scholarly journals P-4 The relationship between quality of life, adverse events, and treatment efficacy in treatment with first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of phase II QUACK trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. S90
Author(s):  
O. Akira ◽  
S. Morita ◽  
S. Iwamoto ◽  
H. Hara ◽  
H. Tanioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The impact of cumulative toxicity on physical quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first line chemotherapy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3564-3564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Schuurhuizen ◽  
Inge Konings ◽  
Annemarie Braamse ◽  
Laurien Buffart ◽  
Haiko Bloemendal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Physical Quality ◽  
Cumulative Toxicity ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

3564 Background: We have previously suggested that treatment related toxicity has impact on physical quality of life (QOL) scores, as opposed to global QOL. Moreover, the cumulative effect of experienced toxicities, including low-grades AEs, may be of more importance. The purpose of this observational cohort study was to evaluate the association between cumulative toxicity and physical and global QOL in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving chemotherapy. Methods: 105 patients with mCRC starting first line chemotherapy were evaluated. All patients completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline and after 10 weeks. Toxicity, clinical outcomes and demographics were retrieved from patient records. For each patient, we calculated cumulative toxicity in three different ways: i) total number of adverse events (AEs) (all grades), ii) total number of grade 3-4 AEs, and iii) total number of AEs multiplied by their grade. The relation between each cumulative toxicity score and QOL assessed at 10 weeks, was studied. Results: The mean age of patients was 64.8 ± 9.7 years, 70.5% were male, and 83.8% received first line oxaliplatin based combination chemotherapy. AEs occurred in 98.1% of patients, grade 3-4 AEs in 37.1%, and grade 1-2 AEs in 61.0%. The mean number of experienced AEs (all grades) was 5.3 ± 2.7. The most common toxicities included diarrhea, neuropathy and fatigue. None of the toxicity scores was related to global QOL outcome. A higher total number of all grades AEs (β = - 2.2, 95%CI = -3.7; -6.6) and total number of AEs multiplied by grade (β = -1.3, 95%CI = -2.2; -3.5) were significantly associated with worse physical QOL. Conclusions: Cumulative toxicity, defined as the total of all grades AEs, significantly affects physical QOL in patients with mCRC receiving first line chemotherapy. Improvement of treatment related toxicity management by reducing the total number of AEs, may result in relevant improvements in patients’ QOL. Our results emphasize that future RCTs should present physical QOL outcomes instead of global QOL, as well as all grades and total number of toxicities for individual patients.

Retrospective cohort study on the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: The HGCSG0801 study—Analysis of bevacizumab beyond progression (BBP).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 684-684
Author(s):  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Yoshimitsu Kobayashi ◽  
Kazuteru Hatanaka ◽  
Takaya Kusumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

684 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) is widely used in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, but the use of beyond bevacizumab first progression (BBP) has been controversial yet. Methods: Of patients treated with first-line BV in our retrospective cohort study (HGCSG0801), patients treated with BBP (n=22) and those without BBP ( n=19) in second-line setting were analyzed. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0 was used to assess adverse events. The Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria version 1.0 was used to assess tumor response. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to determine PFS and OS. Log-rank test was used to compare each group in terms of PFS and OS. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS. Results: PS (0/1/2) before second line chemotherapy was 18/3/1 in BBP and 10/8/1 in NBBP, respectively. In the safety analysis, five patients in BBP showed a worsening/newer hypertension, which wasn’t a clinical problem. In the efficacy analysis, the response rate was 22.8% in BBP and 0% in NBBP. The median PFS was better in BBP (6.7 months in BBP and 2.7 months in NBBP), but there was no significant difference in median OS from first BV administration between two groups (27.3 months in BBP and 22.2 months in NBBP). Conclusions: We analyzed BBP in daily practice in Japan. Adverse events were well tolerated, but survival advantage of BBP was not suggested. About the efficacy of BBP, we are waiting the results of ongoing Phase III trials.

Prescribing patterns for bevacizumab in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: Exploring the introduction of a new drug into routine clinical practice.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 665-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Maree Field ◽  
Jayesh Desai ◽  
Jeanne Tie ◽  
Suzanne Kosmider ◽  
Susie Bae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

665 Background: Clinical trials support the addition of bevacizumab (Bev) to first line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, given that there are alternate biological agents that can be used with chemotherapy; and rare but potentially serious toxicities with Bev, there has been variable use of the drug in routine care. The purpose of this study was to prospectively explore 1st line use of Bev in routine clinical care. Methods: A multi-site data collection was initiated in July 2009 when Bev became publicly available in Australia. A particular focus was capturing information regarding clinician decision-making that is not routinely recorded or is often poorly documented. Comprehensive comorbidity data was collected, along with specific factors, both patient (pt) and disease-related, that may impact on treatment decisions. Major adverse events that may be related to Bev were also recorded. Results: For the 2-year period from July 2009-June 2011, a database search identified 278 pts diagnosed with mCRC at five participating hospitals. 240 pts (86%) had received 1st line chemotherapy. 102 (43%) also received Bev, the majority in combination with oxaliplatin based chemotherapy (n = 81, 79%). Bev use increased significantly from 40.4% (34/84) of all pts receiving chemotherapy in July-December 2009, to 65.8% (25/38) in January-June 2011 (p=0.0114). Overall the most frequent reasons for clinicians advising against the use of Bev were a bleeding or asymptomatic primary in situ (n=28, 23%), known hypertension (n=14, 11%), clinical trial participation (n=14, 11%), poor performance status (n=9, 7%), and perceived risk of arterial ischemic event (n=8, 6.5%). There have been four episodes of gastro-intestinal perforation, 3 in pts receiving Bev (2.9% of Bev treated patients). Conclusions: Bev use in first line mCRC has significantly increased over time, presumably as further positive safety data emerges regarding safety in older and frailer pts, and clinician prescribing experience increases. The major grounds for not using Bev in the 1st line mCRC setting were specific clinical contexts where the risk of adverse events may be increased.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document