Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Chemotherapy in a Large Retrospective Study of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a US Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: The combination chemotherapy regimens of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-p + G) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have each demonstrated improved survival compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in clinical trials for metastatic pancreatic cancer; however, limited comparative data exist. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes including time to treatment failure and overall survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multi-site, observational cohort study of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line nab-p + G, FFX, or gemcitabine monotherapy between April 2013 and October 2015, using data from the iKnowMed electronic health record database. Patients on clinical trials or with other cancer diagnoses were excluded. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-six patients met selection criteria, 255 nab-p + G, 159 FFX, and 72 gemcitabine patients. Median age was 61, 68, and 73 years for FFX, nab-p + G, and gemcitabine patients, respectively (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 was 91% for FFX, 77% for nab-p + G, and 68% for gemcitabine patients (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). For the nab-p + G vs. FFX cohorts, respectively, time to treatment failure was 3.7 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.25); and OS was 9.8 vs. 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.38). Among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, time to treatment failure was 4.2 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.47); and overall survival was 12.1 vs 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The nab-p + G patients were older and had worse performance status than FFX patients. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were not observed to be significantly different in first-line nab-p + G and FFX patients. Results were similar after stratifying by performance status.

Emergency use of uridine triacetate for the prevention and treatment of life-threatening 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Increased susceptibility to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5-FU. Life-threatening 5-FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early-onset severe or life-threatening 5-FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5-FU metabolites. METHODS: In 2 open-label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5-FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5-FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care. RESULTS: A total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate-treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5-FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5-FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345-356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use of Adjuvant Cisplatin-Based Versus Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Findings From the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: For patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer, national guidelines recommend cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy as the preferred treatment. However, many patients receive a carboplatin-based regimen instead. We aimed to identify factors associated with use of a cisplatin-based regimen and explore its association with other quality-of-care measures. METHODS: This analysis was part of the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care, an audit and feedback project among 11 medical oncology practices. Feedback-sharing sessions based on findings of year 2006 took place in 2008. Eligible patients were random samples of those with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer treated in 2006 and 2009. RESULTS: In both years combined, 81 patients received adjuvant platinum-based doublets: 33 patients (41%) received cisplatin, and 48 patients (59%) received carboplatin. Use of a cisplatin-based doublet significantly increased in 2009 compared with 2006, from 24% to 56% (P = .006). Multivariable analysis determined that academic practices used cisplatin more frequently than nonacademic practices (odds ratios, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.19 to 8.91; P = .02). Moreover, patients treated in 2009 were more likely to receive cisplatin than those treated in 2006 (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 1.75 to 13.67; P = .002). No significant association between use of cisplatin and other quality-of-care measures was found. CONCLUSION: In this study, academic practice status and treatment year predicted use of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The increase in use of cisplatin in 2009, as compared with 2006, suggests that audit and feedback may be effective ways to promote such use.

Changes in the care of non-small-cell lung cancer after audit and feedback: the Florida initiative for quality cancer care.

PURPOSE: Audit and feedback have been widely used to enhance the performance of various medical practices. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most common diseases encountered in medical oncology practice. We investigated the use of audit and feedback to improve the care of NSCLC. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patients with NSCLC first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 518) and 2009 (n = 573) at 10 oncology practices participating in the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care. In 2008, feedback from 2006 audit results was provided to practices, which then independently undertook steps to improve their performance. Sixteen quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) were evaluated on both time points and were examined for changes in adherence over time. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in adherence was observed for five of 16 QCIs. Adherence to brain staging using magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan for stage III NSCLC (57.8% in 2006 v 82.8% in 2009; P = .001), availability of chemotherapy flow sheet (89.2% v 97.0%; P < .001), documentation of performance status for stage III and IV disease (43.4% v 51.3%; P < .001), availability of pathology report for patients undergoing surgery (95.2% v 99.2%; P = .02), and availability of signed chemotherapy consent (69.5% v 76.3%; P = .04). There were no statistically significant decreases in adherence on any QCIs. CONCLUSION: Audit with feedback was associated with a modest but important improvement in the treatment of NSCLC. Whether these changes are durable will require long-term follow-up.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

