Dataset Information

De-escalating chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer?

ABSTRACT: Background:Although adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer characterized by poor prognostic features, its pros and cons remain a controversial issue. We aim to evaluate the real effectiveness of chemotherapy on stage II colon cancer as well as select suitable patients. Methods:Patients during 1988-2013 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The competing risk regression model and propensity score matching method were used to evaluate colon-cancer-specific death (CCSD) and non-CCSD. Also, a competing-risk nomogram was constructed to identify risk of patients. Risk score (RS) was calculated according to nomogram. Results:A total of 58,133 patients were included, 25.66% received chemotherapy, and 74.34% were without chemotherapy. In total, 19.95% and 25.78% of patients died of CCSD and non-CCSD, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that receiving chemotherapy appears to be associated with more CCSD and less non-CCSD (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.18-1.28; HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.43-0.47, respectively), even after adjustment for covariates and propensity score weighting. A competing-risk nomogram was established; the model was relatively good with a C-index of 0.661. Based on the RS, risk stage could only predict prognosis but failed to predict the benefit from chemotherapy. Conclusions:The value of chemotherapy is much less than we thought. It is time to de-escalate chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. CCSD, rather than overall survival, should be considered as an appropriate primary end point for future trials in stage II colon cancer.

SUBMITTER: Fu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6710694 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

De-escalating chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer?

Fu Jianfei J Wu Lunpo L Ge Chenyang C Xu Tiantian T Li Dan D Fu Wei W Wang Liangjing L Du Jinlin J

Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology 20190822

<h4>Background</h4>Although adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer characterized by poor prognostic features, its pros and cons remain a controversial issue. We aim to evaluate the real effectiveness of chemotherapy on stage II colon cancer as well as select suitable patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients during 1988-2013 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The competing risk regression model and propensity score ...[more]

PMID: 31489031

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. To explore preferred and actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making among stage II and III colon cancer (CC) patients by sociodemographic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal communication factors. Methods. Cross-sectional exploratory study collecting self-reported survey data from stage II and III CC patients from 2 cancer centers located in northern Manhattan. Results. Of 88 patients approached, 56 completed the survey. Only 19.3% reported shared involvement in their chemotherapy decisions. We observed significant differences in preferred involvement by gender, with women preferring more physician-controlled decisions. CC patients with higher levels of decisional self-efficacy significantly preferred shared decisions (F = 4.4 [2], P = 0.02). Actual involvement in decisions differed by race (physician controlled 33% for White v. 67% for Other, P < 0.01), age (shared control 18% for ≤55 y, 55% for 55-64 y, and 27% for 65+ y, P = 0.04), and perception of choice (shared control 73% "yes" v. 27% "no,"P = 0.02). Actual or preferred involvement did not differ by stage. Significantly higher levels of medical mistrust (discrimination t = 2.8 [50], P = 0.01; lack of support t = 3.6 [49], P < 0.01), and lower levels of decisional self-efficacy (t = 2.5 [49], P = 0.01) were reported among women. Discussion. Reports of shared involvement around chemotherapy decisions is limited among CC patients. Factors influencing preferred versus actual chemotherapy decision making are complex and may differ; hence, more research is needed to understand and address factors contributing to discordance between preferred and actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making for CC patients.HighlightsShared involvement around chemotherapy decisions remains limited for patients diagnosed with colon cancer.Sociodemographic (age, race, gender), interpersonal (medical mistrust), and intrapersonal (decisional self-efficacy, perception of choice) factors that influence preferred involvement in chemotherapy decision making may differ from those influencing actual involvement in chemotherapy decision making.Shared involvement in chemotherapy decisions may look different than currently conceptualized, notably when uncertainty around the benefits exists.

Project description:BackgroundColon cancer incidence is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where resource limitations and cost often dictate treatment decisions. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer treatment in South Africa (ZA) and illustrate how such analyses can inform cancer treatment recommendations in a LMIC.MethodsWe created a decision-analytic Markov model to compare lifetime costs and outcomes for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer treated with three adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in a public hospital in ZA: capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for 3 and 6 months, and capecitabine for 6 months, compared to no adjuvant treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in international dollars (I$) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the 2021 ZA gross domestic product per capita (I$13,764/DALY averted).ResultsCAPOX for 3 months was cost-effective for both patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III colon cancer (ICER = I$250/DALY averted and I$1042/DALY averted, respectively), compared to no adjuvant chemotherapy. In subgroup analyses of patients by tumor stage and number of positive lymph nodes, for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and T4 tumors, and patients with stage III colon cancer with T4 or N2 disease. CAPOX for 6 months was cost-effective and the optimal strategy. The optimal strategy in other settings will vary by local WTP thresholds. Decision analytic tools can be used to identify cost-effective cancer treatment strategies in resource-constrained settings.ConclusionColon cancer incidence is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, including South Africa, where resource constraints can impact treatment decisions. This cost-effectiveness study evaluates three systemic adjuvant chemotherapy options, compared to surgery alone, for patients in South African public hospitals after surgical resection for high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer. Doublet adjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) for 3 months is the cost-effective strategy and should be recommended in South Africa.

Project description:BackgroundSince 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionsAmong 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.).

Dataset Information

De-escalating chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer?

Publications

De-escalating chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets