Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical Trials

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer; OutcomesCáncer colorrectal metastásico; ResultadosCàncer colorrectal metastàtic; ResultatsBackground We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.The National Cancer Institute Gastrointestinal Cancer Center Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Career Development Award (5P50CA127003-08) funded Dr McCleary’s effort. The ARCAD Foundation funded data collection and analysis

Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.

The IDEA (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy) Collaboration: Prospective Combined Analysis of Phase III Trials Investigating Duration of Adjuvant Therapy with the FOLFOX (FOLFOX4 or Modified FOLFOX6) or XELOX (3 versus 6 months) Regimen for Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer: Trial Design and Current Status

The International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration was established to prospectively combine and analyze data from several randomized trials conducted around the world to answer whether a three-month course of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy (FOLFOX4/modified FOLFOX6 or XELOX) is non-inferior to the current standard six-month treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, with a primary endpoint of three years disease-free survival. The IDEA steering committee comprises two members from each group coordinating an individual trial and two members from a secretariat who coordinate combining of the data and management of the joint analysis. Members of the IDEA agreed to combine the data from their individual trials to enable definitive analysis consisting of at least 10,500 patients. With accrual of 8,797 patients at the end of February 2013, the IDEA is on track to achieve its accrual objective of at least 10,500 patients by the end of 2013

Interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review

Background: To systematically review the effects of interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer. Methods: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention to a usual care comparison in sedentary people with a homogeneous primary cancer diagnosis, over the age of 18 years were eligible. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE; EMBASE; AMED; CINAHL; PsycINFO; SportDiscus; PEDro from inception to August 2012. Results: Fourteen trials were included in this review, involving a total of 648 participants. Just six trials incorporated prescriptions that would meet current recommendations for aerobic exercise. However, none of the trials included in this review reported intervention adherence of 75% or more for a set prescription that would meet current aerobic exercise guidelines. Despite uncertainty around adherence in many of the included trials, the interventions caused improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at 8–12 weeks (SMD=0.73, 95% CI=0.51–0.95) in intervention participants compared with controls. At 6 months, aerobic exercise tolerance is also improved (SMD=0.70, 95% CI=0.45–0.94), although four of the five trials had a high risk of bias; hence, caution is warranted in its interpretation. Conclusion: Expecting the majority of sedentary survivors to achieve the current exercise guidelines is likely to be unrealistic. As with all well-designed exercise programmes, prescriptions should be designed around individual capabilities and frequency, duration and intensity or sets, repetitions, intensity of resistance training should be generated on this basis

Hemolytic uremic syndrome following the infusion of oxaliplatin: case report

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin is a platinum derivative, which is used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. A small number of oxaliplatin-related hemolytic and/or thrombocytopenic reactions have been reported. We present a case of hemolytic-uremic syndrome that developed during the 4(th )cycle of combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. CASE PRESENTATION: A 52-year-old-male was administered chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for a Duke's stage C colorectal carcinoma. Three cycles of chemotherapy had been administered without complications when, at the beginning of the fourth cycle, the patient developed clinical and laboratory abnormalities consistent with the development of the hemolytic-uremic syndrome. Treatment was discontinued; the patient was managed with monitored IV hydration and loop diuretics, high dose corticosteroids and fresh frozen plasma infusions and recovered completely. CONCLUSION: The hemolytic-uremic syndrome may be a rare complication of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinicians need to maintain a high index of suspicion to diagnose and treat this life-threatening adverse event

Understanding Palliative Cancer Chemotherapy: About Shared Decisions and Shared Trajectories

Most models of patient-physician communication take decision-making as a central concept. However, we found that often the treatment course of metastatic cancer patients is not easy to describe in straightforward terms used in decision-making models but is instead frequently more erratic. Our aim was to analyse these processes as trajectories. We used a longitudinal case study of 13 patients with metastatic colorectal and pancreatic cancer for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, and analysed 65 semi-structured interviews. We analysed three characteristics of the treatment course that contributed to the ‘erraticness’ of the course: (1) The treatment (with or without chemotherapy) contained many options; (2) these options were not stable entities to be decided upon, but changed identity over the course of treatment, and (3) contrary to the closure (option X means no option Y, Z, etc.) a decision implies, the treatment course was a continuous process in which options instead remained open. When the treatment course is characterised by these many and changeable options that do not result in closure, the shared decision-making model should take these into account. More attention needs to be paid to the erratic character of the process in which the doctor has to provide continuous information that is related to the changing situation of the patient; also, flexibility in dealing with protocols is warranted, as is vigilance about the overall direction of the process