Adverse events associated with antiangiogenic agents in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer and their management.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women, and, despite advances in detection and treatment that result in a steadily decreasing incidence and mortality, remains a leading cause of death. The 5-year survival rate of persons with metastatic CRC (mCRC) is only 12%. With the recognition of vascularity as an important factor in tumor proliferation and growth, targeting angiogenesis pathways has been a major focus of research. The addition of bevacizumab, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, to cytotoxic chemotherapy has improved response rates and survival of patients with mCRC. Aflibercept, a potent new multiple angiogenic factor trap that prevents not only VEGF-A but also VEGF-B and placental growth factor from activating their native receptors, has demonstrated efficacy in previously treated patients with mCRC. Phase I/II clinical trials and, more recently, a phase III clinical trial, have demonstrated effective antiangiogenic and cytotoxic activity with acceptable safety and tolerability. As is the case with bevacizumab, the optimal use of aflibercept requires appropriate management of the associated anti-VEGF adverse events and those associated with its use in combination with chemotherapy. These adverse events have previously been observed and are generally manageable with appropriate therapeutic intervention.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Survival outcomes of bevacizumab beyond progression in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated in US community oncology.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab prolongs OS when added to first- or second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. This retrospective analysis evaluated the association between the continued use of BBP and survival outcomes in mCRC patients treated in a community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the US Oncology iKnowMed electronic medical record system. Patients with mCRC who received first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009, were dichotomized into 2 second-line treatment cohorts: those receiving BBP and No-BBP. Clinical outcomes, including OS and postprogression OS (ppOS; time from start of second-line therapy to any-cause death), were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the effects of patient and treatment characteristics on survival outcomes, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 573 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis-BBP (n = 267) and No-BBP (n = 306). Median OS and ppOS were longer in the BBP cohort (27.9 and 14.6 months, respectively) compared with the No-BBP cohort (21.4 and 10.1 months). According to multivariate analyses, BBP was associated with longer OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95) and ppOS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In the community oncology setting, BBP treatment was correlated with prolonged OS and ppOS in patients with mCRC. These results provide insight into real-world patterns of care and resultant bevacizumab use in this patient population.

Effects of a brief multimedia psychoeducational intervention on the attitudes and interest of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial participation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The negative attitudes of patients with cancer regarding clinical trials are an important contributor to low participation rates. This study evaluated whether a brief psychoeducational intervention was effective in improving patients' attitudes as well as their knowledge, self-efficacy for decision making, receptivity to receiving more information, and general willingness to participate in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 472 adults with cancer who had not been asked previously to participate in a clinical trial were randomly assigned to receive printed educational information about clinical trials or a psychoeducational intervention that provided similar information and also addressed misperceptions and concerns about clinical trials. The primary (attitudes) and secondary outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, receptivity, and willingness) were assessed via patient self-report before random assignment and 7 to 28 days later. RESULTS: Patients who received the psychoeducational intervention showed more positive attitudes toward clinical trials (P = .016) and greater willingness to participate (P = .011) at follow-up than patients who received printed educational information. Evidence of an indirect effect of intervention assignment on willingness to participate (estimated at 0.168; 95% CI, 0.088 to 0.248) suggested that the benefits of psychoeducation on willingness to participate were explained by the positive impact of psychoeducation on attitudes toward clinical trials. CONCLUSION: A brief psychoeducational intervention can improve the attitudes of patients with cancer toward clinical trials and thereby increase their willingness to participate in clinical trials. Findings support conducting additional research to evaluate effects of this intervention on quality of decision making and rates of participation among patients asked to enroll onto therapeutic clinical trials.

Implementation of a performance improvement initiative in colorectal cancer care.

PURPOSE: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer after breast and prostate cancer. Numerous improvement programs have been implemented to increase CRC screening rates, but few have focused on improving the care and management of patients with a diagnosis of this malignancy. As national medical organizations focus on quality of care, efforts are necessary to provide clinicians the opportunity for self-assessment and methods for practice improvement. With this goal in mind, a national continuing medical education-certified performance improvement initiative was conceived. METHODS: THE INITIATIVE CONSISTED OF THREE STAGES: First, participants self-assessed their performance of predetermined topic measures through a review of patient charts. The topic areas included patient safety and supportive care, evidence-based surveillance, and evidenced-based treatment and were derived from current guidelines and other successful quality-improvement initiatives. Second, an actionable plan for practice improvement was developed in at least one of the three topic areas. Third, after a period of self-improvement, participants reassessed their performance of the same topic measures to determine tangible changes in patient care. RESULTS: A total of 540 patient charts were reviewed by 27 clinicians. Notable results showed large gains in areas of supportive care, such as quantitative pain assessments and emotional well-being evaluations, which traditionally have been a minor focus of other quality-improvement initiatives. Participants also showed tangible improvements in the performance of leading measures of quality care. CONCLUSION: These findings support the need for continued efforts toward performance improvement in both established and emerging areas of CRC patient care.

