Search

Norbert Marschner,1 Dirk Arnold,2 Erik Engel,3 Ulrich Hutzschenreuter,4 Jacqueline Rauh,5 Werner Freier,6 Holger Hartmann,7 Melanie Frank,8 Martina Jänicke7 On behalf of the TKK Registry Group 1Praxis für Interdisziplinäre Onkologie und Hämatologie, 2Klinik für Tumorbiologie, Freiburg, Germany; 3Hämatologisch – Onkologische Praxis Altona, Hamburg, Germany; 4Hämatologisch – Onkologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Nordhorn, Germany; 5Fachinternistische Gemeinschaftspraxis und Therapiezentrum, Witten, Germany; 6Onkologische Praxis, Hildesheim, Germany; 7Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, iOMEDICO, 8Statistics, iOMEDICO, Freiburg, Germany Purpose: Several randomized trials investigating the preferable first-line combination chemotherapy regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer have shown inconsistent findings. Because a substantial number of patients are still being treated with "chemo-only" first-line therapies without targeted agents, we compared overall survival (OS) of patients treated in routine practice with oxaliplatin–fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan–fluoropyrimidine. Patients and methods: Using the database of the Tumor Registry Colorectal Cancer, we identified 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received first-line fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy with either oxaliplatin (n=430) or irinotecan (n=175). The Tumor Registry Colorectal Cancer is a cohort study that prospectively documents treatment of colorectal cancer by office-based medical oncologists in Germany and has recruited over 5,000 patients. OS was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables. Results: Median OS was 26.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.4–31.9) months with an oxaliplatin–fluoropyrimidine combination and 18.3 (95% CI 15.1–23.2) months with irinotecan–fluoropyrimidine first-line "chemo-only" therapy. Median progression-free survival was 9.0 (8.1–10.2) and 7.9 (7.2–10.2) months, respectively. The difference in OS was confirmed if analysis was restricted to patients with synchronous metastases (no prior treatment). Among other variables, proportion of patients receiving any second-line therapy did not differ between groups. Oxaliplatin-based first-line therapy was associated with improved OS in multivariate analysis adjusted for potentially confounding variables (hazard ratio 0.678, 95% CI 0.510–0.901, P=0.007). Conclusion: In clinical routine practice, first-line treatment with oxaliplatin–fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy compared to irinotecan–fluoropyrimidine combination is associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, independent of all examined potentially confounding factors. Keywords: colorectal neoplasms, epidemiology, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, cohort studies, treatment outcome

Purpose: The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS)., Methods: Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires., Results: A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24-72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications., Conclusion: The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians' most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS., Trial Registration: No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Despite intensive research, the therapeutic options in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are still limited. Data from routine clinical practice, so-called "real-world data", are centrally important to assess and improve the standard of care. We present prospectively documented data on systemic first-, second- and third-line treatment, number of treatment lines and outcome parameters of patients treated by medical oncologists in Germany., Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive analysis on 432 patients with extensive-stage SCLC enrolled at start of first-line therapy into the prospective German clinical cohort study TLK (Tumour Registry Lung Cancer). Patients were recruited by 87 sites between February 2010 and December 2013 and followed-up individually for 3 years., Results: The majority of patients (93%) received a first-line platinum-based combination therapy. Carboplatin plus etoposide was documented more frequently than cisplatin plus etoposide (46 vs. 35%); patients receiving carboplatin were older (68 vs. 63 years) and more often presented with poorer performance status (17 vs. 11% ECOG ≥ 2). Both regimens yielded similar response and survival rates. Median first-line overall survival (OS) was 10.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-12.3) for carboplatin plus etoposide and 12.2 months (95% CI 10.1-14.7) for cisplatin plus etoposide. Most patients (77%) would have been eligible for participation in a clinical trial. 50% of the patients received a second and 22% a third line of treatment. Median second-line OS was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.8-7.5), median third-line OS 5.7 months (95% CI 3.8-7.0)., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study of prospectively documented patients with extensive-stage SCLC in routine clinical practice. We present treatment algorithms as well as outcome parameters for a large cohort in first-, second- and third-line treatment. The survival times and response rates reported in this routine setting correspond to the respective measures from large prospective trials., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Despite increasing treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable for most patients. Data on improvement of outcomes are derived from selected patient populations enrolled in clinical trials and might not be conferrable to all patients. Therefore, we assessed the trial eligibility, sequential treatment, and survival of non-transplant patients with MM treated in German routine care. The prospective clinical cohort study TLN (Tumour Registry Lymphatic Neoplasms) recruited 285 non-transplant patients with symptomatic MM at start of first-line treatment in 84 centres from 2009 to 2011. Demographic and clinical data were collected until August 2016. Trial-ineligibility was determined by presence of at least one of the common exclusion criteria: heart/renal failure, liver/renal diseases, polyneuropathy, HIV positivity. All other patients were considered potentially trial-eligible. Thirty percent of the patients in our study were classified as trial-ineligible. Median first-line progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of trial-ineligible patients were inferior to that of potentially trial-eligible patients: PFS 16.2 months (95% CI (confidence interval) 11.1-20.4) vs. 27.3 months (95% CI 23.3-33.0); OS 34.2 months (95% CI 21.6-48.1) vs. 58.6 months (95% CI 48.6-64.4). A high percentage of non-transplant patients with MM in German routine care would be ineligible for participation in clinical trials. Despite similar treatment algorithms, their first-line PFS and OS were shorter than those of potentially trial-eligible patients; the survival data of the latter were similar to results from clinical trials. Physicians should be aware of the fact that results from clinical trials may not mirror "real world" patient outcomes when discussing outcome expectations with patients. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00889798.

