4.7 Article

Quality of life analysis in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated first-line with cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 439-448

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.023

关键词

Cetuximab; FOLFIRI; KRAS wild-type; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Quality of life

类别

资金

  1. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the CRYSTAL study adding cetuximab to first-line FOLFIRI significantly improved outcome in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed, and associations with tumour response and survival were investigated. Patients and methods: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire-core 30 was used, focusing on global health status (GHS)/QoL and social functioning scales. Radiological response was assessed by an independent review committee. Results: QoL was evaluable in 627/666 patients (94%) with KRAS wild-type tumours; of these 52% received FOLFIRI, and 48% FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. Pattern mixture analysis revealed no significant differences for GHS/QoL (P = 0.12) and social functioning scores (P = 0.43) between the treatment arms. In additional analyses: early skin reactions in patients receiving cetuximab did not significantly affect these QoL scales, and tumour response was more common (58% versus 40%, P = 0.0002) and survival longer (Hazard ratio 1.68, P < 0.0001) in asymptomatic compared with symptomatic patients at baseline. Adding cetuximab to FOLFIRI was associated with significantly higher tumour response irrespective of patient baseline symptomatic status, and enhanced symptom relief from baseline in those whose tumours had responded. Conclusion: Adding cetuximab to FOLFIRI improved response rate and survival without either improving or negatively impacting on GHS/QoL and social functioning. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据