Health-related quality of life and colorectal cancer-specific symptoms in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic disease treated with panitumumab

Dawn Odom, Beth Barber, Lee Bennett, Marc Peeters, Zhongyun Zhao, James Kaye, Michael Wolf, Jeffrey Wiezorek, Dawn Odom, Beth Barber, Lee Bennett, Marc Peeters, Zhongyun Zhao, James Kaye, Michael Wolf, Jeffrey Wiezorek

Abstract

Purpose: Panitumumab monotherapy is approved for chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patient-reported outcomes-although important in the palliative setting-have not been reported in this patient population.

Methods: In a phase 3 trial (n = 463), patients with chemotherapy-refractory mCRC were randomized 1:1 to panitumumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the NCCN/FACT CRC Symptom Index (FCSI) and EQ-5D Index. KRAS tumor status was analyzed in a prospectively defined, retrospective analysis. Average difference in change from baseline between treatment groups was evaluated using linear mixed and pattern-mixture models.

Results: KRAS tumor status and post-baseline patient-reported outcomes were available for 363 patients. Linear mixed models indicated significant differences in the FCSI score (difference in least-squares [LS] adjusted means [95% CI]; 5.62 [2.38, 8.86]) and the EQ-5D Index (difference in LS adjusted means [95% CI]; 0.22 [0.12, 0.32]) favoring panitumumab over BSC in patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. By pattern-mixture analysis, the advantage of panitumumab over BSC was more pronounced in those patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC who did not drop out of the study early. In patients with mutant KRAS mCRC, no differences were observed between groups.

Conclusions: Panitumumab-treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC maintained better control of CRC symptoms and quality of life compared with BSC alone, extending our understanding of the benefits of panitumumab treatment beyond improvements in progression-free survival.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Least-squares mean differences in the change from baseline in the FCSI scores between panitumumab plus BSC and BSC alone for patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC by analysis week, linear mixed models. Note: This model includes data only through week 13. Inclusion of week 17 data, which are missing for more than 80% of the analysis population, caused model instability to the extent that treatment effects could not be estimated. b Least-squares mean differences in the change from baseline in the EQ-5D Index between panitumumab plus BSC and BSC alone for patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC by analysis week (KRAS PRO analysis set), linear mixed models. FSCI Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, Colorectal Symptom Index; BSC best supportive care; mCRC metastatic colorectal cancer; EQ-5D EuroQol 5-Dimensions Index
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Unadjusted average change from baseline in FCSI score by week of assessment and dropout pattern (KRAS PRO analysis set). FSCI Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, Colorectal Symptom Index
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Least-squares mean differences in the change from baseline in the FCSI scores between panitumumab plus BSC and BSC alone for patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC in the late dropout group by analysis week, pattern-mixture model. b Least-squares mean differences in the change from baseline in the EQ-5D Index score between panitumumab plus BSC and BSC alone for patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC in the late dropout group by analysis week, pattern-mixture model. FSCI Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, Colorectal Symptom Index, BSC best supportive care, mCRC metastatic colorectal cancer, EQ-5D EuroQol 5-Dimensions Index

