PURPOSE As a result of their immunocompromised status associated with disease and treatment, patients with cancer face a profound threat for higher rates of complications and mortality if they contract the coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Medical oncology communities have developed treatment modifications to balance the risk of contracting the virus with the benefit of improving cancer-related outcomes. METHODS We systemically examined our community cancer center database to display patterns of change and to unveil factors that have been considered with each decision. We studied a cohort of 282 patients receiving treatment and found that 159 patients (56.4%) had treatment modifications. RESULTS The incidence of treatment modification was observed in patients undergoing adjuvant and neoadjuvant (41.4%), palliative (62.9%), or injectable endocrine or bone-modulating only (76.0%) treatments. Modifications were applied to regimens with myelosuppressive (56.5%), immunosuppressive (69.2%), and immunomodulating (61.5%) potentials. These modifications also affected intravenous (54.9%) and subcutaneous injectable treatments (62.5%) more than oral treatments (15.8%). Treatment modifications in 112 patients (70.4%) were recommended by providers, and 47 (29.6%) were initiated by patients. The most common strategy of modification was to skip or postpone a scheduled treatment (49%). Among treatment with no modifications, treatment regimens were maintained in patients who tolerated treatment well (37.0%), in treatments with curative intent (22%), and in symptomatic patients who required treatment (14%). CONCLUSION Our observation and analysis suggested that the primary goal of treatment modification was to decrease potential exposure. The pattern also reflected the negative impact of the pandemic on health care providers who initiated these changes. Providers have to consider individualized recommendations incorporating multiple factors, such as tolerance, potential toxicity, treatment nature and route, and disease severity.
Introduction
Limited data are available regarding the tolerance of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies among elderly metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. We retrospectively reviewed our experience of treating elderly mCRC patients with these agents between 2004 and 2011.
Methods
mCRC patients ≥65 years old treated with anti-EGFR agents were included in this analysis. We recorded demographic and disease characteristics, treatment regimen and duration, KRAS status, and overall survival. Toxicity evaluation included common hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities seen with these agents.
Results
117 patients were included with median age at treatment initiation of 73 years (65–86), 59% male gender, 82% colon primary, and 51% with metastatic disease at presentation. Median time on anti-EGFR treatment was 2.4 months. Older age at treatment initiation was associated with use of anti-EGFR antibody as monotherapy versus combination (p=0.0009). Worse performance status at treatment initiation was associated with a shorter overall survival (p=0.013) and shorter treatment duration (p=0.01). The incidence of hematologic/non-hematologic grade 3 or higher toxicity was 36% and 15% respectively. No association was found between age and presence of ≥ grade 3 toxicities. Longer treatment duration and better performance status at treatment initiation were the only factors associated with higher incidence of grade 3 toxicity.
Conclusions
Our data demonstrate that anti-EGFR antibodies can be used among older mCRC patients, with toxicity profiles similar to those reported in large phase III studies of younger patients. Advanced age was associated with receipt of anti-EGFR agents as monotherapy, but did not impact treatment outcomes in this population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.