Expanding Beyond Maximum Grade: Chemotherapy Toxicity over Time by Age and Performance Status in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CALGB 9730 (Alliance A151729)

Abstract

Background. Prior comparisons of chemotherapy adverse events (AEs) by age and performance status (PS) are limited by the traditional maximum grade approach, which ignores low-grade AEs and longitudinal changes. Materials and Methods. To compare fatigue and neuropathy longitudinally by age (<65, ≥65 years) and PS (0-1, 2), we analyzed data from a large phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CALGB 9730, n = 529). We performed multivariable (a) linear mixed models to estimate mean AE grade over time, (b) linear regression to estimate area under the curve (AUC), and (c) proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio of developing grade ≥2 AE, as well as traditional maximum grade analyses. Results. Older patients had on average a 0.17-point (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00-0.34; p = .049) higher mean fatigue grade longitudinally compared with younger patients. PS 2 was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.27; p = .02). For neuropathy, older age was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 neuropathy (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00-1.97; p = .049). Patients with PS 2 had a 1.30 point lower neuropathy AUC (95% CI, −2.36 to −0.25; p = .02) compared with PS 0-1. In contrast, maximum grade analyses only detected a higher percentage of older adults with grade ≥3 fatigue and neuropathy at some point during treatment. Conclusion. Our comparison of complementary but distinct aspects of chemotherapy toxicity identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy by age and PS that are missed by the traditional maximum grade approach. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00003117 (CALGB 9730

Tolerability of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in a phase 3 clinical trial with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer: A trajectory analysis of adverse events

“…In addition to the standard high‐grade events (grade 3 or higher), grade 1 and 2 AEs were also included. It has been shown that the high‐grade approach may miss important details of how patients experience the cumulative toxicity burden that contributes to overall treatment tolerability and HRQOL 17,18 . Our findings from the sensitivity analysis indeed suggest that the high‐grade‐only approach is not predictive of outcomes such as early treatment discontinuation.…”

Serum cytokine levels and other associated factors as possible immunotherapeutic targets and prognostic indicators for lung cancer

“…Young individuals with advanced phase IIIB or IV (NSCLC) are being studied for their prognosis and outcomes. However, frequently, they are underrepresented in clinical trials, and older people (those over 65) with cancer have a high rate of cancer diagnoses ( 120 ). A randomized trial comparing the finest psychosocial support for individuals under 70 with adjuvant vinorelbine showed a substantial protective role and greater life satisfaction for the chemotherapy category ( 121 ).…”

An Overview of Regression Models for Adverse Events Analysis

“…For example, Augustin et al [ 45 ] built a longitudinal proportional odds model on an oral mucositis score, with the cumulative dose and the mouth sites as covariables, to improve the planning of radiation therapy. The second option is to consider the grade (e.g., CTCAE grades) as a repeated measure over time using a linear mixed model [ 46 – 48 ]. The latter approach captures the complete toxicity trajectory of the patients, including the burden of low-grade AEs.…”