References

    1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74.
    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71–96. doi: 10.3322/CA.2007.0010.
    1. Davies JM, Goldberg RM. First-line therapeutic strategies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2008;22:1470–1479.
    1. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, Berlin J, Baron A, Griffing S, Holmgren E, Ferrara N, Fyfe G, Rogers B, Ross R, Kabbinavar F. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–2342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032691.
    1. Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Tu D, Au HJ, Berry SR, Krahn M, Price T, Simes RJ, Tebbutt NC, van Hazel G, Wierzbicki R, Langer C, Moore MJ. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2040–2048. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa071834.
    1. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet A, Neyns B, Canon JL, Van Laethem JL, Maurel J, Richardson G, Wolf M, Amado RG. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1658–1664. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.1620.
    1. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, Balfour J, Bardelli A. Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1308–1324. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp280.
    1. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Tu D, Tebbutt NC, Simes RJ, Chalchal H, Shapiro JD, Robitaille S, Price TJ, Shepherd L, Au HJ, Langer C, Moore MJ, Zalcberg JR. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1757–1765. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804385.
    1. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, Juan T, Sikorski R, Suggs S, Radinsky R, Patterson SD, Chang DD. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1626–1634. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.7116.
    1. Wiseman LR, Lyseng-Williamson KA. Management of metastatic colorectal cancer: defining the role of capecitabine. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 2005;13:137–149. doi: 10.2165/00115677-200513020-00007.
    1. Tappenden P, Jones, R, Paisley S, Carroll C (2007) Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Health Technology Assessment 11:No. 12
    1. Byrne C, Griffin A, Blazeby J, Conroy T, Efficace F. Health-related quality of life as a valid outcome in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33(Suppl 2):S95–S104.
    1. Cella D, Paul D, Yount S, Winn R, Chang CH, Banik D, Weeks J. What are the most important symptom targets when treating advanced cancer? A survey of providers in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Cancer Invest. 2003;21:526–535. doi: 10.1081/CNV-120022366.
    1. Colwell HH, Mathias SD, Turner MP, Lu J, Wright N, Peeters M, Cella D, Devercelli G. Psychometric evaluation of the FACT Colorectal Cancer Symptom Index (FCSI-9): reliability, validity, responsiveness, and clinical meaningfulness. Oncologist. 2010;15:308–316. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0034.
    1. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–220. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00003.
    1. Mathias SD, Pritchard ML, Colwell HH, Lu J, Wright N (2006) What is the minimal clinically important difference and responsiveness of a patient-reported outcome questionnaire for metastatic colorectal cancer? Ann Oncol 17: Abstract no. 349P
    1. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird N, Ware JH. Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.
    1. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. Application of random-effects pattern-mixture models for missing data in longitudinal studies. Psychol Methods. 1997;2:64. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.2.1.64.
    1. Little RJA. Pattern-mixture models for multivariate incomplete data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:125. doi: 10.2307/2290705.
    1. Siena S, Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Humblet Y, Conte P, Bajetta E, Comandini D, Bodoky G, Van Hazel G, Salek T, Wolf M, Devercelli G, Woolley M, Amado RG. Association of progression-free survival with patient-reported outcomes and survival: results from a randomised phase 3 trial of panitumumab. Br J Cancer. 2007;97:1469–1474. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604053.
    1. Peeters M, Siena S, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, Hendlisz A, Cascinu S, Kalofonos H, Devercelli G, Wolf M, Amado RG. Association of progression-free survival, overall survival, and patient-reported outcomes by skin toxicity and KRAS status in patients receiving panitumumab monotherapy. Cancer. 2009;115:1544–1554. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24088.
    1. Au H-J, Karapetis CS, O’Callaghan CJ, Tu D, Moore MJ, Zalcberg JR, Kennecke H, Shapiro JD, Koski S, Pavlakis N, Charpentier D, Wyld D, Jefford M, Knight GJ, Magoski NM, Brundage MD, Jonker DJ. Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab: overall and KRAS-specific results of the NCIC CTG and AGITG CO.17 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;11:1822–1828. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.6048.
    1. Lynch TJ, Jr, Kim ES, Eaby B, Garey J, West DP, Lacouture ME. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-associated cutaneous toxicities: an evolving paradigm in clinical management. Oncologist. 2007;12:610–621. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-5-610.
    1. Romito F, Giuliani F, Cormio C, Tulipani C, Mattioli V, Colucci G. Psychological effects of cetuximab-induced cutaneous rash in advanced colorectal cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:329–334. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0656-9.
    1. Donaldson GW, Moinpour CM. Learning to live with missing quality-of-life data in advanced-stage disease trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7380–7384. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.022.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi