Comparative effectiveness of everolimus (EVE) and axitinib (AXI) for second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the United States: A retrospective chart review.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 500-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J. Vogelzang ◽  
Sumanta Kumar Pal ◽  
James E. Signorovitch ◽  
William M. Reichmann ◽  
Pooja Chopra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Review Study

500 Background: EVE and AXI are approved as 2nd-line TTs for mRCC. This study compares OS and PFS among mRCC patients treated with EVE and AXI following 1st TKI. The extent to which the duration of 1st TKI can inform optimal selection of a 2nd-line TT is of interest. Methods: A retrospective patient chart review study was conducted. Medical oncologists or hematologists/oncologists who treated ≥3 mRCC patients in the past year were recruited from a national panel. Patient eligibility criteria included: 1) aged ≥18 years; 2) initiated and discontinued 1st TKI (sunitinib or pazopanib) for medical reasons; 3) initiated 2nd TT between 2/1/2012 and 1/31/2013. OS was defined as time from initiation of 2nd TT to death. PFS was defined as time from initiation of 2nd TT to physician/chart reported progression or death, whichever occurred first. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for OS and PFS between EVE and AXI, adjusting for age, gender, type and duration of 1st TKI, response to 1st TKI, duration of mRCC at 2nd TT, disease profile, performance status, sites of metastases, and years of physician practice. Comparative effectiveness was also analyzed by the type and duration (<6, 6-12, >12 months) of 1st TKI. Results: A total of 298 and 122 patients received 2nd TT with EVE and AXI. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there was no statistically significant difference between EVE and AXI in OS [HR (95% CI): 1.10 (0.69-1.75)] or PFS [HR (95% CI): 1.12 (0.81-1.54)]. When stratified by subgroups defined by type and duration of 1st TKI, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between EVE and AXI in all subgroups, except for patients with <6 months on sunitinib as 1st TKI in which AXI had longer OS (HR =3.95). There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between EVE and AXI in all subgroups. Conclusions: In this large, retrospective chart review study, there was no significant difference in OS or PFS between EVE and AXI. Subgroup analyses stratified by duration of 1st TKI did not suggest that longer duration of 1st TKI was associated with better efficacy for 2nd-line AXI vs. EVE.

scholarly journals Everolimus-Based Therapy versus Chemotherapy among Patients with HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness from a Chart Review Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanxin Li ◽  
Yanni Hao ◽  
Jipan Xie ◽  
Peggy L. Lin ◽  
Valerie Koo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Cox Models

Objective. To compare the real-world effectiveness of everolimus-based therapy and chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive/human-epidermal-growth-factor-receptor-2-negative (HR+/HER2−) metastatic breast cancer (mBC).Methods. This retrospective chart review examined a nationwide sample of postmenopausal HR+/HER2− mBC women in community-based oncology practices. Patients received everolimus-based therapy or chemotherapy for mBC between 07/01/2012 and 04/15/2013, after failure of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time on treatment (TOT) were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for line of therapy and baseline characteristics.Results. 234 and 137 patients received everolimus-based therapy and chemotherapy. Patients treated with everolimus-based therapy tended to have less aggressive mBC than patients treated with chemotherapy. Multivariate-adjusted Cox models showed that everolimus-based therapy was associated with significantly longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22–0.63], PFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.50–0.97), and TOT (HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.25–0.45) than chemotherapy. Adjusted comparative effectiveness results were generally consistent across lines of therapy.Conclusion. In this retrospective chart review of postmenopausal HR+/HER2− mBC patients, treatment with everolimus-based therapy was associated with longer OS, PFS, and TOT than chemotherapy.

