Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun 20:5:314.
doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-314.

Symptom burden & quality of life among patients receiving second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark S Walker  1 , Elaine Yu Pharm, Jiandong Kerr, Yeun Mi Yim, Edward J Stepanski, Lee S Schwartzberg
Affiliations

Symptom burden & quality of life among patients receiving second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark S Walker et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Background: Bevacizumab (B) and cetuximab (C) are both approved for use in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the second-line. We examined patient reported symptom burden during second-line treatment of mCRC.

Methods: Adult mCRC patients treated in the second-line setting with a regimen that included B, C, or chemotherapy only (O) and who had completed ≥ 1 Patient Care Monitor (PCM) surveys as part of routine clinical care were drawn from the ACORN Data Warehouse. Primary endpoints were rash, dry skin, itching, nail changes, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, burning in hands/feet, and diarrhea. Linear mixed models examined change in PCM scores across B, C and O (B = reference).

Results: 182 patients were enrolled (B: n = 106, C: n = 38, O: n = 38). Patients were 51% female, 67% Caucasian, with mean age of 62.0 (SD = 12.6). Groups did not differ on demographic or clinical characteristics. The most common second-line regimens were FOLFIRI ± B or C (23.1%) and FOLFOX ± B or C (22.5%). Results showed baseline scores to be strongly predictive of second-line symptoms across all PCM items (all p's < .0001 except for Rash, p = .0013). Controlling for baseline, patients on B tended to have more stable and less severe symptoms. Patients on C had more severe rash, dry skin, and itching and had nail change scores that worsened faster than did B patients.

Conclusions: Patients receiving second-line treatment for mCRC with B report less symptom burden, especially dermatologic, compared to patients treated with C.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sample development.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Linear mixed model of rash scores controlling for baseline.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Linear mixed model of dry skin scores controlling for baseline.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Linear mixed model of itching scores controlling for baseline.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2011–2013 Atlanta. American Cancer Society, GA; 2011.
    1. Coutinho AK, Rocha Lima CM. Metastatic colorectal cancer: systemic treatment in the new millennium. Cancer Control. 2003;10(3):224–238. - PubMed
    1. Rougier P, Mitry E. Epidemiology, treatment and chemoprevention in colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(Suppl 2)):ii3–ii5. - PubMed
    1. Starling N, Tilden D, White J, Cunningham D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(2):206–212. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603561. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Capdevila J, Ramos FJ, Macarulla T, Elez E, Tabernero J. The role of salvage treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;71(1):53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.09.006. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types