522P - Quality of Life (QoL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving maintenance therapy after first-line inductive treatment: A Qo...

Date 29 September 2014
Event ESMO 2014
Session Poster Display session
Topics Anti-Cancer Agents & Biologic Therapy
Colon Cancer
Rectal Cancer
Presenter Julia Quidde
Citation Annals of Oncology (2014) 25 (suppl_4): iv167-iv209. 10.1093/annonc/mdu333
Authors J. Quidde1, D. Arnold2, S. Hegewisch-Becker3, U. Graeven4, C. Lerchenmüller5, B. Killing6, R. Depenbusch7, C. Steffens8, T. Lange9, N. Marschner10, G. Dietrich11, S. Al-Batran12
  • 1Universitiy Cancer Center Hamburg, Universitiy Hospital Hamburg, 20246 - Hamburg/DE
  • 2Medical Oncology, Tumor Biology Center Freiburg, Freiburg/DE
  • 3Private Practice, HOPE, 20249 - Hamburg/DE
  • 4Chefarzt Privatdozent, Kliniken Maria Hilf GmbHKlinik f, DE-41063 - Mönchengladbach/DE
  • 5Onkologie, Onkologisches Zentrum Münster, Münster/DE
  • 6Hämatologie-onkologie, Lahn-Dill-Kliniken, 35578 - Wetzlar/DE
  • 7Onkodoc Gmbh, Private Practice, 33332 - Gütersloh/DE
  • 8Private Practice, Schwerpunktpraxis Hämatologie-Onkologie, 21680 - Stade/DE
  • 9Hämatologie Und Internistische Onkologie, Asklepios Klinikum, 06667 - Weissenfels/DE
  • 10Internal Medicine / Hematology, Praxis für Interdisziplinaere Onkologie, 79106 - Freiburg/DE
  • 11Klinik Für Hämato-onkologie, Krankenhaus Bietigheim, 74321 - Bietigheim-Bissingen/DE
  • 12Medizinische Klinik Ii Für Hämatologie Und Onkologie, Institut für klinische Forschung (IKF) am Krankenhaus Nordwest - UCT, Universitäres Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen Frankfurt, 60488 - Frankfurt am Main/DE

Abstract

Aim

First-line maintenance strategies are a current matter of debate in the management of mCRC. However, their impact on patient's QoL has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this QoL study was to prospectively assess whether relevant differences in QoL or Fear of Progression (FoP) during different maintenance treatment strategies exist.

Methods

837 patients (pts) with mCRC were enrolled in the AIO KRK 0207 trial, 473 underwent randomization after 24 weeks of induction treatment with FP/Oxaliplatin/Bev, into one of the following arms: maintenance treatment with FP plus Bev, Bev alone, or no further treatment. QoL and FoP were assessed during induction and all treatment arms (after randomization) every 6 weeks, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, the colorectal module QLQ-CR29 and the short form of the FoP questionnaire. Primary endpoint was the difference in the mean value of the general health status (GHS)/QoL score of the EORTC QLQ C30, calculated as the average of all available time points from week 6 to 24 after randomization. In this report, we focus on GHS/QoL and the FoP endpoints.

Results

Compliance with completing the questionnaires was 89% (757/850) at baseline and remained high with 99%, 98%, 97% and 97% after week 6, 12, 18 and 24. The GHS/QoL mean values pooled over all time points after randomization were 55.2 ± 1.6 with FP/Bev (n = 130), 57.7 ± 1.6 with Bev alone (n = 139) and 57.6 ± 1.6 with no further treatment (n = 131). No significant difference in the median GHS/QoL scores at week 6, 12, 18, and 24 were seen between treatment arms (Table1). Also, median FoP values were not different between treatment arms and were 2.62 with FP/Bev, 2.57 with Bev alone and 2.62 with no further treatment.

median GHS/QoL scores at different questionnaire timepoints and treatment arms

GHS/QoL score week 6 GHS/QoL score week 12 GHS/QoL score week 18 GHS/QoL score week 24
FP/Bev 57.6 56.0 56.3 54.3
Bev alone 58.8 57.2 57.5 55.5
No treatment 58.9 57.3 57.7 55.7

Conclusions

In this preliminary analysis, continuation of an active maintenance treatment with FP/bev in was neither associated with a detrimental effect on global health status/QoL scores nor with a difference in FoP when compared to both, less active treatment with bev alone or no treatment.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.