PURPOSE: This study aimed to elicit EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility values from patients with second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) pre- and post-progression. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in five hospitals in the Netherlands and the UK. Patients with mCRC were eligible if prescribed a second or subsequent line of therapy or best supportive care (BSC), received prior oxaliplatin in first-line therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of 0-2 at second-line initiation. Patients completed the EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and were categorized as pre- or post-progression. Chart data including patient demographics, clinical history, prior/current treatments and serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected. Mean utilities were estimated; uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled; 42 were pre-progression defined as second line or third line following an AE on second line and 33 were post-progression defined as third or subsequent therapy lines or BSC. Patient/disease characteristics and number of SAEs were similar between cohorts. Mean utility scores were 0.741 (SD = 0.230) and 0.731 (SD = 0.292) for pre- and post-progression cohorts, respectively. Compared to pre-progression, more patients reported increased anxiety/depression (36 vs. 12 %) and fewer problems with daily activities (64 vs. 38 %) post-progression. More patients pre-progression were on active treatment at enrolment (83 vs. 42 %) compared to post-progression. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to collect utilities for patients with second-line mCRC pre- and post-disease progression. Utility values were similar pre- and post-progression. To further explore the effect of radiological progression on utilities, longitudinal research is required that includes patients in palliative care centres.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to elicit EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) utility values from patients with second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) pre- and post-progression. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in five hospitals in the Netherlands and the UK. Patients with mCRC were eligible if prescribed a second or subsequent line of therapy or best supportive care (BSC), received prior oxaliplatin in first-line therapy, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of 0-2 at second-line initiation. Patients completed the EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and were categorized as pre- or post-progression. Chart data including patient demographics, clinical history, prior/current treatments and serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected. Mean utilities were estimated; uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled; 42 were pre-progression defined as second line or third line following an AE on second line and 33 were post-progression defined as third or subsequent therapy lines or BSC. Patient/disease characteristics and number of SAEs were similar between cohorts. Mean utility scores were 0.741 (SD = 0.230) and 0.731 (SD = 0.292) for pre- and post-progression cohorts, respectively. Compared to pre-progression, more patients reported increased anxiety/depression (36 vs. 12 %) and fewer problems with daily activities (64 vs. 38 %) post-progression. More patients pre-progression were on active treatment at enrolment (83 vs. 42 %) compared to post-progression. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first real-world study to collect utilities for patients with second-line mCRC pre- and post-disease progression. Utility values were similar pre- and post-progression. To further explore the effect of radiological progression on utilities, longitudinal research is required that includes patients in palliative care centres.
Authors: Axel Grothey; Mary M Sugrue; David M Purdie; Wei Dong; Daniel Sargent; Eric Hedrick; Mark Kozloff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennie H Best; Louis P Garrison; William Hollingworth; Scott D Ramsey; David L Veenstra Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dawn Odom; Beth Barber; Lee Bennett; Marc Peeters; Zhongyun Zhao; James Kaye; Michael Wolf; Jeffrey Wiezorek Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2010-12-29 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: L Bennett; Z Zhao; B Barber; X Zhou; M Peeters; J Zhang; F Xu; J Wiezorek; J-Y Douillard Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Michelle Carbonneau; Ejemai Amaize Eboreime; Ashley Hyde; Denise Campbell-Scherer; Peter Faris; Leah Gramlich; Ross T Tsuyuki; Stephen E Congly; Abdel Aziz Shaheen; Matthew Sadler; Marilyn Zeman; Jude Spiers; Juan G Abraldes; Benjamin Sugars; Winnie Sia; Lee Green; Dalia Abdellatif; Jeffrey P Schaefer; Vijeyakumar Selvarajah; Kaleb Marr; David Ryan; Yolande Westra; Neeja Bakshi; Jayant C Varghese; Puneeta Tandon Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel Eriksson; David Goldsmith; Siguroli Teitsson; James Jackson; Floortje van Nooten Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.388