PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade > or = 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy. RESULTS: Compared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade > or = 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.
PURPOSE: Performance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2patients is uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade > or = 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy. RESULTS: Compared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2patients had significantly higher rates of grade > or = 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2patients. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, PS2patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2patients.
Authors: J Y Douillard; D Cunningham; A D Roth; M Navarro; R D James; P Karasek; P Jandik; T Iveson; J Carmichael; M Alakl; G Gruia; L Awad; P Rougier Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C H Köhne; D Cunningham; F Di Costanzo; B Glimelius; G Blijham; E Aranda; W Scheithauer; P Rougier; M Palmer; J Wils; B Baron; F Pignatti; P Schöffski; S Micheel; H Hecker Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: L B Saltz; J V Cox; C Blanke; L S Rosen; L Fehrenbacher; M J Moore; J A Maroun; S P Ackland; P K Locker; N Pirotta; G L Elfring; L L Miller Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A de Gramont; A Figer; M Seymour; M Homerin; A Hmissi; J Cassidy; C Boni; H Cortes-Funes; A Cervantes; G Freyer; D Papamichael; N Le Bail; C Louvet; D Hendler; F de Braud; C Wilson; F Morvan; A Bonetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Roscoe F Morton; Charles S Fuchs; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Stephen K Williamson; Brian P Findlay; Henry C Pitot; Steven R Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gregory A Masters; Sarah Temin; Christopher G Azzoli; Giuseppe Giaccone; Sherman Baker; Julie R Brahmer; Peter M Ellis; Ajeet Gajra; Nancy Rackear; Joan H Schiller; Thomas J Smith; John R Strawn; David Trent; David H Johnson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544