Surgery (RMH) - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemHow accurate are medical oncologists' impressions of management of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia?(WILEY, 2018-04)AIM: Current efforts to understand patient management in clinical practice are largely based on clinician surveys with uncertain reliability. The TRACC (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) database is a multisite registry collecting comprehensive treatment and outcome data on consecutive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients at multiple sites across Australia. This study aims to determine the accuracy of oncologists' impressions of real-word practice by comparing clinicians' estimates to data captured by TRACC. METHODS: Nineteen medical oncologists from nine hospitals contributing data to TRACC completed a 34-question survey regarding their impression of the management and outcomes of mCRC at their own practice and other hospitals contributing to the database. Responses were then compared with TRACC data to determine how closely their impressions reflected actual practice. RESULTS: Data on 1300 patients with mCRC were available. Median clinician estimated frequency of KRAS testing within 6 months of diagnosis was 80% (range: 20-100%); the TRACC documented rate was 43%. Clinicians generally overestimated the rates of first-line treatment, particularly in patients over 75 years. Estimate for bevacizumab in first line was 60% (35-80%) versus 49% in TRACC. Estimated rate for liver resection varied substantially (5-35%), and the estimated median (27%) was inconsistent with the TRACC rate (12%). Oncologists generally felt their practice was similar to other hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists' estimates of current clinical practice varied and were discordant with the TRACC database, often with a tendency to overestimate interventions. Clinician surveys alone do not reliably capture contemporary clinical practices in mCRC.
-
ItemThe impact of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer with an intact primary tumor: Results from a large prospective cohort study(WILEY, 2017-08)BACKGROUND: Debate continues regarding the benefits versus risks of initial resection of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with an asymptomatic primary tumor. Although the benefit of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent bevacizumab alongside first-line chemotherapy in mCRC is established, the impact of bevacizumab on the intact primary tumor (IPT) is less well understood. METHODS: Data from an Australian mCRC registry were used to assess the impact of bevacizumab-based regimens in the presence of an IPT, to see if this differs from effects in resected primary tumor (RPT) patients and to understand the safety profile of bevacizumab in patients with IPT. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety endpoints were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1204 mCRC patients, 826 (69%) were eligible for inclusion. Bevacizumab use was similar in both arms (IPT (64%) versus RPT (70%)); compared with chemotherapy alone, bevacizumab use was associated with significantly longer PFS (IPT: 8.5 months vs 4.7 months, P = 0.017; RPT: 10.8 months vs 5.8 months, P < 0.001) and OS (IPT: 20 months vs 14.8 months, P = 0.005; RPT: 24.4 months vs 17.3 months, P = 0.004)).1 Bevacizumab use in an IPT was associated with more GI perforations (4.5% vs 1.8%, P = 0.210) but less frequent bleeding (1.5% vs 5.3%, P = 0.050) and thrombosis (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = 0.470), versus chemotherapy alone. Median survival was equivalent between patients that did or did not experience bevacizumab-related adverse events - 20.0 months versus 19.9 months, hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.623.1 CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes in mCRC with an IPT. The occurrence of bevacizumab-related adverse events did not significantly impact survival outcomes.
-
ItemChemotherapy and biologic use in the routine management of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia: is clinical practice following the evidence?(WILEY, 2019-04)BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence on the optimal use of chemotherapy and biologics in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer should impact management in routine care. Recent studies have demonstrated benefits for initial triplet chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, FOLFOXIRI) and for initial treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) in patients with a RAS wild-type tumour and a left-sided primary tumour. AIM: To explore evolving pattern of metastatic colorectal cancer care over time in Australia. METHODS: We analysed data from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. RESULTS: From July 2009 to December 2017, 2552 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were entered into the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. Of 1585 patients who initially underwent chemotherapy, treatment was with a doublet in 76%. FOLFOXIRI was given to 22 patients (1.4%), mostly young patients and those with potentially resectable disease. Along with first-line chemotherapy, 61% received bevacizumab, while 3.3% received an EGFRi, predominantly over the last 2 years. Within the KRAS wild-type left-sided tumour cohort, EGFRi use increased from 9% in 2015 to 37% in 2017. Across treatment sites, there was a wide variation in the utilisation of FOLFOXIRI and EGFRi therapy; bevacizumab use was more consistent. A clear impact on survival outcomes from these regimens is not evident, potentially due to multiple confounders. CONCLUSION: Doublet chemotherapy + bevacizumab remains the dominant initial strategy, with limited uptake of triplet chemotherapy and of EGFRi. Potential explanations include uncertainty about the significance of post hoc analyses for EGFRi and concerns regarding adverse events for both strategies.