Beth Barber

A systematic review of treatment guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer

Aim  A systematic review of treatment guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was performed to assess recommendations for monoclonal antibody therapy in these guidelines.

Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Patterns of Chemotherapy and Biologic Therapy Use in US Medical Oncology Practice

PURPOSE With the emergence of new chemotherapies and biologic agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal combination and sequencing of these therapies are yet to be determined. This study examined the extent and pattern of chemotherapy and biologic therapy use by line of treatment. Biologic continuation and dose escalation were also examined. METHODS This study used an integrated electronic medical record database of 91 US oncology practices. Records were analyzed for 1,655 adult patients with mCRC who were treated from January 1, 2004 to January 31, 2008 with systemic therapy and could be observed for ≥ 3 months beyond their diagnosis of metastatic disease. Combination and sequence of individual drugs and regimens were examined. RESULTS For first-line therapy, the most common chemotherapy backbone was infused fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; 40.5% of patients), and the most common treatment regimen was FOLFOX plus bevacizumab (26.2%). For second-line therapy, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) was the most common chemotherapy backbone (25.7%), and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was the most common treatment regimen (18.3%). Across the study period, 68.6%, 22%, and 7% of patients received bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, respectively. Among 412 patients receiving bevacizumab-containing regimens as first-line therapy who then received second-line therapy, 58% continued receiving bevacizumab, with dose escalation observed in 44%. CONCLUSION The most commonly used chemotherapy backbones for mCRC treatment were first-line FOLFOX and second-line FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was the most frequently administered biologic therapy. Continuation and dose escalation with bevacizumab were frequently observed across lines of therapy.

Health-related quality of life and colorectal cancer-specific symptoms in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic disease treated with panitumumab

PurposePanitumumab monotherapy is approved for chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patient-reported outcomes—although important in the palliative setting—have not been reported in this patient population.MethodsIn a phase 3 trial (n = 463), patients with chemotherapy-refractory mCRC were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the NCCN/FACT CRC Symptom Index (FCSI) and EQ-5D Index. KRAS tumor status was analyzed in a prospectively defined, retrospective analysis. Average difference in change from baseline between treatment groups was evaluated using linear mixed and pattern-mixture models.ResultsKRAS tumor status and post-baseline patient-reported outcomes were available for 363 patients. Linear mixed models indicated significant differences in the FCSI score (difference in least-squares [LS] adjusted means [95% CI]; 5.62 [2.38, 8.86]) and the EQ-5D Index (difference in LS adjusted means [95% CI]; 0.22 [0.12, 0.32]) favoring panitumumab over BSC in patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. By pattern-mixture analysis, the advantage of panitumumab over BSC was more pronounced in those patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC who did not drop out of the study early. In patients with mutant KRAS mCRC, no differences were observed between groups.ConclusionsPanitumumab-treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC maintained better control of CRC symptoms and quality of life compared with BSC alone, extending our understanding of the benefits of panitumumab treatment beyond improvements in progression-free survival.

Clinical and economic impact of infusion reactions in patients with colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab

Background: Systemic agents in cancer treatment were often associated with possible infusion reactions (IRs). This study estimated the incidence of IRs requiring medical intervention and assessed the clinical and economic impacts of IRs in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with cetuximab. Patients and methods: Details on patients with CRC receiving cetuximab in 2004–2006 were extracted from a large USA administrative claims database. IRs were identified based on the occurrence of outpatient treatment, emergency room (ER) visit, and/or hospitalization for hypersensitivity and allergic reactions. Multivariate regressions were used to examine potential risk factors and quantify the economic impact of IRs. Results: A total of 1122 CRC patients receiving cetuximab were identified. The incidence of IRs requiring medical intervention was 8.4%. Sixty-eight percent of the patients had treatment disruptions and 34% discontinued cetuximab treatment. Mean adjusted costs were

Cost of illness in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

13 863 for cetuximab administrations with an IR requiring ER visit or hospitalization and

Overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma

6280 for those with an IR requiring outpatient treatment, compared with

Patterns of treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer in Western Europe

4555 for those without an IR. Conclusions: The incidence rate of cetuximab-related IRs requiring medical intervention in clinical practice was found to be higher than rates reported in the product label and clinical trials. The clinical and economic impacts of these IRs are substantial.

Economic burden of toxicities associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens containing monoclonal antibodies.

Abstract Objectives: To estimate total costs and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)-related costs and assess primary cost drivers of treating newly diagnosed mCRC patients after the introduction of biologic therapies. Methods: Using a large national claims database, costs of mCRC patients were estimated in 2004–2009 by examining (1) the cost difference between mCRC patient and their matched non-cancer cohorts, and (2) mCRC-related costs. Costs were further assessed by phase of disease (diagnostic, treatment, and death). The survival analysis technique was used to estimate cost of handling variable length of follow-up and data censoring. Results: A total of 6,746 mCRC patients met all eligibility criteria, 6,675 of them were matched to patients without cancer. Among the three phases of disease, the treatment phase was the longest (16.4 months). Compared with matched patients with no cancer, total monthly costs were

Cost-effectiveness of early versus late cinacalcet treatment in addition to standard care for secondary renal hyperparathyroidism in the USA.

14,585 higher for mCRC patients, which was driven by higher inpatient (

Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

7,546) and outpatient (