Browsing by Author "Grothey, A"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancerPublication . Van Cutsem, E; Cervantes, A; Adam, R; Sobrero, A; Van Krieken, J H; Aderka, D; Aranda Aguilar, E; Bardelli, A; Benson, A; Bodoky, G; Ciardiello, F; D'Hoore, A; Diaz-Rubio, E; Douillard, J-Y; Ducreux, M; Falcone, A; Grothey, A; Gruenberger, T; Haustermans, K; Heinemann, V; Hoff, P; Köhne, C-H; Labianca, R; Laurent-Puig, P; Ma, B; Maughan, T; Muro, K; Normanno, N; Österlund, P; Oyen, W J G; Papamichael, D; Pentheroudakis, G; Pfeiffer, P; Price, T J; Punt, C; Ricke, J; Roth, A; Salazar, R; Scheithauer, W; Schmoll, H J; Tabernero, J; Taïeb, J; Tejpar, S; Wasan, H; Yoshino, T; Zaanan, A; Arnold, DColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.
- Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical TrialsPublication . McCleary, NJ; Harmsen, WS; Haakenstad, El; Cleary, JM; Meyerhardt, JA; Zalcberg, J; Adams, R; Grothey, A; Sobrero, AF; Van Cutsem, E; Goldberg, RM; Peeters, M; Tabernero, J; Seymour, M; Saltz, LB; Giantonio, BJ; Arnold, D; Rothenberg, ML; Koopman, M; Schmoll, HJ; Pitot, HC; Hoff, PM; Tebbutt, N; Masi, G; Souglakos, J; Bokemeyer, C; Heinemann, V; Yoshino, T; Chibaudel, B; deGramont, A; Shi, Q; Lichtman, SMBackground: We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions: Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.