Improving survival in colorectal cancer: what role for general practice?

ACORN: Observational Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With First-Line Chemotherapy for Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is worse than expected in the United Kingdom. Real-world data are needed to better understand UK-specific treatment practices that may explain this.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Avastin ColORectal Non-interventional (ACORN) study is a multicenter, prospective, UK-based, observational, phase 4 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01506167) that recruited patients with metastatic colorectal cancer scheduled to receive bevacizumab in combination with first-line chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice. Primary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (AEs), and grade 3 to 5 bevacizumab-related AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 714 patients were recruited between August 30, 2012, and February 4, 2014. Median follow-up was 16.4 months. Median first-line chemotherapy duration was 5.6 months, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (265 [37.1%]) being the most common regimen. Median total chemotherapy duration was 8.1 months and did not vary by geographic location in the UK. Median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) was 8.7 (8.2-9.1) months, and median OS was 17.8 (16.1-19.3) months. There was no significant difference in efficacy by chemotherapy regimen administered. Ninety-nine patients (13.9%) received bevacizumab after disease progression. The safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with previous studies.

CONCLUSION

ACORN provided evidence that there were no clear differences observed in outcomes between bevacizumab with capecitabine-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil-based regimens, and confirmed the safety profile of bevacizumab in a real-world UK-based population. The lower-than-expected OS is likely due to the short total chemotherapy duration, less frequent use of bevacizumab after disease progression, and higher rates of in-situ primary tumors.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

OBJECTIVE

International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia).

DESIGN

Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary).

RESULTS

The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results.

CONCLUSION

ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.