC, because of some QoL advantages, lower toxicity and no evidence of strikingly different effect on survival.