Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third‐line setting: Real‐world data in an australian population

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandy Tun Min ◽  
Aflah Roohullah ◽  
Annette Tognela ◽  
Azim Jalali ◽  
Margaret Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Australian Population ◽  
World Data ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
The Third ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Line Setting

scholarly journals Practical considerations in the use of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592095686
Author(s):  
Fotios Loupakis ◽  
Lorenzo Antonuzzo ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Bachet ◽  
Feng-Che Kuan ◽  
Teresa Macarulla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
The Third ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
Physician Patient

Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician–patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.

scholarly journals 4CPS-101 Trifluridine–tipiracil for metastatic colorectal cancer: real world data experience

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Tonelli ◽  
M Scaldaferri ◽  
S Bustreo ◽  
L Fanchini ◽  
G Ritorto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data

scholarly journals Treatment pattern and outcomes of trifluridine/tipiracil therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in the real-world data from the JFMC50 study

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. viii155
Author(s):  
T. Kawakami ◽  
K. Yamazaki ◽  
E. Oki ◽  
M. Shimokawa ◽  
N. Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Pattern ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
The Real

scholarly journals RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of real-world data

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 751-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Kafatos ◽  
Daniela Niepel ◽  
Kimberley Lowe ◽  
Sophie Jenkins-Anderson ◽  
Hal Westhead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Ras Mutation ◽  
World Data

scholarly journals Revisiting oral fluoropyrimidine with cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data in Chinese population

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1031-1042
Author(s):  
Ka-On Lam ◽  
Man-Chi Fu ◽  
Kin-Sang Lau ◽  
Kam-Mo Lam ◽  
Cheuk-Wai Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Chinese Population ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
Oral Fluoropyrimidine

Overall survival of cetuximab administered every two weeks versus weekly in real-world data of U.S. patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 23-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Pescott ◽  
Michael Batech ◽  
Emmanuelle Boutmy ◽  
Philippe Ronga ◽  
Francois-Xavier Lamy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Patient Death ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data

23 Background: Cetuximab (CET) administered weekly (q1w) at 250 mg/m², after an initial dose of 400 mg/m², is approved in combination with chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of (K) RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The use of CET 500 mg/m2 administered with CT every 2 weeks (q2w) is according to US clinical practice guidelines and observed routinely. In this study, we compared q2w vs q1w regimens on overall survival (OS) in a presumed first-line (1L) treatment subcohort and present updated data on the noninferiority of q2w vs q1w in line-agnostic (1L+) treatment using US real-world data. Methods: Using IBM MarketScan, a large US insurance claims database, we classified a cohort of mCRC patients treated between 07/2010 and 12/2016 with CET+CT as q1w or q2w based on observed infusion patterns. Absence of mCRC-related treatment claims preceding CET initiation date (defined as the index date) qualified as CET treated in 1L. A validated algorithm was used to determine patient death. Confounding was accounted for using high-dimensional propensity scoring (hdPS) with inverse probability of treatment weights. OS was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Imbalanced confounders after hdPS were added to the Cox model. In 1L+, noninferiority of the q2w regimen was tested with a margin hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25. However, noninferiority could not be tested in 1L due to the small sample size; a test for difference was used instead. Results: Of 2,730 CET-exposed mCRC patients (updated), 1,779 (65.2%) and 951 (34.8%) were classified in q1w and q2w groups, respectively, among which 557 (31.3%) and 316 (33.2%) received CET in 1L. The HR (95% CI) for OS of q2w vs q1w in 1L was 1.10 (0.92-1.31; crude), and 1.05 (0.86-1.29; adjusted; p for difference: 0.625). In 1L+, crude and adjusted HRs were 1.05 (0.94-1.18) and 0.94 (0.85-1.03), respectively, rejecting the inferiority hypothesis at p < 0.001. Conclusions: Only a third of patients received CET in 1L in this study. OS was statistically noninferior in q2w vs q1w in 1L+, and adjusted results in 1L suggest no differences between both treatment schedules. However, more data would be needed to formally test the noninferiority hypothesis in 1L.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document