C Carriles1, P Jimenez-Fonseca2, M Sánchez-Cánovas3, P Pimentel4, A Carmona-Bayonas3, T García4, M Carbajales-Álvarez5, A Lozano-Blázquez5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain. carrilesfer@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain. 3. Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, UMU, IMIB, Murcia, Spain. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Santa Lucía, Cartagena, Spain. 5. Department of Pharmacy, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess efficacy and safety and prognostic factors associated with TAS-102 in clinical practice. METHOD: Retrospective, multicenter, and observational study including patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer who started TAS-102 between March 2016 and August 2018. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, toxicity and analyze prognostic factors present at the beginning of TAS-102. RESULT: 84 patients were evaluable. The median OS was 8.30 (95% CI 6.23-9.87) months and PFS was 2.62 (95% CI 2.36-3.05) months. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 0 and reduced dose combined with more cycles were associated with better prognosis. Patients with an ECOG > 0 had worse prognosis (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.09-10.27, p = 0.035). 95.2% experienced some type of adverse effect and 45.2% had grade ≥ 3 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Results suggest reconsidering TAS-102 in patients with ECOG > 0, something that should be investigated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to assess efficacy and safety and prognostic factors associated with TAS-102 in clinical practice. METHOD: Retrospective, multicenter, and observational study including patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer who started TAS-102 between March 2016 and August 2018. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, toxicity and analyze prognostic factors present at the beginning of TAS-102. RESULT: 84 patients were evaluable. The median OS was 8.30 (95% CI 6.23-9.87) months and PFS was 2.62 (95% CI 2.36-3.05) months. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 0 and reduced dose combined with more cycles were associated with better prognosis. Patients with an ECOG > 0 had worse prognosis (HR 3.34, 95% CI 1.09-10.27, p = 0.035). 95.2% experienced some type of adverse effect and 45.2% had grade ≥ 3 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Results suggest reconsidering TAS-102 in patients with ECOG > 0, something that should be investigated in prospective randomized clinical trials.
Authors: Robert J Mayer; Eric Van Cutsem; Alfredo Falcone; Takayuki Yoshino; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Nobuyuki Mizunuma; Kentaro Yamazaki; Yasuhiro Shimada; Josep Tabernero; Yoshito Komatsu; Alberto Sobrero; Eveline Boucher; Marc Peeters; Ben Tran; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Alberto Zaniboni; Howard Hochster; James M Cleary; Hans Prenen; Fabio Benedetti; Hirokazu Mizuguchi; Lukas Makris; Masanobu Ito; Atsushi Ohtsu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Axel Grothey; Eric Van Cutsem; Alberto Sobrero; Salvatore Siena; Alfredo Falcone; Marc Ychou; Yves Humblet; Olivier Bouché; Laurent Mineur; Carlo Barone; Antoine Adenis; Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Frank Cihon; Lisa Cupit; Andrea Wagner; Dirk Laurent Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Matthias Unseld; Magdalena Drimmel; Alexander Siebenhüner; Andreas Gleiss; Daniela Bianconi; Markus Kieler; Werner Scheithauer; Thomas Winder; Gerald W Prager Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: E Van Cutsem; A Cervantes; R Adam; A Sobrero; J H Van Krieken; D Aderka; E Aranda Aguilar; A Bardelli; A Benson; G Bodoky; F Ciardiello; A D'Hoore; E Diaz-Rubio; J-Y Douillard; M Ducreux; A Falcone; A Grothey; T Gruenberger; K Haustermans; V Heinemann; P Hoff; C-H Köhne; R Labianca; P Laurent-Puig; B Ma; T Maughan; K Muro; N Normanno; P Österlund; W J G Oyen; D Papamichael; G Pentheroudakis; P Pfeiffer; T J Price; C Punt; J Ricke; A Roth; R Salazar; W Scheithauer; H J Schmoll; J Tabernero; J Taïeb; S Tejpar; H Wasan; T Yoshino; A Zaanan; D Arnold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: T Doi; A Ohtsu; T Yoshino; N Boku; Y Onozawa; A Fukutomi; S Hironaka; W Koizumi; T Sasaki Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Johannes J M Kwakman; G Vink; J H Vestjens; L V Beerepoot; J W de Groot; R L Jansen; F L Opdam; H Boot; G J Creemers; J M van Rooijen; M Los; A J E Vulink; H Schut; E van Meerten; A Baars; P Hamberg; E Kapiteijn; D W Sommeijer; C J A Punt; M Koopman Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Vincenzo Sforza; Erika Martinelli; Claudia Cardone; Giulia Martini; Stefania Napolitano; Pietro Paolo Vitiello; Pasquale Vitale; Nicoletta Zanaletti; Alfonso Reginelli; Maurizio Di Bisceglie; Tiziana Pia Latiano; Anna Maria Bochicchio; Fabiana Cecere; Francesco Selvaggi; Fortunato Ciardiello; Teresa Troiani Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2017-09-21
Authors: F Longo-Muñoz; G Argiles; J Tabernero; A Cervantes; C Gravalos; C Pericay; S Gil-Calle; H Mizuguchi; A Carrato-Mena; M L Limón; R Garcia-Carbonero Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.405