BMC cancer · 2020
Review of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment pathways and early clinical experience of trifluridine/tipiracil in the UK named patient programme.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iveson Timothy, Carter Angela M, Shiu Kai-Keen, Spooner Clare, Stevens Daniel, Mullamitha Saifee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The standard first- and second- line chemotherapy backbone regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based with addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Until recently, evidence for optimal sequencing post second-line was sparse. Trifluridine/tipiracil (indicated for mCRC and gastric cancer after standard chemotherapies) was made available to UK patients via a named patient programme (NPP) before receiving marketing authorisation in Europe in 2016, allowing characterisation of UK treatment pathways, and evaluation of trifluridine/tipiracil in a UK non-trial population.
METHODS: Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s).
RESULTS: Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0-69.0) and 62.0 (54.8-69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8-2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) months.
CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.
METHODS: Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s).
RESULTS: Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0-69.0) and 62.0 (54.8-69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8-2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) months.
CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.