1
|
Cusano E, Wong C, Taguedong E, Vaska M, Abedin T, Nixon N, Karim S, Tang P, Heng DYC, Ezeife D. Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies. Curr Oncol 2021; 28:4894-4928. [PMID: 34898590 PMCID: PMC8628676 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28060412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Revised: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Cusano
- Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
- Correspondence:
| | - Chelsea Wong
- Faculty of Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
| | - Eddy Taguedong
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada;
| | - Marcus Vaska
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Tasnima Abedin
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Nancy Nixon
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Safiya Karim
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Patricia Tang
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Daniel Y. C. Heng
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| | - Doreen Ezeife
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada; (M.V.); (T.A.); (N.N.); (S.K.); (P.T.); (D.Y.C.H.); (D.E.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Li N, Zhu Y, Liu LY, Feng YR, Wang WL, Wang J, Wang H, Li GF, Tang Y, Hu C, Liu WY, Ren H, Wang SL, Wang WH, Song YW, Liu YP, Fang H, Tang Y, Lu NN, Chen B, Qi SN, Liu XF, Li YX, Jin J. Postoperative Chemoradiotherapy With Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin vs Capecitabine for Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2136116. [PMID: 34846525 PMCID: PMC8634060 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Several studies have explored the efficacy and toxic effects of concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)- or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without oxaliplatin in the neoadjuvant setting. Addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU or capecitabine elicited similar outcomes but with significantly increased toxic effects; however, there is a need for randomized clinical trials comparing 2 CRT regimens for patients receiving CRT in the adjuvant setting. OBJECTIVE To explore the efficacy and toxic effects of oxaliplatin combined with postoperative concurrent capecitabine and radiotherapy (RT) for pathological stage II and III rectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from 7 centers in China between April 1, 2008, and December 30, 2015. Patients with pathologically confirmed stage II and III rectal cancer were randomized (1:1) to receive concurrent CRT with capecitabine or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. Analysis was conducted from December 31, 2019, to March 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS RT comprised 45 to 50 Gy in 25 fractions of 1.8 to 2.0 Gy over 5 weeks. In the capecitabine with RT group, concurrent chemotherapy included 2 cycles of capecitabine (1600 mg/m2) on days 1 to 14 and 22 to 35. The capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group received identical postoperative RT to that in the capecitabine with RT group combined with capecitabine (1300 mg/m2) on days 1 to 14 and 22 to 35 and a 2-hour infusion of oxaliplatin (60 mg/m2) on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5. Patients in both groups received adjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil and oxaliplatin) after CRT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS A total of 589 patients (median [IQR] age, 55 [47-52] years; 375 [63.7%] men and 214 [36.3%] women) were enrolled, including 294 patients randomized to the capecitabine with RT group and 295 patients randomized to the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group. Median (IQR) follow-up was 68 (45-96) months. Most patients had stage III disease (574 patients [75.9%]). Three-year DFS was 76.3% for the capecitabine with RT group and 74.1% for the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group, and 5-year DFS was 72.0% for the capecitabine with RT group and 71.1% for the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79-1.44; P = .68). There was no significant difference between groups in overall survival (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.34; P = .70) or local recurrence (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22; P = .16). More grade 3 and 4 acute toxic effects were observed in the capecitabine and oxaliplatin with RT group than in the capecitabine with RT group (114 patients [38.6%] vs 84 patients [28.6%]; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine-based postoperative CRT did not improve the efficacy of treatment but increased the risk of severe acute toxic effects. This finding highlights the basic role of postoperative capecitabine with RT for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00714077.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ning Li
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yuan Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Lu-Ying Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Yan-Ru Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, China
| | - Wen-Ling Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Guizhou Cancer Hospital, Guiyang, China
| | - Jun Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tumor Hospital of Hebei Province, Shijiazhuang, China
| | - Hao Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Gao-Feng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yuan Tang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Chen Hu
- Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Wen-Yang Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Hua Ren
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Shu-Lian Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Wei-Hu Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yong-Wen Song
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yue-Ping Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Hui Fang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Yu Tang
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ning-Ning Lu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Bo Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Shu-Nan Qi
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Xin-Fan Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Ye-Xiong Li
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Jing Jin
- State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Feng Y, Liu L, Zhu Y. Systemic inflammation score in locally advanced rectal cancer patients following total mesorectal excision. Onco Targets Ther 2019; 12:6617-6622. [PMID: 31695404 PMCID: PMC6707432 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s213720] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2019] [Accepted: 07/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective The objective of the study was to evaluate whether any association exists between systemic inflammation score (SIS) and adverse events (AEs) and survival of locally advanced rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Patients and methods All of the 109 rectal cancer patients recruited between May 2008 and June 2015 were treated with TME followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The prognostic ability of SIS for overall survival (OS) was calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results According to the classification of the SIS, 22 (20.2%), 59 (54.1%) and 28 (25.7%) patients were classified as a score of 2, 1 and 0, respectively. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.616, the SIS score of 1 was defined as the optimal cut-off value. Therefore, we divided the patients into the SIS-low group (SIS score of 1 or 0, n=87) and SIS-high group (SIS score of 2, n=22). Multivariate analysis indicated that SIS was associated with OS (HR 0.390, 95% CI 0.186–0.817, P=0.012). The 5-year OS rate in patients without adjuvant chemotherapy was lower than the patients with adjuvant chemotherapy (53.3% vs 75.8%, P=0.010). Multivariate analysis showed that adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with OS (HR 0.217, 95% CI 0.089–0.529, P=0.001). A marginal statistically significant difference was observed in terms of leukopenia during adjuvant chemoradiotherapy between the SIS-low group and the SIS-high group (P=0.05). Conclusion These results suggest that SIS might serve as an independent biomarker for predicting AEs and prognosis in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with TME followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Strengthening treatment may be administered to locally advanced rectal cancer with high SIS score obtained before adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. ![]()
Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/4HtmAq1WMAE
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanru Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Luying Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
| | - Yuan Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Embryonic origin of primary colon cancer predicts survival in patients undergoing ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43:1040-1049. [PMID: 28187878 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2016] [Revised: 01/06/2017] [Accepted: 01/12/2017] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) or unresectable metastatic CRC, midgut embryonic origin is associated with worse prognosis. The impact of embryonic origin on survival after ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is unclear. METHODS We identified 74 patients with CLM who underwent percutaneous ablation during 2004-2015. Survival and recurrence after ablation of CLM from midgut origin (n = 18) and hindgut origin (n = 56) were analyzed. Prognostic value of embryonic origin was evaluated. RESULTS Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) after percutaneous ablation were worse in patients from midgut origin (3-year RFS: 5.6% vs. 24%, P = 0.004; 3-year OS: 25% vs. 70%, P 0.001). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse OS were midgut origin (hazard ratio [HR] 4.87, 95% CI 2.14-10.9, P 0.001), multiple CLM (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.02-5.39, P = 0.044), and RAS mutation (HR 2.78, 95% CI 1.25-6.36, P = 0.013). At a median follow-up of 25 months, 56 patients (76%) had developed recurrence, 16 (89%) with midgut origin and 40 (71%) with hindgut origin (P = 0.133). Recurrent disease was treated with local therapy in 20 patients (36%), 2 (13%) with midgut origin and 18 (45%) with hindgut origin (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION Compared to CLM from hindgut origin tumors, CLM from midgut origin tumors were associated with worse survival after ablation, which was partly attributable to the fact that patients with hindgut origin were more frequently candidates for local therapy at recurrence.
Collapse
|