Ruofei Du1,2,3, Xin Wang1, Lixia Ma4, Leon M Larcher5, Han Tang1, Huiyue Zhou1, Changying Chen6, Tao Wang7,8,9. 1. The College of Nursing and Health of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China. 2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China. 3. School of Medical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China. 4. School of Statistics, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou, 450046, China. 5. Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, 6150, Australia. 6. The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China. changying@zzu.edu.cn. 7. The College of Nursing and Health of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China. wangtaomary@zzu.edu.cn. 8. Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, 6150, Australia. wangtaomary@zzu.edu.cn. 9. Hebi People's Hospital, Hebi, 458030, China. wangtaomary@zzu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adverse reactions (ADRs) of targeted therapy were closely associated with treatment response, clinical outcome, quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer. However, few studies presented the correlation between ADRs of targeted therapy and treatment effects among cancer patients. This study was to explore the characteristics of ADRs with targeted therapy and the prognosis of cancer patients based on the clinical data. METHODS: A retrospective secondary data analysis was conducted within an ADR data set including 2703 patients with targeted therapy from three Henan medical centers of China between January 2018 and December 2019. The significance was evaluated with chi-square test between groups with or without ADRs. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise method were applied to assess the difference of pathological characteristics in patients with cancer. Using the univariate Cox regression method, the actuarial probability of overall survival was performed to compare the clinical outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were enrolled in this study. Of all patients, 61.0% (n = 296) occurred ADRs including skin damage, fatigue, mucosal damage, hypertension and gastrointestinal discomfort as the top 5 complications during the target therapy. And 62.1% of ADRs were mild to moderate, more than half of the ADRs occurred within one month, 68.6% ADRs lasted more than one month. Older patients (P = 0.022) and patients with lower education level (P = 0.036), more than 2 comorbidities (P = 0.021), longer medication time (P = 0.022), drug combination (P = 0.033) and intravenous administration (P = 0.019) were more likely to have ADRs. Those with ADRs were more likely to stop taking (P = 0.000), change (P = 0.000), adjust (P = 0.000), or not take the medicine on time (P = 0.000). The number of patients with recurrence (P = 0.000) and metastasis (P = 0.006) were statistically significant difference between ADRs and non-ADRs group. And the patients were significantly poor prognosis in ADRs groups compared with non-ADRs group. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of ADRs would affect the treatment and prognosis of patients with cancer. We should pay more attention to these ADRs and develop effective management strategies.
BACKGROUND: The adverse reactions (ADRs) of targeted therapy were closely associated with treatment response, clinical outcome, quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer. However, few studies presented the correlation between ADRs of targeted therapy and treatment effects among cancerpatients. This study was to explore the characteristics of ADRs with targeted therapy and the prognosis of cancerpatients based on the clinical data. METHODS: A retrospective secondary data analysis was conducted within an ADR data set including 2703 patients with targeted therapy from three Henan medical centers of China between January 2018 and December 2019. The significance was evaluated with chi-square test between groups with or without ADRs. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression with backward stepwise method were applied to assess the difference of pathological characteristics in patients with cancer. Using the univariate Cox regression method, the actuarial probability of overall survival was performed to compare the clinical outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were enrolled in this study. Of all patients, 61.0% (n = 296) occurred ADRs including skin damage, fatigue, mucosal damage, hypertension and gastrointestinal discomfort as the top 5 complications during the target therapy. And 62.1% of ADRs were mild to moderate, more than half of the ADRs occurred within one month, 68.6% ADRs lasted more than one month. Older patients (P = 0.022) and patients with lower education level (P = 0.036), more than 2 comorbidities (P = 0.021), longer medication time (P = 0.022), drug combination (P = 0.033) and intravenous administration (P = 0.019) were more likely to have ADRs. Those with ADRs were more likely to stop taking (P = 0.000), change (P = 0.000), adjust (P = 0.000), or not take the medicine on time (P = 0.000). The number of patients with recurrence (P = 0.000) and metastasis (P = 0.006) were statistically significant difference between ADRs and non-ADRs group. And the patients were significantly poor prognosis in ADRs groups compared with non-ADRs group. CONCLUSION: The high incidence of ADRs would affect the treatment and prognosis of patients with cancer. We should pay more attention to these ADRs and develop effective management strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adverse reactions; Cancer patients; Hospitalization; Quality of life; Targeted therapy
Authors: Mark G Kris; Bruce E Johnson; Lynne D Berry; David J Kwiatkowski; A John Iafrate; Ignacio I Wistuba; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Wilbur A Franklin; Samuel L Aronson; Pei-Fang Su; Yu Shyr; D Ross Camidge; Lecia V Sequist; Bonnie S Glisson; Fadlo R Khuri; Edward B Garon; William Pao; Charles Rudin; Joan Schiller; Eric B Haura; Mark Socinski; Keisuke Shirai; Heidi Chen; Giuseppe Giaccone; Marc Ladanyi; Kelly Kugler; John D Minna; Paul A Bunn Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria Schwaederle; Melissa Zhao; J Jack Lee; Alexander M Eggermont; Richard L Schilsky; John Mendelsohn; Vladimir Lazar; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sze Ling Chan; Xiaohui Ang; Levana L Sani; Hong Yen Ng; Michael D Winther; Jian Jun Liu; Liam R Brunham; Alexandre Chan Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Khushwant S Bhullar; Naiara Orrego Lagarón; Eileen M McGowan; Indu Parmar; Amitabh Jha; Basil P Hubbard; H P Vasantha Rupasinghe Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Yeo Jin Choi; Chang-Young Choi; Sandy Jeong Rhie; Sooyoung Shin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.614