Balancing risk and benefit for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a graphic communication tool for patients and physicians.

Advances in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer have improved overall survival (OS); however, this might come at the cost of increased toxicity. Health-related quality of life, a significant concern closely related to toxicity and important when discussing palliative therapy, is infrequently assessed and reported in older clinical trials. As the number of tested regimens increases, the question arises on how to best present palliative treatment options. We present a simple way to compare treatment options in terms of potential risks and benefits. The literature was surveyed for reports of first-line systemic chemotherapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. The largest recent reports with detailed toxicity data were selected as representative for a regimen. Toxicity sum of a regimen was calculated as percent occurrences in the study cohort of severe adverse effects: diarrhea, mucositis, neurocutaneous conditions (excluding alopecia), vomiting, and febrile neutropenia. Limitations of toxicity reporting precluded inclusion of other or milder adverse events. Benefits (OS and progression-free survival [PFS]) were plotted graphically as benefit versus toxicity sum. Thirty-four regimens were found. Overall survival, PFS, and toxicity sum ranged from 8.9-24.7 months, 4.9-9.2 months, and 12-70 months, respectively. Weaknesses of our study include omission of some specific toxicities and of symptom control benefit, as well as heterogeneity of trial design and study populations. Furthermore, more recent OS data might reflect the availability of more lines of therapy rather than the effect of the first-line regimen, as comparison with PFS outcomes show. Our comparative tool helps physicians discuss the large number of available options with a patient in order to arrive at the treatment plan most appropriate to the individual and improve informed consent and disclosure, while highlighting limitations in available evidence.