Capecitabine versus 5-FU in metastatic colorectal cancer: considerations for treatment decision-making

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Tucker ◽  
Jody Pelusi
2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8519-8519 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. B. Elkin ◽  
S. Lee ◽  
E. S. Casper ◽  
D. Kissane ◽  
N. E. Kemeny ◽  
...  

8519 Background: Shared decision-making is a tenet of contemporary oncology practice. However, it is uncertain how involved elderly patients want to be in making treatment decisions and how physicians perceive patient preferences for involvement in decision-making. Methods: In structured interviews about multiple facets of chemotherapy treatment decision-making, we asked patients age 70 and older seen at our specialty cancer center with a recent diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) about their preferences for making treatment decisions. We used Degner’s control preference scale to measure patient preference for decision control. Treating oncologists described their perception of each patient’s preference for decision control using the same scale. Control preference was assessed in relation to socio-demographic characteristics and functional status. Results: Of 52 patients interviewed, the mean age was 76 years (range 70–89), 52% were male, 60% were educated beyond high school and 25% required some help with activities of daily living (ADL). Preferences for involvement in treatment decision-making demonstrated marked variation (Table). Compared with female patients, males expressed a stronger preference for decision control (p<0.05). Preference for decision control was somewhat greater in patients under age 80, those with more education, and those with no ADL impairment, but these associations were not statistically significant. In 26% of cases, the treating physician’s perception and the patient’s expressed preference for decision control were concordant. Conclusions: In older patients with advanced CRC, preference for control in treatment decision-making shows marked heterogeneity and some correlation with socio-demographic characteristics and functional status. Physicians’ perceptions of patient preference for decision control are often inconsistent with patients’ actual preferences. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. v70
Author(s):  
J. Marín ◽  
G. Soler ◽  
M. Martínez-Villacampa ◽  
S. Vázquez ◽  
C. Santos Vivas ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. S345-S346
Author(s):  
K. Beaver ◽  
K. Luker ◽  
D. Jones ◽  
S. Susnerwala ◽  
O. Craven ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 318-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali E. Atici ◽  
Tebessum Cakir ◽  
Enver Reyhan ◽  
Mustafa Duman ◽  
Ilter Ozer ◽  
...  

The advantages of primary positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) evaluation of both cancers needs to be clarified. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of PET-CT compared with computed tomography (CT) in preoperative evaluation of colorectal and gastric cancer patients, and to determine its effects on treatment decision-making. We prospectively evaluated patients who presented with both types of cancer in our clinic between September 2008 and June 2010, using PET-CT and CT. We compared the results with histopathologic findings and determined the changing treatment strategies. In detecting local lymph node positivity, for colorectal cancer patients the sensitivity of PET-CT was 30% and that of CT was 20%; the specificities were the same (100%). For gastric cancer patients, the sensitivity of PET-CT was 38.9% and that of CT was 22%; the specificities were 100% and 83%, respectively. In detecting metastasis, for colorectal cancer patients the sensitivity of PET-CT was 80% and that of CT was 50%; the specificities were similar (100% versus 95%). For gastric cancer patients, the sensitivity of PET-CT was 72% and that of CT was 34%; the specificities were similar (95% versus 90%). In detecting liver metastasis, for colorectal cancer patients the sensitivity of PET was 75% and that of CT was 50%; the specificities were similar (100% versus 95%). For gastric cancer patients, the sensitivity of PET-CT was 57% and that of CT was 28%; the specificities were similar (95% versus 91%). PET-CT findings altered treatment decisions in 16% of patients (n = 10; 9 gastric cancer and 1 colorectal cancer). A high rate of treatment strategy alteration in gastric cancers was seen with PET-CT; its usage is preferred in colorectal cancer staging only for high-risk patients and those with equivocal findings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 2943-2951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole M. Cranley ◽  
Barbara Curbow ◽  
Thomas J. George ◽  
Juliette Christie

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1085-1091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer W. Mack ◽  
Angel Cronin ◽  
Karen Fasciano ◽  
Susan D. Block ◽  
Nancy L. Keating

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document