Search

Purpose: Although initially approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression, the use of anti-EGFR antibodies is now restricted to wild-type KRAS tumors. Little is known about prescribers' response to new clinical data, practice guidelines, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label change with regard to the use of anti-EGFR antibodies in clinical practice. Methods: Commercially insured patients withmCRCwhoreceived second-line therapy between 2004 and 2010 were identified by dusing the LifeLink Health Plan Claims Database.We calculated the fraction of patients receiving anti-EGFR antibody in 2-month intervals. χ2 tests were used to compare treatment rates at four time points: time 1: June 2008, ASCO presentation of clinical data; time 2: February 2009, ASCO guidelines publication; time 3: August 2009, FDA label change; time 4: April 2010 to 8 months after FDA label change. Results: Five thousand eighty-nine patients received secondline therapy; of these, 2,599 patients received an anti-EGFR antibody. Median age was 60 years (range, 20 to 97), with 57% male sex. The majority of patients (59.4%) received an anti-EGFR antibody at time 1, with significant decrease at each of the subsequent time points (time 2: 46.2% [P=.019]; time 3: 35.2% [P<.001]; Time 4: 16.2% [P<.001]). Multivariable logistic regression did not show any affect of age, sex, comorbidities, or region of the country on this pattern. Conclusions: The use of anti-EGFR antibodies for mCRC decreased after the presentation of clinical trial data, ASCO guidelines publication, and FDA label change. These data suggest that oncologists respond rapidly to new evidence and professional guidelines, and readily incorporate predictive biomarkers into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the challenges associated with caring for an older patient with cancer. Topics include the projected increase in the number of older people with cancer by 2050, obstacles and concerns that arise at different stages of the disease according to an article by A. Shahrokni and colleagues, and a model proposed by Shahrokni et al for the identification of geriatric syndromes and referral to support services.

PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a subjective assessment of patients' overall health. Quantification of physical activity using a wearable tracker (Fitbit Charge [FC]) may provide an objective measure of patient's overall PS and treatment tolerance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer were prospectively enrolled into two cohorts (medical and surgical) and asked to wear FC for 4 days at baseline (start of new chemotherapy [± 4 weeks] or prior to curative resection) and follow-up (4 weeks [± 2 weeks] after initial assessment in medical and postoperative discharge in surgical cohort). Primary end point was feasibility, defined as 75% of patients wearing FC for at least 12 hours/d, 3 of 4 assigned days. Mean steps per day (SPD) were correlated with toxicities of interest (postoperative complication or ≥ grade 3 toxicity). A cutoff of 5,000 SPD was selected to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty patients were accrued over 3 years with 55% males and a median age of 59.5 years. Feasibility end point was met with 68 patients (85%) wearing FC more than predefined duration and majority (91%) finding its use acceptable. The mean SPD count for patients with PS 0 was 6,313, and for those with PS 1, it was 2,925 (122 and 54 active minutes, respectively) (P =.0003). Occurrence of toxicity of interest was lower among patients with SPD > 5,000 (7 of 33, 21%) compared with those with SPD < 5,000 (14 of 43, 32%), although not significant (P =.31). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity with FC is feasible in patients with colorectal cancer and well-accepted. SPD may serve as an adjunct to PS assessment and a possible tool to help predict toxicities, regardless of type of therapy. Future studies incorporating FC can standardize patient assessment and help identify vulnerable population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Older adults compose the majority of patients with cancer in the United States; however, it is unclear how well geriatrics or geriatric oncology training is being incorporated into hematology-oncology (hem-onc) fellowships. Methods A convenience sample of hem-onc fellows completed a (written or electronic) survey assessing their education, clinical experiences, and perceived proficiency in geriatric oncology during training; knowledge base in geriatric oncology; confidence in managing older adults with cancer; and general attitudes toward geriatric oncology principles. Results Forty-five percent of respondents (N = 138) were female, 67% were based in the United States, and most (60%) were past their first year of training. Most fellows rated geriatric oncology as important or very important (84%); however, only 25% reported having access to a geriatric oncology clinic and more than one half (53%) reported no lectures in geriatric oncology. Fellows reported fewer educational experiences in geriatric oncology than in nongeriatric oncology. For example, among procedure-based activities, 12% learned how to perform a geriatric assessment but 78% learned how to perform a bone marrow biopsy (P , .05). Of those completing the knowledge-based items, 41% were able to identify correctly the predictors of chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. Conclusion Despite the prevalence of cancer in older adults, hem-onc fellows report limited education in or exposure to geriatric oncology. The high value fellows place on geriatric oncology suggests that they would be receptive to additional training in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]