BACKGROUND: Adherence to erlotinib could be a determinant for clinical outcome and treatment toxicity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (A-NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an observational study, the Basel Assessment of Adherence Scale (BAAS), a visual analogue scale (VAS), pill counting, and missed appointment rate were used to evaluate adherence in a first cohort of patients who was prescribed erlotinib without a specifically designed management strategy and in a second cohort of patients followed by an oral treatment monitoring program. RESULTS: Adherence > 95% by BAAS at 2 months of treatment in the first and second cohorts was 72% and 84%, respectively (P = .042). Adherence by pill counting was 78% and 87% in the first and second cohorts, respectively (P = .0021). Disease control rate (DCR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]) was significantly higher in all patients whose adherence by BAAS at 2 months was ≥ 95% (P = .0266). DCR was higher in the second cohort compared with the first, being 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53%-72%) and 44% (95% CI, 30%-58%) in the second and the first cohort, respectively (P = .0368). A significant correlation between the number of adverse events and patient-reported adherence was observed (r = 0.105; P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Nonadherence may be related to poorer rates of response to erlotinib. Effective interventions to reduce nonadherence need to be implemented.
BACKGROUND: Adherence to erlotinib could be a determinant for clinical outcome and treatment toxicity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (A-NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an observational study, the Basel Assessment of Adherence Scale (BAAS), a visual analogue scale (VAS), pill counting, and missed appointment rate were used to evaluate adherence in a first cohort of patients who was prescribed erlotinib without a specifically designed management strategy and in a second cohort of patients followed by an oral treatment monitoring program. RESULTS: Adherence > 95% by BAAS at 2 months of treatment in the first and second cohorts was 72% and 84%, respectively (P = .042). Adherence by pill counting was 78% and 87% in the first and second cohorts, respectively (P = .0021). Disease control rate (DCR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] + stable disease [SD]) was significantly higher in all patients whose adherence by BAAS at 2 months was ≥ 95% (P = .0266). DCR was higher in the second cohort compared with the first, being 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53%-72%) and 44% (95% CI, 30%-58%) in the second and the first cohort, respectively (P = .0368). A significant correlation between the number of adverse events and patient-reported adherence was observed (r = 0.105; P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Nonadherence may be related to poorer rates of response to erlotinib. Effective interventions to reduce nonadherence need to be implemented.
Authors: Joseph A Greer; Nicole Amoyal; Lauren Nisotel; Joel N Fishbein; James MacDonald; Jamie Stagl; Inga Lennes; Jennifer S Temel; Steven A Safren; William F Pirl Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Charles W Given; Barbara A Given; Alla Sikorskii; John C Krauss; Eric Vachon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Keith J Petrie; Annette L Stanton; Lan Ngo; Emma Finnerty; Ann H Partridge Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Giuseppe L Banna; Valeria Urzia; Chiara Benanti; Alessandra Pitrè; Helga Lipari; Rosario Di Quattro; Ugo De Giorgi; Giuseppe Schepisi; Umberto Basso; Davide Bimbatti; Francesco Rundo; Massimo Libra; Lorenzo Malatino Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sarah M Belcher; Emily Mackler; Benyam Muluneh; Pamela K Ginex; Mary K Anderson; Elizabeth Bettencourt; Ryan K DasGupta; Jennifer Elliott; Erica Hall; Michelle Karlin; Diana Kostoff; Victoria K Marshall; Vanessa E Millisor; Maegan Molnar; Susan M Schneider; Janelle Tipton; Susan Yackzan; Kristine B LeFebvre; Kapeena Sivakumaran; Haya Waseem; Rebecca L Morgan Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Kapeena Sivakumaran; Pamela K Ginex; Haya Waseem; Sarah M Belcher; Sarah Lagler-Clark; Kristine B LeFebvre; Nicole Palmer; Tejanth Pasumarthi; Rebecca L Morgan Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Vivian M Rodríguez; Mallorie Gordon; Isabelle K Avildsen; Jessica C Emanu; Sarah T Jewell; Kimberly A Anselmi; Pamela K Ginex Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Lonneke Timmers; Christel C L M Boons; J Moes-Ten Hove; Egbert F Smit; Peter M van de Ven; Joachim G Aerts; Eleonora L Swart; Epie Boven; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 4.553