Chemotherapy use and patient treatment preferences in advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine how patient preferences guide the course of palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were enrolled nationwide in a prospective, population-based cohort study. Data were obtained through medical record abstraction and patient surveys. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate patient characteristics associated with visiting medical oncology and receiving chemotherapy and patient characteristics, beliefs, and preferences associated with receiving >1 line of chemotherapy and receiving combination chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 702 patients with mCRC, 91% consulted a medical oncologist; and among those, 82% received chemotherapy. Patients ages 65 to 75 years and aged ≥75 years were less likely to visit an oncologist, as were patients who were too sick to complete their own survey. In adjusted analyses, patients aged ≥75 years who had moderate or severe comorbidity were less likely to receive chemotherapy, as were patients who were too sick to complete their own survey. Patients received chemotherapy even if they believed that chemotherapy would not extend their life (90%) or that chemotherapy would not likely help with cancer-related problems (89%), or patients preferred treatment focusing on comfort even if it meant not living as long (90%). Older patients were less likely to receive combination first-line therapy. Patient preferences and beliefs were not associated with receipt of >1 line of chemotherapy or combination chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients received chemotherapy even if they expressed negative or marginal preferences or beliefs regarding chemotherapy. Patient preferences and beliefs were not associated with the intensity or number of chemotherapy regimens.

Early dissemination of bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We describe early dissemination patterns for first-line bevacizumab given for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment. METHODS: We analyzed patient surveys and medical records for a population-based cohort with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in multiple regions and health systems in the United States (US). Eligible patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer and initiated first-line chemotherapy after US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) bevacizumab approval in February 2004. First-line bevacizumab therapy was defined as receiving bevacizumab within 8 weeks of starting chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated factors associated with first-line bevacizumab treatment using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 355 patients, 31% received first-line bevacizumab in the two years after FDA approval, including 26% of men, 41% of women, and 16% of those ≥ 75 years. Use rose sharply within 6 months after FDA approval, then plateaued. 20% of patients received bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan; 53% received it with oxaliplatin. Men were less likely than women to receive bevacizumab (adjusted OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.93; p = 0.026). Patients ≥ 75 years were less likely to receive bevacizumab than patients < 55 years (adjusted OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.46; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of eligible metastatic colorectal cancer patients received first-line bevacizumab shortly after FDA approval. Most patients did not receive bevacizumab as part of the regimen used in the pivotal study leading to FDA approval.

Comorbidity, age, race and stage at diagnosis in colorectal cancer: a retrospective, parallel analysis of two health systems.

BACKGROUND: Stage at diagnosis plays a significant role in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. Understanding which factors contribute to a more advanced stage at diagnosis is vital to improving overall survival. Comorbidity, race, and age are known to impact receipt of cancer therapy and survival, but the relationship of these factors to stage at diagnosis of CRC is less clear. The objective of this study is to investigate how comorbidity, race and age influence stage of CRC diagnosis. METHODS: Two distinct healthcare populations in the United States (US) were retrospectively studied. Using the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium database, we identified CRC patients treated at 15 Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals from 2003-2007. We assessed metastatic CRC patients treated from 2003-2006 at 10 non-VA, fee-for-service (FFS) practices. Stage at diagnosis was dichotomized (non-metastatic, metastatic). Race was dichotomized (white, non-white). Charlson comorbidity index and age at diagnosis were calculated. Associations between stage, comorbidity, race, and age were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: 342 VA and 340 FFS patients were included. Populations differed by the proportion of patients with metastatic CRC at diagnosis (VA 27% and FFS 77%) reflecting differences in eligibility criteria for inclusion. VA patients were mean (standard deviation; SD) age 67 (11), Charlson index 2.0 (1.0), and were 63% white. FFS patients were mean age 61 (13), Charlson index 1.6 (1.0), and were 73% white. In the VA cohort, higher comorbidity was associated with earlier stage at diagnosis after adjusting for age and race (odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.00; p = 0.045); no such significant relationship was identified in the FFS cohort (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.44; p = 0.57). In both cohorts, no association was found between stage at diagnosis and either age or race. CONCLUSION: Higher comorbidity may lead to earlier stage of CRC diagnosis. Multiple factors, perhaps including increased interactions with the healthcare system due to comorbidity, might contribute to this finding. Such increased interactions are seen among patients within a healthcare system like the VA system in the US versus sporadic interactions which may be seen with FFS healthcare.

Assessment of the scope and quality of clinical practice guidelines in lung cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To provide an evidence-based background for developing the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) lung cancer guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed to identify published lung cancer guidelines and evaluate their quality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A systematic search was performed for relevant literature from MEDLINE, Cancerlit, CINAHL, HealthStar, the Cochrane Library, and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse published from January 1989 to July 2001. MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS: From 369 citations, 51 relevant guidelines were identified. Each guideline was evaluated by at least four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument and was coded for clinical topics covered. The recommendations included in each guideline also were abstracted. Of the 51 guidelines evaluated, 27 (53%) were evidence-based. Clinical topics identified by the ACCP for their guideline effort each were represented by at least one existing guideline. Of the 880 clinical recommendations abstracted from the guidelines, only 253 (29%) were evidence-based. The AGREE instrument rates guidelines along six domains. As a group, the guidelines performed well in the scope and purpose domain, with only six guidelines (12%) scoring < 50%. For the remaining domains, however, the guidelines did not perform as well, as follows: for stakeholder involvement, 41 guidelines (80%) scored < 50%; for rigor of development, 29 guidelines (57%) scored < 50%; for clarity and presentation, 17 guidelines (33%) scored < 50%; for applicability, 46 guidelines (90%) scored < 50%; and for editorial independence, 47 guidelines (92%) scored < 50%. After considering the domain scores, the reviewers recommended only 19 of the guidelines (37%). CONCLUSIONS: All major clinical lung cancer topics are covered by at least one guideline, but no single guideline addresses all areas. Furthermore, although existing guidelines may accurately reflect clinical practice, most performed poorly when evaluated for quality. Future guideline efforts that address each item of the AGREE instrument would add substantially to the literature.