Liver-directed therapies for colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CLRM): A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare analysis.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 577-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Shaalan Beg ◽  
Faisal Adhami ◽  
Lei Xuan ◽  
Joseph Hodges ◽  
Jeffery Meyer ◽  
...  

577 Background: Oligometastatic CLRM comprises a distinct subset of stage IV colorectal cancer. Liver directed therapies (LDT) including surgery, ablation, radiation, and transarterial chemotherapy/embolization have been shown to improve cancer outcomes in smaller series. We sought to evaluate utilization of LDT and their impact on survival in patients with CLRM in a population-based database. Methods: We analyzed linked SEER-Medicare data. Eligible patients were ≥ 66 years, diagnosed between 1992-2009, carry a code for secondary malignancy of the liver (ICD-9 197.7) and survived ≥ 30 days after diagnosis. LDT (yes vs. no) were defined by ICD-9 and CPT codes of surgery (hepatectomy), ablation (e.g. radiofrequency and cryoablation), radiation (e.g., stereotactic surgery and brachytherapy), and transarterial/embolization (e.g., radioembolization). Treatment and non-treatment groups were matched using a propensity score comprised of a comprehensive set of patient and tumor characteristics including: age, sex, race, marital status, Medicaid status, and tumor histology, grade, and location. Cox Proportional Hazard models were used to compare the impact of the LDT on overall survival among propensity-matched pairs of treated and untreated patients. Results: LDT were performed in 12.7% (n = 1,793) of all 14,150 patients. There were 13.7% of patients over 85 years. Females were 52.1% and 83 % White. Off all, 5.4% had surgery, 3.9% had ablation, 4.6% had radiation, and 1.6% had transarterial chemotherapy/embolization. Unadjusted 5 year overall-survival (OS) was 26.9% for those underdoing LDT vs. 7.5% who did not (HR = 0.44, (CI 0.41,0.46)). Cox modeling demonstrated a survival benefit for each LDT with HR of 0.36 (0.33,0.39) for surgery, 0.35 (0.32,0.39) for ablation, 0.78 (0.72, 0.85) for radiation and 0.42 (0.36,0.49) for transarterial/embolization. Conclusions: While use of LDT for CLRM in this national sample of Medicare patients were low, those who received treatment had markedly improved survival compared to matched patients who did not. Surgery and ablation were the most effective therapies. These findings require evaluation in a prospective clinical study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 742-742
Author(s):  
Patricia Luhn ◽  
Edward Cha ◽  
Angela Fu-Chi Hsieh ◽  
Michael Taylor ◽  
William Grossman

742 Background: The anatomical side of the colon where a tumor arises has been shown to be prognostic in patients treated with first-line therapy; patients with tumors that arise from the left side of the colon have significantly longer survival compared with patients whose tumors arise from the right side of the colon. However, there is little evidence of whether this factor is prognostic in later lines of treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of tumor side on the survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received second line (2L) or third line (3L) therapy. Methods: Metastatic (stage IV) colorectal cancer patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database linked to Medicare claims diagnosed 2001-2005 who received 2L (n = 921) or 3L (n = 502) therapy were included in the study. Overall survival (OS) was determined from the start of the indicated line of therapy and was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; statistical differences were tested using the log-rank tests. Results: The distribution of tumor sites was similar for 2L and 3L treated patients (right: 36%; left: 58%; transverse: 6%; for 2L). The median follow up time from start of therapy was 11 months (mo) for 2L and 10 mo for 3L patients. Median OS for left-sided tumors receiving 2L+ therapy was 13.6 mo (95%CI: 11.9, 14.8) compared with 8.7 mo (95%CI: 7.5, 9.9) for right-sided tumors (log-rank p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in patients receiving 3L+ therapy, although the difference was of lesser magnitude. The median OS for patients with left-sided tumors was 10.8 mo (95%CI: 9.6, 12.9) compared with 7.6 mo (95%CI: 5.7, 9.4) for right-sided tumors (log-rank p = 0.002). Conclusions: These results suggest that side of tumor origin remains a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer patients treated in later lines of therapy (2L+).


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14021-e14021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Yu ◽  
R. Woods ◽  
C. Speers ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
H. F. Kennecke

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14186-e14186
Author(s):  
Shivi Jain ◽  
Kireet Agrawal ◽  
Shinoj Pattali ◽  
Abhijai Singh ◽  
Kamal Agrawal ◽  
...  

e14186 Background: Overall survival in colorectal cancer is influenced by obesity, age, gender and stage at diagnosis. However, in minority based populations, effect of the above factors on overall survival has not been studied in any detail. Hence, we undertook this retrospective study to evaluate effect of above factors on overall survival in young colorectal cancer patients. Methods: 1,195 subjects with colorectal cancer treated at John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County between 2000 and 2008 were retrospectively analyzed. 179 subjects with age 50 years and younger were identified. 146 of 179 subjects with available Body Mass Index (BMI) in kg/m2 were included in the study. Effect of BMI, age, sex, race, LDH and CEA levels, stage, site of tumor, smoking and family history on overall survival was evaluated using standard statistical multivariate analysis. Results: In our population, 22 of 146(15%) were underweight (BMI<20), 56 of 146(38.4%) were normal weight (BMI 20-24.9), 46 of 146(31.5%) were overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and 22 of 146(15%) were obese (BMI >30). Male: female ratio was 1.4:1. 75 of 146(51.7%) were African American, 23 of 146(15.9%) were Caucasians. 50 of 146(34.2%) were stage IV colorectal cancer at diagnosis. On univariate analysis, BMI<20(p=0.031, HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.15-3.82), CEA >4ng/ml (p=0.005, HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21-3.08) and stage IV colorectal cancer (p<0.001, HR 6.1, 95% CI 2.42-15.53) were significantly associated with decreased overall survival. LDH<200 U/L was significantly associated with improved overall survival (p 0.029, HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.391-0.950). On multivariate analysis, stage IV colorectal cancer was a single significant independent predictor of overall survival (p=0.001, 95% CI 2.47-27.78). CEA>4ng/ml was marginally significant for decreased overall survival (p=0.06, 95% CI 0.978-3.015). On the contrary, no statistically significant difference was found on overall survival with age, BMI>20, gender, race, tumor location, smoking and family history. Conclusions: Advanced stage and CEA >4ng/ml are independent prognostic variables for decreased overall survival in minority based population of young colorectal cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Dong Peng ◽  
Yu-Xi Cheng ◽  
Yong Cheng

Purpose. The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to evaluate whether multidisciplinary team improved overall survival of colorectal cancer. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database were searched from inception to October 25, 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence (CI) of overall survival (OS) were calculated. Results. A total of 11 studies with 30814 patients were included in this meta-analysis. After pooling the HRs, the MDT group was associated with better OS compared with the non-MDT group ( HR = 0.81 , 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.005 ). In subgroup analysis of stage IV colorectal cancer, the MDT group was associated with better OS as well ( HR = 0.73 , 95% CI 0.59-0.90, p = 0.004 ). However, in terms of postoperative mortality, no significant difference was found between MDT and non-MDT groups ( OR = 0.84 , 95% CI 0.44-1.61, p = 0.60 ). Conclusion. MDT could improve OS of colorectal cancer patients.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3630-3630
Author(s):  
Michael Hayden Rosenthal ◽  
Stephanie Anne Holler Howard ◽  
Kyung Won Kim ◽  
Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt ◽  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16146-e16146
Author(s):  
Sandi Pruitt ◽  
David E. Gerber ◽  
Hong Zhu ◽  
Daniel Heitjan ◽  
Bhumika Maddineni ◽  
...  

e16146 Background: A growing number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have survived a previous cancer. Although little is known about their prognosis, this population is frequently excluded from clinical trials. We examined the impact of previous cancer on overall and cancer-specific survival in a population-based cohort of patients diagnosed with incident CRC. Methods: We identified patients aged ≥66 years and diagnosed with CRC between 2005-2015 in linked SEER-Medicare data. For patients with and without previous cancer, we estimated overall survival using Cox regression and cause-specific survival using competing risk regression, separately by CRC stage, while adjusting for numerous covariates and competing risk of death from previous cancer, other causes, or the incident CRC. Results: Of 112,769 CRC patients diagnosed with incident CRC, 15,935 (14.1%) had a previous cancer – most commonly prostate (32.9%) or breast (19.4%) cancer, with many 7505 (47.1%) diagnosed ≤5 years of CRC. For all CRC stages except IV in which there was no significant difference in survival, patients with previous cancer had modestly worse overall survival (hazard ratios from fully adjusted models range from 1.11-1.28 across stages; see Table). This survival disadvantage was driven by deaths due to previous cancer and other causes. Notably, most patients with previous cancer had improved CRC-specific survival. Conclusions: CRC patients who have survived a previous cancer have generally worse overall survival but superior CRC-specific survival. This evidence should be considered concurrently with concerns about trial generalizability, low accrual, and heterogeneity of participants when determining exclusion criteria. [Table: see text]


Oncology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-163
Author(s):  
Kuo-Hsing  Chen ◽  
Liang-In  Lin ◽  
Li-Hui  Tseng ◽  
Yu-Lin Lin ◽  
Jau-Yu Liau ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document