Phillips K.-A.,Peter MacCallum Cancer Center |
Phillips K.-A.,University of Melbourne |
Phillips K.-A.,Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group ANZBCTG |
Phillips K.-A.,International Breast Cancer Study Group |
And 42 more authors.
British Journal of Cancer | Year: 2016
Background:To examine the effect on cognitive function of adjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) for breast cancer.Methods:The Suppression of Ovarian Function (SOFT) trial randomised premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to 5 years adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen+OFS, exemestane+OFS or tamoxifen alone. The Co-SOFT substudy assessed objective cognitive function and patient reported outcomes at randomisation (T0), and 1 year later (T1); the primary endpoint was change in global cognitive function, measured by the composite objective cognitive function score. Data were compared for the pooled tamoxifen+OFS and exemestane+OFS groups vs the tamoxifen alone group using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.Results:Of 86 participants, 74 underwent both T0 and T1 cognitive testing; 54 randomised to OFS+ either tamoxifen (28) or exemestane (26) and 20 randomised to tamoxifen alone. There was no significant difference in the changes in the composite cognitive function scores between the OFS+ tamoxifen or exemestane groups and the tamoxifen group (mean±s.d.,-0.21±0.92 vs-0.04±0.49, respectively, P=0.71, effect size=-0.20), regardless of prior chemotherapy status, and adjusting for baseline characteristics.Conclusions:The Co-SOFT study, although limited by small samples size, provides no evidence that adding OFS to adjuvant oral endocrine therapy substantially affects global cognitive function. © 2016 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved. Source
Li C.,Indiana University |
Li C.,Clinical Translational Science Institute |
Bies R.,Indiana University |
Bies R.,Clinical Translational Science Institute |
And 20 more authors.
Clinical and Translational Science | Year: 2016
Quantitative assessments of tumor burden and modeling of longitudinal growth could improve phase II oncology trials. To identify obstacles to wider use of quantitative measures we obtained recorded linear tumor measurements from three published lung cancer trials. Model-based parameters of tumor burden change were estimated and compared with similarly sized samples from separate trials. Time-to-tumor growth (TTG) was computed from measurements recorded on case report forms and a second radiologist blinded to the form data. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-based progression-free survival (PFS) measures were perfectly concordant between the original forms data and the blinded radiologist re-evaluation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 1), but these routine interrater differences in the identification and measurement of target lesions were associated with an average 18-week delay (range, -20 to 55 weeks) in TTG (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.32). To exploit computational metrics for improving statistical power in small clinical trials will require increased precision of tumor burden assessments. © 2016 ASCPT. Source