Differential response rates in early-phase cancer clinical trials (EPCCT).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3133-3133
Author(s):  
Rozana Abdul Rahman ◽  
Neethu Billy Graham Mariam ◽  
Hitesh Mistry ◽  
Sreeja Aruketty ◽  
Matt Church ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Sustained Response ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Significant Difference

3133 Background: The primary objective of EPCCT (phase I and non-randomised phase II trials) is to determine the safety and tolerability of new therapeutic agents. Response rates (RR) in these trials have typically been reported at around 10-15%. Increasingly RR and survival outcomes are now investigated in EPCCT as primary or secondary objectives. Methods: Retrospective data analysis was performed on patients (pts) enrolled onto an EPCCT between January 2018 and December 2019 at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Data on demographics, prior systemic treatment, sites of disease, performance status, comorbidities, types of therapy, RR, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were collected. Statistical analyses were performed with univariable and multivariable models. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of pts with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR). Duration of response (DOR) was from initial response to progressive disease (PD). Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as CR+PR+ stable disease (SD). Results: A total of 247 pts were treated across 46 EPCCTs. Median age 61 years; 57% female. Sixty-six percent of pts had ≥2 lines of treatment and the majority were ECOG PS 0/1 (98%). Eighty-one percent of pts had ≥2 sites of metastatic disease, and 13 major tumour types were included. Monotherapy trials (159 pts) were predominantly targeted therapies (TT; 60%), or immunotherapies (IO; 20%). Combination therapy trials (88 pts) were TT-based (68%) or IO-based (32%). Data for RR analyses was available for 231 pts. ORR across all trials was 15% (CR 2%) and DCR was 63%. The median DOR was 8.3 months (mos) (95% CI: 7.0 – 9.7) with 28% of pts responding for >6 mos and 7% for >12 mos. ORR in pooled IO treated pts was 27%, DCR was 65% with sustained response >6 mos seen in 37% of these pts. ORR in pooled TT treated pts was 9.4%, DCR was 60% and sustained response > 6 mos seen in 25% of pts. ORR for IO v TT treated pts was significantly different, p=0.007 (pearson chi square), but no significant difference was seen for DCR. Median PFS for all patients was 5.0 mos (95% CI: 4.1 – 6.0) and OS was 10.4 mos (95% CI: 8.4 – 13.0). OS for those with a PR is not reached (HR for PR v PD, 0.006 (95% CI: 0.002 – 0.18). Pts with SD appear to have significantly better OS compared to those with PD (14.6 v 4.2 mos, HR 0.2 (95% CI: 0.1 – 0.3). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis for OS was significant for male gender (HR 1.9, p=0.002), presence of liver metastasis (HR 2.0, p=0.001), low Hb (HR 0.8, p=0.03) and log (LDH) (HR 1.9, p<0.001). Conclusions: Two-thirds of pts enrolled on EPCCTs benefitted in terms of DCR with significant OS improvement in those with PR and SD. Higher ORR were seen in pts receiving IO-based treatments however DCR was similar in IO and TT pts. Gender, presence of liver metastases, Hb count and LDH level contributed significantly to survival differences.

A real-world comparison of efficacy and toxicity of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine to nab-paclitaxel in treatment of advanced stage pancreatic cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16728-e16728
Author(s):  
Shaik Abdul Samad Shaik Abdul Rashid ◽  
Steven Cohen ◽  
Ida Micaily
Keyword(s):  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Chemotherapy Regimen ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
The United States ◽  
Performance Scale

e16728 Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a dreaded malignancy accounting for 7% of all cancer related deaths in the United States. The two most used chemotherapeutic regimens are a combination of 5- fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FFX) and a combination of gemcitabine nab paclitaxel (GN). Both improve survival when compared to gemcitabine alone but have not been compared directly. Methods: Retrospective chart review of 83 chemotherapy naïve patients with metastatic cancer of exocrine pancreas who underwent chemotherapy between February 2011 and June 2017. Patients who completed at least one cycle of chemotherapy regimen were included. Characteristics, efficacy and adverse events between the two regimens were compared using appropriate statistical analyses. Results: 83 patients met selection criteria. 39 patients received FFX and 44 received GN. Mean age of FFX and GN patients was 69.7 (SD 8.7) (Median 66) and 72.3 (SD 8.8) (Median 69) yrs respectively (p = 0.100). The proportion of patients with ECOG performance scale ≤1 receiving FFX vs. GN was 50.8% vs. 49.2% and > 2 receiving FFX vs. GN was 33.3% vs 66.7% (p = .286). Of the 23 patients > 75 yrs., 7 received FFX and 16 received GN (p = .086). Median overall survival was 10.1 months (95% CI: 5.4-18.7) in FFX and 7.2 months in GN (95% CI: 5.4-11.3) [p = 0.037]. Median survival based on site of tumor was 10.2 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8) in head and 10.1 months (95% CI: 4.3-14.7) in body and tail tumors [p = 0.776]. Incidence of vomiting in FFX / GN was 94.1% / 73.7% (p =.027), vomiting requiring hospital admission was 55.9% / 21.1% (p = 0.003). Other events requiring admission included: diarrhea 31.4% / 17.9%; anemia 5.7% / 10.3%; thrombocytopenia 11.4% / 7.7%; febrile neutropenia 28.6% / 12.8% and acute kidney injury 25.7% / 15.4%; no statistically significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Patients treated with FFX had a longer survival in this retrospective review. FFX is associated with an increased incidence of vomiting requiring hospitalization. FFX remains a preferred regimen in treating patients with good performance status regardless of age.

Does up-front definitive surgical resection with delayed chemotherapy in patients with stage IV rectal cancer compromise overall survival?

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 586-586
Author(s):  
Bindu V. Manyam ◽  
Shlomo A. Koyfman ◽  
Davendra Sohal ◽  
Ismail Mallick ◽  
Chandana A. Reddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Poorly Differentiated

586 Background: Definitive resection of the primary is frequently part of the management of patients (pts) with stage IV rectal cancer with good performance status and low volume of systemic metastases. It is unclear whether delaying systemic therapy for up front surgical management of the primary compromises overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma who received definitive surgical resection between 1998-2011 were identified in an IRB approved registry. The sequencing of CT and surgery, and the use of perioperative radiation therapy (RT), was at the discretion of treating physicians. Preoperative chemotherapy (Pre-CT) regimens included 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) +/- leukovorin (LV), capecitabine, 5-FU/LV/oxaliplatin +/- avastin, or 5-FU/LV/irinocetan. RT dose was typically 50.4 Gy. OS was measured from the date of diagnosis. Baseline variables were compared using the Chi-square and unpaired t-tests. OS was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression to identify variables associated with OS. Results: In this study of 115 pts, 75 (65%) were treated with pre-CT, while 40 (35%) were treated with up front surgery. Of the pts who received surgery up front, 3 (8%) received RT and of the pts who received pre-CT, 62 (83%) received RT. The cohort was predominantly male (70%) with a median age of 57, median KPS of 80, and median follow-up of 24.1 months. 94% of pts had T3/T4 tumors, 80% had N+ disease, and 33% had poorly differentiated tumors. Liver directed therapy (LDT) was performed in 61% of pts. There was no significant difference in OS (32.3 vs. 32 months; p = 0.24) between pts treated with pre-CT and those who received surgery up front, respectively. UVA demonstrated that pre-CT was not associated with OS (HR 1.26; p = 0.544). MVA demonstrated that pts with poorly differentiated tumors (HR 2.04; p = 0.007) and those that did not undergo LDT (HR 2.45; p = 0.001) had inferior survival. Conclusions: Delaying systemic chemotherapy in order to achieve local control with surgical resection up front does not appear to impact OS in pts with stage IV rectal cancer.

Comparison of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) using carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) versus cisplatin/5-FU (CF) for esophageal or gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4053-4053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao-Wen Sim ◽  
Bryan Anthony Chan ◽  
Akina Natori ◽  
Charles Henry Lim ◽  
Di Maria Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Trimodality Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

4053 Background: For resectable esophageal or GEJ cancer, trimodality therapy improves survival compared to surgery alone and represents the current standard of care. The optimal CRT regimen for neoadjuvant or definitive treatment of locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer remains uncertain. Methods: A retrospective comparison of CF and CP for locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer (2011-2015) was performed. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, controlling for age, performance status and Charlson comorbidity index. Results: 101 patients (pts) were identified (61 CF, 40 CP). 75% were male. Median age was 62 years (range 30-84). Primary sites were esophageal (52%, with 65% squamous histology) and GEJ (48%). Surgery was undertaken in 34 (56%) CF and 27 (68%) CP pts. Median follow-up was 43 months. Overall, there was a non-significant trend for improved OS with CF compared to CP (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14, p = 0.12). In the subgroup having surgery (N = 61), we found no significant difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39-2.55, p = 0.99). In the subgroup without surgery (N = 40), CF was significantly superior to CP (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.53, p < 0.001). Comparing only pts in this subgroup who received equitable radiation doses (N = 33), CF was still significantly superior to CP (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03-0.32, p < 0.001). OS was similar by histology (adenocarcinoma/squamous) in all-comers (p = 0.54), and in CF (p = 0.90) and CP subgroups (p = 0.63). DFS results corresponded with OS. There was a non-significant numerical difference in pCR rates between CF (31%) and CP (18%) (p = 0.35), which were lower than previously reported. Conclusions: Survival is similar for CF and CP CRT regimens in pts undergoing trimodality therapy, but for those who do not proceed to surgery, it appears that CF is more effective than CP. Clinicians may prefer CP for surgical candidates given its favourable toxicity profile. However, when treating with definitive CRT, CF may be preferable to CP as a standard regimen.

Examination and Analysis of After-Hours Calls in Hospice

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 324-328
Author(s):  
Masako Mayahara ◽  
Louis Fogg
Keyword(s):  
Chart Review ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Shortness Of Breath ◽  
Medication Refill ◽  
Effective Care ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
After Hours ◽  
Review Study ◽  
Care At Home ◽  
Using Data

To ensure safe and effective care at home, most hospice agencies provide 24-hour call services to patients and their families. However, responding to such calls can be very extensive since so many calls occur after hours when staff are fewer. The purpose of the current study was to better understand the types of after-hours calls and differences across patient teams. By understanding why these calls are made, we might be able to reduce the number of avoidable after-hours calls. This descriptive retrospective chart review study was conducted using data from 9 patient care teams within a single hospice agency. During the 6-month study period, the hospice agency received 1596 after-hours calls. The number of calls averaged 10.3 per night. Common clinical-related calls included consultations about the shortness of breath (10.2%) and pain (9.5%). A total of 37.7% of the calls were nonclinical, nonemergency in nature, including requests for supplies (29.6%) and medication refills (8.1%). There were statistically significant differences ( P < .05) between teams in the numbers of supply request calls, medication refill request calls, and calls associated with clinical-related issues. Also, there was a statistically significant difference in the after-hours calls across teams that resulted in dispatching staff to a home ( P < .05). These findings suggest that many after-hours calls would be more appropriately addressed during regular daytime hours. There are significant across-team differences that are not yet well understood. Further studies are needed to determine how to reduce the number of after-hours calls.

Documentation of Crucial Information Relating to Critically Ill Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandria Bear ◽  
Elizabeth Thiel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Review Study

Background: Medical decision-making has evolved to the modern model of shared decision-making among patients, surrogate decision-makers, and medical providers. As such, informed consent discussions with critically ill patients often should include larger discussions relating to values and goals of care. Documentation of care options and prognosis serves as an important component of electronic communication relating to patient preferences among care providers. Objective: This retrospective chart review study sought to evaluate the prevalence of documentation of critical data, care options, prognosis, and medical plan, within primary team and palliative care consult team documentation. Results: Three hundred two electronic medical records were reviewed. There was a significant difference in documentation between palliative care and primary teams for prognosis (83% vs 32%, P < .001), care options (82% vs 50%, P < .001), and care plan (82% vs 46%, P < .001). Conclusions: Our retrospective chart review study demonstrated a significant difference in documentation between primary and palliative care teams. We acknowledge that review of documentation cannot be extrapolated to the presence or absence of conversations between providers and patients and/or surrogates. Additional studies to evaluate this connection would be advantageous.

scholarly journals Characteristics and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive non-small lung cancer in real-world practice in the United States

