Real World Data in Oncology: Third- and Fourth-Line Treatments Administered in Metastatic Colon-Rectal Cancer (MCRC)

Abstract

and retrieved from an extra boost of ONCOVIEW database. ONCOVIEW is a continuous syndicated study on cancer treatment in the hospital setting, based on the collection of patient questionnaires. Patients inclusion criteria were the presence of an mCRC diagnosis, 3rd or later actual therapy line and no participation in a phase II or III clinical study. Information collected included patient demographic characteristics, mCRC characteristics (TNM Classification, Karnofsky performance status scale and mutation analyses) and treatments (actual and previous schedules, dosages and durations). Furthermore, an evaluation of the "Rechallenge" occurrence, in other words the use in 3rd or later line of treatment of drugs previously used, has been performed. Results: 261 patients diaries have been collected: 218 out of 261 patients were in third line of treatment, while 43 patients were in 4th or later treatment line. The most administered schema among third line patients was Capecitabine alone (63 patients), while the most used schema in fourth line was a combination of Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid (7 patients). About 40% of molecules administered in 3rd line and 67% of molecules administered in 4th line were used in previous lines. ConClusions: Results from the present study underline the unmet medical need in 3rd or later line of treatment of mCRC patients and the need for additional evidence-based treatment options.objeCtives: The objective of this study was to assess the oncologists' real clinical practice in the management of mCRC patients, with a focus on the 3rd, 4th and later lines of therapy in Italy. Methods: Data presented in this study were collected from medical records obtained by Italian oncologists on mCRC patients

Disease characteristics and treatment patterns of Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study using medical records from China

“…As multiple chemotherapeutic and targeted biologic agents emerged, treatment patterns and sequences for mCRC patients have significantly evolved over the past decade [12]. Several studies have reported the complex and changing treatment pattern among mCRC patients in the United States [13][14][15][16], Canada [17], and some European countries [18,19]. However, there is a lack of key real-world evidence on the clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of CRC/mCRC patients in China.…”

Maximising clinical benefit with adequate patient management beyond the second line in mCRC

“…A retrospective comparison between trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib in 200 patients demonstrated that the majority of patients treated with third-line agents were fit patients 9. In addition, an overview of patient profiles in the refractory setting demonstrated that patients receiving third-line or fourth-line treatment for mCRC had a European Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 0 or 1 10. Data provided by phase III clinical studies correspond only to ECOG 0 or 1 patients, while real-world evidence coming from the REBECCA cohort, the CORRECT and RECOURSE trials, and Spanish real-world data includes also a subset of patients with ECOG >1, suggesting thereby that this subset of patients is not represented in clinical trials.…”

Untitled

“…Aproximadamente 25% dos pacientes apresentam metástase no momento do diagnóstico e cerca de 50% apresentarão metástase durante o curso da doença, contribuindo para uma elevada taxa de mortalidade relacionada a esse tipo de câncer (Van Cutsem et al, 2014). Dos pacientes com CCRm, apenas 28% recebem tratamento em terceira linha (Abrams et al, 2014) e, embora a doença esteja em um estágio mais avançado, esses pacientes ainda estão aptos a receber tratamento, sendo fundamental uma opção terapêutica adequada e otimizada para essa fase (Chibaudel et al, 2012;Heiman et al, 2014).…”