RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody-drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m2, Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m2 (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status. RESULTS: Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6-35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02343406.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Encefálicas/tratamento farmacológico , Amplificação de Genes , Glioblastoma/tratamento farmacológico , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Qualidade de Vida , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Antineoplásicos Imunológicos/efeitos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias Encefálicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Encefálicas/genética , Neoplasias Encefálicas/mortalidade , Receptores ErbB/antagonistas & inibidores , Receptores ErbB/genética , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Estado Funcional , Glioblastoma/diagnóstico , Glioblastoma/genética , Glioblastoma/mortalidade , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Exame Neurológico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Inquéritos e Questionários , Fatores de Tempo , Transtornos da Visão/induzido quimicamente , Transtornos da Visão/fisiopatologia , Visão Ocular/efeitos dos fármacosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age. METHODS: The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification. RESULTS: Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (<65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/<65: ß = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01). CONCLUSION: We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.