Treatment decisions after diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves the use of active cytotoxic drugs (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], and capecitabine) and biological agents (bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab) either in combination or as single agents. Until recently, the only biological agent with proven first-line efficacy was bevacizumab, but options have expanded from the data generated with anti-endothelial growth factor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies. Anti-EGFR agents can be added to first-line FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], irinotecan) or FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], oxaliplatin) in patients whose tumors express wild-type KRAS. These agents may improve outcomes when added to chemotherapy, particularly progression-free survival (PFS), and in the case of cetuximab, overall survival (OS) and response rates. The selection of first-line therapy should be based on the individual treatment goals after considering the efficacy and tolerability of each regimen. For patients with metastases confined to the liver, surgical resection offers a potentially curative approach. For initially unresectable lesions, treatment regimens offering high response rates may produce sufficient tumor shrinkage to permit complete resection. Regimens with high response rates are also preferable for patients requiring symptom relief or for those with large tumor burdens. The choice between intensive vs. nonintensive management also depends on other factors, including the patient's functional status, comorbidities, and desires. A sequential single-agent strategy or an intermittent approach (combination therapy followed by maintenance) may minimize toxicity and be appropriate for patients who are not surgical candidates, irrespective of treatment response. Guidelines, such as those of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), recommend that KRAS mutational status should be determined at mCRC diagnosis to identify candidates for anti-EGFR therapy whether they are used in first or subsequent lines of treatment.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in two distinct databases.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to use two separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on-Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on-Pathway in the EHR database was comparable with those in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from two distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathway costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Pathways, outcomes, and costs in colon cancer: retrospective evaluations in 2 distinct databases.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to use 2 separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS: Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on- Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on- Pathways in the EHR database was comparable with that in the published literature. CONCLUSION: Results from 2 distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathways costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

Quality of care in non-small-cell lung cancer: findings from 11 oncology practices in Florida.

BACKGROUND: Limited data on the quality of care in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are available. This study aims to assess the quality of care in NSCLC among 11 medical oncology practices in Florida and to explore the impact of practice volume on care. METHODS: Clinical guidelines and existing indicators were reviewed, and an expert survey was conducted to identify a set of process-based quality of care indicators (QI). Medical records of new patients with NSCLC seen in 2006 were retrospectively reviewed for the adherence to these QIs. RESULTS: We reviewed the compliance with a set of 11 QIs (four general and seven NSCLC specific) among 531 patients. The patient median age was 68 years; 51% were male, and 49% had advanced NSCLC. The median adherence rates to general QIs and NSCLC-specific QIs were 95% (range 69% to 99%) and 69% (range 29% to 91%), respectively. We identified three main areas of deficiencies: chemotherapy consenting (69%), brain staging for stage III NSCLC (59%), and performance status assessment for advanced stages (42%). Significant variation in the adherence rates across practice sites was observed in five of 11 QIs. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this data set of participating institutions in Florida, several areas in the care of patients with NSCLC were identified as targets for future quality improvement efforts.

Initial evaluation of quality indicators for psychosocial care of adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The American Psychosocial Oncology Society has developed the first indicators of the quality of psychosocial care for cancer patients. This report describes the initial evaluation of these indicators. METHODS: Medical records of 388 colorectal cancer patients first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 at seven practice sites were reviewed by trained abstractors whose accuracy was documented by periodic checks. RESULTS: Rates of assessment of emotional well-being within 1 month of a patient's first visit with a medical oncologist ranged from 6% to 84% (mean = 60%; P < .001). Among the 45 patients identified as having a problem with emotional well-being, rates of evidence of action taken (or explanation for no action) ranged from 0% to 100% (mean = 51%; P = .85). A direct comparison showed that pain was assessed more often than emotional well-being in these patients (87% vs 60%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings show these indicators can be measured easily and reliably, demonstrate variability across practices that suggests potential for improvement, and yield information that can be used to take actions to improve quality. Additional findings suggest that, to date, efforts to promote routine symptom assessment have been more successful for pain than for emotional well-being.

Successful administration of panitumumab alone after severe infusion reaction to cetuximab in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The administration of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) can result in infusion reactions of various grades; severe reactions are seen in approximately 3% of patients after infusions of cetuximab (fatalities occur in approximately 0.1% of patients). We report a case of a patient who had a severe reaction to cetuximab (a murine MoAb) who then received panitumumab (a human MoAb) and tolerated it without any infusion reaction.

Phase II study of oral capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Nutley, NJ) in patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were treated with oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) administered twice daily (2,500 mg/m(2)/d) as intermittent therapy in 3-week cycles consisting of 2 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week without treatment. Tumor lesions were assessed by computed tomography scan or physical examination at 6-week intervals (after every two cycles). Adverse events were monitored continuously during treatment and for 28 days after the last dose of study drug. RESULTS: Ten (24%) of 42 patients experienced a clinical benefit response (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1% to 39.5%) as evidenced by improvement in pain intensity, analgesic consumption, and/or Karnofsky performance status. Three (7.3%) of the 41 patients with measurable disease had an objective response (partial). The median time to objective response was 85 days (range, 47 to 91 days) and duration of response was 208, 260, and 566 days for the three responding patients. One patient with nonmeasurable but assessable disease had improved residual disease with a positive clinical benefit response, for a total of four responses among the 42 assessable patients, for an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% CI, 3.3% to 20.5%). Capecitabine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Treatment with capecitabine resulted in clinically significant beneficial effects on tumor-related symptoms and yielded objective response activity in patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. These results together with its generally tolerable safety profile and the added advantage of oral administration provide the basis for further evaluating capecitabine as a single agent or in combination with other treatment modalities in this patient population.