Article

Ongoing Challenge of Stage II Colon Cancer

University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 07/2011; 29(25):3346-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.4571
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
18 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Introduction: The 12-gene colon cancer Recurrence Score assay is a clinically validated predictor of recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer patients. We performed a survey characterizing the assay's impact on treatment recommendations for these patients. Methods: U.S. medical oncologists (N=346) who ordered the assay for ≥3 stage II colon cancer patients were asked to complete a web-based survey regarding their most recent such patient. Physicians surveyed represented users of the assay within the first two years of commercial availability which may include 'early adopters.' Results: Most of 116 eligible physicians were in community practice (86%), with median 14.5 years' experience (range, 2-40). Mean patient age was 61 years (range, 32-85); 81% had T3 disease and 38% had comorbidities. Of 76 patients tested for mismatch-repair/microsatellite-instability (MMR/MSI), 13 (17%) were MMR-deficient/MSI-high; 46 (61%) MMR-proficient/MSI-low; and 17 (22%) unknown. Most patients (84%) had ≥12 nodes examined. Median Recurrence Score result was 20 (range, 1-77). Before assay, treatment recommendations were specified for 92 (79%) patients, with no recommendation for 24 (21%). Of the 92 with pre-assay recommendations, chemotherapy was planned for 52 (57%) and observation for 40 (43%); the assay changed recommendations for 27 (29%). Treatment intensity decreased for 18 (67%) and increased for 9 (33%) patients; it was more likely to decrease for lower Recurrence Score values and increase for higher values (P<0.001). Conclusion: For stage II colon cancer patients receiving Recurrence Score testing, 29% of treatment recommendations were changed. Use of the assay may lead to reductions in treatment intensity. Study limitations include retrospective design, data gathering during the first 2 years of assay availability only, and potential non-representativeness of respondents.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 10/2013; 30(2). DOI:10.1185/03007995.2013.855183 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to changes in cancer-related risk factors, improvements in diagnostic procedures and treatments, and the aging of the population, in most developed countries cancer accounts for an increasing proportion of health care expenditures. The analysis of cancer-related costs is a topic of several economic and epidemiological studies and represents a research area of great interest to public health planners and policy makers. In Italy studies are limited either to some specific types of expenditures or to specific groups of cancer patients. Aim of the paper is to estimate the distribution of cancer survivors and associated health care expenditures according to a disease pathway which identifies three clinically relevant phases: initial (one year following diagnosis), continuing (between initial and final) and final (one year before death). The methodology proposed is based on the reconstruction of patterns of care at individual level by combining different data sources, surveillance data and administrative data, in areas covered by cancer registration. A total colorectal cancer-related expenditure of 77.8 million Euros for 18012 patients (corresponding to about 4300 Euros per capita) is estimated in 2006 in two Italian areas located in Tuscany and Veneto regions, respectively. Cost of care varies according to the care pathway: 11% of patients were in the initial phase, and consumed 34% of total expenditure; patients in the final (6%) and in the continuing (83%) phase consumed 23% and 43% of the budget, respectively. There is an association between patterns of care/costs and patients characteristics such as stage and age at diagnosis. This paper represents the first attempt to attribute health care expenditures in Italy to specific phases of disease, according to varying treatment approaches, surveillance strategies and management of relapses, palliative care. The association between stage at diagnosis, profile of therapies and costs supports the idea that primary prevention and early detection play an important role in a public health perspective. Results from this pilot study encourage the use of such analyses in a public health perspective, to increase understanding of patient outcomes and economic consequences of differences in policies related to cancer screening, treatment, and programs of care.
    BMC Cancer 07/2013; 13(1):329. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-13-329 · 3.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to current recommendations for adjuvant treatment, patients with colon cancer stage II are not routinely offered chemotherapy, unless considered to have a high risk of relapse based on specific clinicopathological parameters. Following these criteria, it is challenging to identify the subgroup of patients that will benefit the most from adjuvant treatment. Contrarily, patients with colon cancer stage III are routinely offered chemotherapy, but due to expected adverse effects and frailty, elderly patients are often excluded from standard protocols. Colon cancer is a disease of the elderly and accordingly, there is a large subgroup of patients for which guidelines for adjuvant treatment remain less clear. In these two clinical settings, improved risk stratification has great potential impact on patient care, anticipating that high risk patients will benefit from chemotherapy. However, microsatellite instability is the only molecular prognostic marker recommended for clinical use. In this perspective, we provide an updated view on the status and clinical potential of the many proposed prognostic gene expression-based tests for colon cancer stage II and III. The main limitation for clinical implementation is lack of prospective validation. For patients with stage II, highly promising tests have been identified and clinical trials are ongoing. For elderly patients with stage III, the value of such tests has received less focus, but promising early results have been shown. Although awaiting results from prospective trials, improved risk assessment for patients with stage II and III is likely to be achieved in the foreseeable future.
    Clinical Cancer Research 10/2013; 19(24). DOI:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-1769 · 8.19 Impact Factor