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Hess ◽  
Yimei Han ◽  
Yajun Emily Zhu ◽  
Naleen Raj Bhandari ◽  
Anthony Sireci
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Tumor Response ◽  
Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Baseline Covariates

Abstract Background Contradictory and limited data are available about the presentation and outcomes of patients with RET-fusion positive metastatic NSCLC as compared to patients without RET fusions. This observational study utilizing a linked electronic health records (EHR) database to genomics testing results was designed to compare characteristics, tumor response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by RET fusion status among patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with standard therapies. Methods Adult patients with metastatic NSCLC with linked EHR and genomics data were eligible who received systemic anti-cancer therapy on or after January 1, 2011. Adjusted, using all available baseline covariates, and unadjusted analyses were conducted to compare tumor response, PFS and OS between patients with RET-fusion positive and RET-fusion negative disease as detected by next-generation sequencing. Tumor response outcomes were analysed using Fisher’s exact test, and time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards model. Results There were 5807 eligible patients identified (RET+ cohort, N = 46; RET- cohort, N = 5761). Patients with RET fusions were younger, more likely to have non-squamous disease and be non-smokers and had better performance status (all p < 0.01). In unadjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in tumor response (p = 0.17) or PFS (p = 0.06) but OS was significantly different by RET status (hazard ratio, HR = 1.91, 95% CI:1.22–3.0, p = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences by RET fusion status in adjusted analyses of either PFS or OS (PFS HR = 1.24, 95% CI:0.86–1.78, p = 0.25; OS HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95–2.43, p = 0.08). Conclusions Patients with RET fusions have different baseline characteristics that contribute to favorable OS in unadjusted analysis. However, after adjusting for baseline covariates, there were no significant differences in either OS or PFS by RET status among patients treated with standard therapy prior to the availability of selective RET inhibitors.

Treatment Patterns and Health Outcomes in Platinum-Refractory or Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Medical Record Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Parikh ◽  
Samantha K. Kurosky ◽  
Margarita Udall ◽  
Jane Chang ◽  
Joseph C. Cappelleri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
High Grade ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Platinum Refractory

ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to describe real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with platinum-refractory/resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (PRROC) in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.Methods/MaterialsPhysicians retrospectively reviewed medical records of women aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with PRROC between January 2010 and June 2014. Patient characteristics, initial PRROC therapy, and health care utilization were assessed; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods.ResultsData were obtained on 392 US, 296 UK, and 82 Canadian patients. At initial ovarian cancer diagnosis, 65.8% (United States), 93.3% (United Kingdom), and 82.9% (Canada) of patients had stage III/IV disease; 43.6%, 73.7%, and 56.1%, respectively, had high-grade tumors. At PRROC diagnosis, mean age was 57.2 years (United States), 59.2 years (United Kingdom), and 57.4 years (Canada). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0/1 at PRROC diagnosis for 57.7% (United States), 80.1% (United Kingdom), and 36.6% (Canada) of patients. Most patients initiated systemic treatment after PRROC diagnosis (United States, 71.4%; United Kingdom, 83.1%; Canada, 81.7%). The most common initial PRROC therapy was pegylated liposomal doxorubicin monotherapy (United States, 18.6%; United Kingdom, 50.0%; Canada, 34.3%). During initial PRROC treatment, 80.7%, 59.8%, and 44.8% of patients had 1 office visit or more and 17.5%, 10.2%, and 14.9% of patients had 1 hospitalization or more in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, respectively. Treatment toxicity was the most common reason for hospitalization (United States, 75.5%; United Kingdom, 64.0%; Canada, 80.0%). Median (95% confidence interval) PFS was 5.6 (4.9–6.2), 8.0 (6.8–9.2), and 6.4 (5.4–9.3) months in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The Cox proportional hazards model showed that stage III/IV, high-grade tumors, and poorer performance status were associated with shorter survival.ConclusionsCurrent treatments for PRROC yield limited PFS and frequent hospitalizations reported to be related to toxicities or procedural complications, suggesting a continued unmet need for more effective and tolerable therapeutic strategies for PRROC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document