Background: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (β) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, −2.2; 95% CI, −3.3 to −1.1; P<.01) and severity score (B, −1.4; 95% CI, −2.2 to −0.7; P<.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly (P<.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient- and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred.
You are looking at 51 - 60 of 2,432 items
Claudia S.E.W. Schuurhuizen, Patricia Marino, Annemarie M.J. Braamse, Laurien M. Buffart, Florence Joly, Karim Fizazi, Muriel Habibian, Jean-Marie Boher, Michel Soulie, Stéphane Oudard, Inge R.H.M. Konings, Henk M.W. Verheul, Joost Dekker and Gwenaelle Gravis
June M. McKoy
Julie Delyon, Dimitri Arangalage, Barouyr Baroudjian and Celeste Lebbe
Jeremy D. Kratz, Nataliya V. Uboha, Sam J. Lubner, Daniel L. Mulkerin, Linda Clipson, Yanyao Yi, Menggang Yu, Kristina A. Matkowskyj, Noelle K. LoConte and Dustin A. Deming
Background: Molecular profiles guide the clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly related to the use of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies. Tumor sidedness has also been implicated in resistance to these therapies, but has largely been studied in the first-line setting. We examined the role of tumor sidedness and disease bulk in predicting clinical outcomes to anti-EGFR therapy in the treatment-refractory setting. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of 62 patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received anti-EGFR therapy in the late-line setting. Response was assessed per RECIST 1.1, with bulky disease defined as any single lesion >35 mm in longest cross-sectional diameter or nodal short axis. Primary sidedness was defined in relation to the splenic flexure. Results: Patients with right-sided primary tumors at time of late-line EGFR therapy presented with increased tumor bulk and worsened overall survival (OS) relative to left-sided primary tumors. Tumor bulk, defined as either a categorical or continuous variable, predicted worsened progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, which persisted when controlling for differences in the primary tumor location. Within the right-sided cohort, no objective responses were observed for bulky disease or during treatment with anti-EGFR monotherapy. The nonbulky cohort experienced clinical benefit with anti-EGFR monotherapy, showing similar PFS and an improved response rate compared with sequential chemotherapy. Conclusions: In an effort to expand understanding of the role of primary sidedness in clinical response to anti-EGFR therapy, we identified sidedness and tumor bulk as potential predictive biomarkers of clinical response in late-line mCRC. Future prospective studies of EGFR targeting should consider tumor bulk in addition to molecular profiling in the identification of populations most likely to achieve meaningful clinical benefit.
Robert I. Haddad, Christian Nasr, Lindsay Bischoff, Naifa Lamki Busaidy, David Byrd, Glenda Callender, Paxton Dickson, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, Whitney Goldner, Megan Haymart, Carl Hoh, Jason P. Hunt, Andrei Iagaru, Fouad Kandeel, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Bryan McIver, Christopher D. Raeburn, John A. Ridge, Matthew D. Ringel, Randall P. Scheri, Jatin P. Shah, Rebecca Sippel, Robert C. Smallridge, Cord Sturgeon, Thomas N. Wang, Lori J. Wirth, Richard J. Wong, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Karin G. Hoffmann and Lisa A. Gurski
The NCCN Guidelines for Thyroid Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of different types of thyroid carcinoma, including papillary, follicular, Hürthle cell, medullary, and anaplastic carcinomas. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent updates to the guidelines, including the expanding role of molecular testing for differentiated thyroid carcinoma, implications of the new pathologic diagnosis of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features, and the addition of a new targeted therapy option for BRAF V600E–mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.
Saroj Niraula and Zoann Nugent
Background: FDA approvals do not consider cost, but they set the tone for regulatory approvals worldwide, including in countries with universal healthcare where cost-effectiveness, utility, and adoption feasibility are considered rigorously. Methods: Data from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), a national drug review system that makes evidence-based funding recommendations to Canada's provinces and territories, were collected. Our objectives were to assess (1) temporal trends in cost and efficacy of drugs reviewed, (2) correlations among magnitude of benefits, cost, and pCODR decisions, and (3) predictors of approvals. Results: A total of 60 drugs for 91 indications were reviewed by pCODR from January 2012 to January 2018. Of the 91 reviews (approved previously by FDA), 18 received negative recommendations on the grounds of inadequate clinical benefits; 87% (64/73) of those approved were conditional on improvement in cost. Surrogate outcomes were used to support approvals in 83% of the reviews, which were not correlated with overall survival (rSpearman = +0.16; P=.24). Median cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) increased by 36% per annum (quantile regression, P=.0029), although benefits in overall and progression-free survival were stable (P=.21 and .65, respectively). Median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of new drugs was $186,403 CAD (range, $7,200 to $2.1 million). Higher ICER was a strong predictor of a negative pCODR recommendation (P<.01). Conclusions: A substantial number of cancer drugs that are FDA approved for public use do not meet Canadian standards for efficacy. Cost of cancer drugs increases by a third annually in Canada, but the benefits—measured mostly with surrogates that did not correlate with survival—are stable. With finite resources to share among multiple societal priorities, such as education and preventive health, cancer drug cost may be unsustainable despite price regulation.