Purpose: Although treatment for early breast cancer improved prognosis greatly, it can have significant long-term consequences, which must be considered during treatment decision., Methods: 453 patients with neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment intention were recruited into the MaTox project within the prospective, multicentre, population-based German TMK cohort study (Tumour Registry Breast Cancer) between 2008 and 2009. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on 26 treatment-related symptoms were assessed via a specifically designed questionnaire at 4 weeks, 6 months, 18 months and 3 years after start of systemic treatment., Results: The results show that alterations in smell, taste and appetite were clearly improved 3 years after treatment. In contrast, post-surgical symptoms, restrictions in memory/attention, musculoskeletal system and polyneuropathy worsened substantially over time and were persistent after 3 years: 78% of the patients recorded impairment in memory, 73% muscle pain, 67% pain at the operated site and 57% paraesthesia in fingers or toes. A logistic regression model showed that risk factors for developing persistent paraesthesia symptoms were age, early paraesthesia symptoms and taxane-based therapy., Conclusions: Our data show that most patients with breast cancer have persistent impairments negatively influencing their daily life even 3 years after treatment. Furthermore, we highlight areas requiring special attention in follow-up care.

Background Signal transduction inhibitors (STIs) have considerably improved treatment of advanced/metastasized renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Most safety data for these drugs are derived from clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which adverse drug reactions are documented during first-line treatments in routine clinical practice. Patients and methods The ongoing prospective German mRCC clinical registry is recruiting patients in 110 oncology and urology outpatient centers. Data from the first 250 patients who had completed first-line treatment were analyzed regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs) documented in patients' medical records. Results Patients were older than in clinical trials and had comorbidities. Patients were treated with the STIs sunitinib (61%), temsirolimus (14%), sorafenib (10%), or bevacizumab combined with interferon (6%). About 520 ADRs were documented, of which 29% resulted in treatment modifications. The most frequently affected organ system was the gastrointestinal system. The most frequently documented ADRs were mucositis/stomatitis (14%), fatigue (14%), diarrhea (12%), and nausea (12%). Conclusions In routine practice, mRCC first-line treatments using STIs frequently lead to ADRs partly necessitating treatment modifications. The pattern of reported ADRs is similar to that reported in clinical trials, but frequencies of events differ, especially for symptoms of multifactorial origin that are not immediately associated with the treatment. These results indicate that perception and documentation of adverse reactions is different between clinical trials and routine practice, and that reviews of patients' medical records might not be the best method to assess safety in routine practice.

Background: Data on routine systemic treatment of patients with ovarian cancer are currently available only to a limited degree. The alkylating agent treosulfan is approved in oral (p.o.) and intravenous (i.v.) form for the treatment of ovarian carcinoma. The present non-interventional study analyzed the clinical use of treosulfan in Germany, evaluating the mode of application, toxicity, and response and survival rate., Patients and Methods: Two hundred and forty-eight ovarian cancer patients in 57 Centers, who received treosulfan mainly either i.v. (5,000-8,000 mg/m(2) d1, q21d or q28d) or p.o. (400-600 mg/m(2) d1-14 or 21, q28d) for at least one therapy cycle were evaluable and were included in the study., Results: With a median age of 70 years (range=36-92 years), predominantly elderly patients received treosulfan treatment. Most participants presented serous histology (131, 52.8%) and advanced-stage FIGO III (122, 49%) or IV (55, 22%) disease. Median ECOG status was 1 (range=0-2), whereas cardiac co-morbidity was common (31%). Treosulfan was usually administered as second- (26%), third- (21%) or fourth-line (17%) therapy. Two hundred and one patients received i.v. and 47 p.o., Treatment: The most common reason for dose modifications was due to hematological toxicity (46%). The main reason for a therapy discontinuation was progressive disease (38.5%). Response was observed in 25.8% of participants, disease stabilization in 28.6 % and progress in 45.6%. The median progression-free and overall survival was 196 and 405 days, respectively., Conclusion: In predominantly elderly and heavily pre-treated patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, treosulfan featured a clinical relevant efficacy and well-manageable, mostly hematological, toxicity, which resulted in a positive therapeutic index., (Copyright© 2015 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved.)