Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDunn, Catherine
dc.contributor.authorTie, Jeanne
dc.contributor.authorWong, Rachel
dc.contributor.authorKosimider, Suzanne
dc.contributor.authorField, Kathryn
dc.contributor.authorBurge, Matthew
dc.contributor.authorTo, Yat Hang
dc.contributor.authorShapiro, Jeremy
dc.contributor.authorHong, Wei
dc.contributor.authorJennens, Ross
dc.contributor.authorParente, Phillip
dc.contributor.authorCaird, Susan
dc.contributor.authorLee, Margaret
dc.contributor.authorLee, Belinda
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-13T01:19:08Z
dc.date.available2021-09-13T01:19:08Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn1743-7555en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/407875
dc.description.abstractBackground: Fluoropyrimidine doublets are the instinctive choice for most Australian oncologists treating first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Accepted alternatives, supported by multiple randomised studies, include single-agent fluoropyrimidine (FP), which is associated with a similar overall survival (OS) when compared with doublets. Whilst combination therapies are associated with greater treatment response, intensifying treatment from single, to doublet and triplet chemotherapy is associated with increased toxicity. Methods: Data were analysed from TRACC, a large multisite Australian cancer registry collecting prospective demographic, tumour, treatment and outcome data for mCRC. We identified patients <75 years treated with first-line chemotherapy between 2009 and 2020, and determined the proportion treated with single-agent FP, doublet or triplet chemotherapy (with or without a biologic). Log-rank testing and Kaplan Meier curves were used to compare PFS and OS for FP versus doublet cohorts. Results: Of 2196 patients in TRACC, 1402 (63.8%) met study criteria. The majority received doublets (1237, 88.3%), with fewer receiving single-agent FP (145 = 10.3%) or triplet regimens (20 = 1.4%). Use of triplet (FOLFOXIRI) increased over time, with 9% receiving triplet therapy by 2020. Those receiving FP alone were older than those receiving doublet (median age 66 v 60 years), had a poorer performance status (ECOG 0%–1 74% v 93%) and greater comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index > 3 in 59% v 30%). Patients receiving initial FP had inferior PFS compared with doublets (mPFS 7.5 v 10.8 months [HR 1.45, p < 0.0001]), but there was no difference in OS (mOS 24.8 v 27.4 months [HR 1.2, p = 0.1]). Conclusions: Doublet regimens are the dominant paradigm in mCRC in the first-line setting, despite the lack of OS advantage demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. Our local registry data supports this, despite prognostic factors biasing against FP alone. Use of triplet therapy, where an OS advantage has been demonstrated, is increasing.en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.publisher.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/17437563/2021/17/S4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencename2021 MOGA Annual Scientific Meetingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2021-08-05
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2021-08
dc.relation.ispartoflocationVirtualen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom28en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto29en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissueS4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume17en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOncology and Carcinogenesisen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1112en_US
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technologyen_US
dc.subject.keywordsLife Sciences & Biomedicineen_US
dc.titleDouble or nothing? Choice of first-line chemotherapy in a real world metastatic colorectal cancer cohort results from the TRACC registryen_US
dc.typeConference outputen_US
dc.type.descriptionE3 - Conferences (Extract Paper)en_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationDunn, C; Tie, J; Wong, R; Kosimider, S; Field, K; Burge, M; To, YH; Shapiro, J; Hong, W; Jennens, R; Parente, P; Caird, S; Lee, M; Lee, B; et al., Double or nothing? Choice of first-line chemotherapy in a real world metastatic colorectal cancer cohort results from the TRACC registry, Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2021, 17 (S4), pp. 28-29en_US
dc.date.updated2021-09-08T04:16:15Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorCaird, Susan


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record