Anna Hung1, C Daniel Mullins. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. anna.hung@umaryland.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy effectiveness in clinical practice may differ from the efficacy demonstrated in clinical trials, particularly among populations underrepresented in clinical trials, such as elderly patients with cancer. This review aims to examine the relative effectiveness of chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in elderly versus nonelderly patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality approach. Literature searches were performed in Medline and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases. Chemotherapy regimens approved for stage III colon cancer were reviewed. Four effectiveness and 15 safety outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: From 708 identified articles, 25 articles provided data on the relative effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy among elderly versus nonelderly patients. Four of 14 studies showed lower overall survival treatment effects, whereas one of five and one of four studies indicated more favorable treatment effects for time to progression and overall response rate. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were higher among elderly patients for cardiac disorder (2/5 studies), leukopenia (1/5), neutropenia (4/16), thrombocytopenia (2/13), febrile neutropenia (1/4), infection (2/10), dehydration (2/6), diarrhea (6/20), and fatigue (6/13). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lower for neutropenia (2/16 studies), nausea/vomiting (1/16), and neuropathy (1/9). CONCLUSION: The majority of the evidence suggests that chemotherapy has similar relative effectiveness and safety for patients >65 years of age versus younger patients with stage III colon cancer. When differences are reported, treatment effects are more often worse among the elderly. This review suggests that without other reasons for withholding treatment, elderly patients should receive chemotherapy as often as nonelderly patients.
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy effectiveness in clinical practice may differ from the efficacy demonstrated in clinical trials, particularly among populations underrepresented in clinical trials, such as elderly patients with cancer. This review aims to examine the relative effectiveness of chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer in elderly versus nonelderly patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality approach. Literature searches were performed in Medline and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases. Chemotherapy regimens approved for stage III colon cancer were reviewed. Four effectiveness and 15 safety outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: From 708 identified articles, 25 articles provided data on the relative effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy among elderly versus nonelderly patients. Four of 14 studies showed lower overall survival treatment effects, whereas one of five and one of four studies indicated more favorable treatment effects for time to progression and overall response rate. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were higher among elderly patients for cardiac disorder (2/5 studies), leukopenia (1/5), neutropenia (4/16), thrombocytopenia (2/13), febrile neutropenia (1/4), infection (2/10), dehydration (2/6), diarrhea (6/20), and fatigue (6/13). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lower for neutropenia (2/16 studies), nausea/vomiting (1/16), and neuropathy (1/9). CONCLUSION: The majority of the evidence suggests that chemotherapy has similar relative effectiveness and safety for patients >65 years of age versus younger patients with stage III colon cancer. When differences are reported, treatment effects are more often worse among the elderly. This review suggests that without other reasons for withholding treatment, elderly patients should receive chemotherapy as often as nonelderly patients.
Authors: D J Sargent; R M Goldberg; S D Jacobson; J S Macdonald; R Labianca; D G Haller; L E Shepherd; J F Seitz; G Francini Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-10-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Mattioli; P Lippe; F Recchia; C Massacesi; L Imperatori; S De Filippis; M Rosselli; P Gattafoni; V Casadei; D Consales Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: T S Maughan; R D James; D J Kerr; J A Ledermann; M T Seymour; C Topham; C McArdle; D Cain; R J Stephens Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-02-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Farid Fata; Ayoub Mirza; G Craig; Suresh Nair; Amy Law; James Gallagher; Neil Ellison; Albert Bernath Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Carmen J Allegra; Greg Yothers; Michael J O'Connell; Saima Sharif; Linda H Colangelo; Samia H Lopa; Nicholas J Petrelli; Richard M Goldberg; James N Atkins; Thomas E Seay; Louis Fehrenbacher; Seamus O'Reilly; Luis Chu; Catherine A Azar; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M A Bensmaïne; M Marty; A de Gramont; S Brienza; F Lévi; M Ducreux; E François; E Gamelin; H Bleiberg; E Cvitkovic Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2001-08-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lindsey E Bischel; Christine Ritchie; Kord M Kober; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Lee-May Chen; Jon D Levine; Marilyn Hammer; Fay Wright; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Zhiyuan Zheng; Nader Hanna; Eberechukwu Onukwugha; Emily S Reese; Brian Seal; C Daniel Mullins Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 4.452