Patients' Preferences for 3 Months vs 6 Months of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer.

Background: SCOT was an international, randomized phase 3 trial of 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in patients with colorectal cancer. We sought patients' preferences for 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the SCOT trial. Methods: SCOT participants from Australia and New Zealand completed a validated questionnaire (at 3 and 18 months) to elicit the minimum survival benefits judged necessary to make an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile, based on their experience. Standardized hypothetical scenarios used the following baseline survivals (with 3 months of chemotherapy): life expectancies (LE) of 5 years and 15 years and 5-year survival rates (5YS) of 65% and 85%. Results: Of the 160 participants, 82 were assigned 3 months adjuvant chemotherapy, and 78 were assigned 6 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was FOLFOX in 121 (75.6%) and XELOX in 39 (24.4%). Preferences varied substantially and did not differ according to treatment group. The median survival benefits judged necessary to make the extra 3 months of chemotherapy worthwhile were an extra 3 years beyond a LE of 5 years; 3 years beyond a LE of 15 years; 15% beyond a 5YS of 65%; and 5% beyond a 5YS of 85%. Preferences were similar at 3 months and 18 months. Preferences were not predicted by participants' baseline characteristics. Conclusion: Preferences varied substantially, and the benefits many required to warrant an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy were larger than the benefits of an extra 3 months of chemotherapy calculated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) meta-analysis.

How accurate are medical oncologists' impressions of management of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia?

AIM: Current efforts to understand patient management in clinical practice are largely based on clinician surveys with uncertain reliability. The TRACC (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) database is a multisite registry collecting comprehensive treatment and outcome data on consecutive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients at multiple sites across Australia. This study aims to determine the accuracy of oncologists' impressions of real-word practice by comparing clinicians' estimates to data captured by TRACC. METHODS: Nineteen medical oncologists from nine hospitals contributing data to TRACC completed a 34-question survey regarding their impression of the management and outcomes of mCRC at their own practice and other hospitals contributing to the database. Responses were then compared with TRACC data to determine how closely their impressions reflected actual practice. RESULTS: Data on 1300 patients with mCRC were available. Median clinician estimated frequency of KRAS testing within 6 months of diagnosis was 80% (range: 20-100%); the TRACC documented rate was 43%. Clinicians generally overestimated the rates of first-line treatment, particularly in patients over 75 years. Estimate for bevacizumab in first line was 60% (35-80%) versus 49% in TRACC. Estimated rate for liver resection varied substantially (5-35%), and the estimated median (27%) was inconsistent with the TRACC rate (12%). Oncologists generally felt their practice was similar to other hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists' estimates of current clinical practice varied and were discordant with the TRACC database, often with a tendency to overestimate interventions. Clinician surveys alone do not reliably capture contemporary clinical practices in mCRC.