Survival Outcomes for Patients With Indeterminate 18FDG-PET Scan for Extrahepatic Disease Before Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Prospectively Maintained Database to Analyze Survival Outcomes for Patients With Indeterminate Extrahepatic Disease on 18FDG-PET Scan Before Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and cancer recurrence for patients with indeterminate positron emission tomography (PET) scan for extrahepatic disease (EHD) before liver resection (LR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Indeterminate EHD as determined by PET imaging indicates a probability of extrahepatic malignancy and potentially excludes patients from undergoing LR for CLM. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from February 2006 to December 2014, OS for patients with indeterminate EHD on FDG-PET scan before LR for CLM was performed using standard survival analysis methods, including Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models for multivariate analyses. Postoperative imaging was used as reference to evaluate the association between indeterminate EHD and recurrence. RESULTS: Of 267 patients with PET scans before LR, 197 patients had no EHD and 70 patients had indeterminate EHD. Median follow-up was 33 months. The estimated 5-year OS was 60.8% versus 59.4% for indeterminate and absent EHD, respectively (P = 0.625). Disease-free survival was comparable between both groups (P = 0.975) and overall recurrence was 57.1% and 59.5% for indeterminate and absent EHD, respectively (P = 0.742). About 16.9% of recurrence was associated with the site of indeterminate EHD, with 80% of associated recurrence occurring in the thorax. CONCLUSIONS: The site of indeterminate EHD appears to have a predictive value for recurrence, with indeterminate EHD in the thorax having a higher probability of malignancy. The evidence in this report supports the critical evaluation of PET scan results and that patients are not denied potential curative LR unless the evidence for unresectable EHD is certain.

Is Survival for Patients with Resectable Lung Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Comparable to Those with Resectable Liver Disease? Results from the South Australian Metastatic Colorectal Registry.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic resection for colorectal (CRC) metastasis is considered a standard of care. Resection of metastasis isolated to lung also is considered potentially curable, although there is still some variation in recommendations. We explore outcomes for patients undergoing lung resection for mCRC, with the liver resection group as the comparator. METHODS: South Australian (SA) metastatic CRC registry data were analysed to assess patient characteristics and survival outcomes for patients suitable for lung or liver resection. RESULTS: A total of 3241 patients are registered on the database to December 2014. One hundred two (3.1 %) patients were able to undergo a lung resection compared with 420 (12.9 %) who had a liver resection. Of the lung resection patients, 62 (61 %) presented with lung disease only, 21 % initially presented with liver disease only, 11 % had both lung and liver, and 7 % had brain or pelvic disease resection. Of these patients, 79 % went straight to surgery without any neoadjuvant treatment and 34 % had lung resection as the only intervention. Chemotherapy for metastatic disease was given more often to liver resection patients: 76.9 versus 53.9 %, p = 0.17. Median overall survival is 5.6 years for liver resection and has not been reached for lung resection (hazard ratio 0.82, 95 % confidence interval 0.54-1.24, p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Lung resection was undertaken in 3.1 % of patients with mCRC in our registry. These data provide further support for long-term survival after lung resection in mCRC, survival that is at least comparable to those who undergo resection for liver metastasis in mCRC.

Survival improvements associated with access to biological agents: Results from the South Australian (SA) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) registry.

Background Randomized controlled trials evaluating biological therapy have shown improvements in survival from metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subjects in the trials represent a selected proportion of mCRC patients. We have the potential to assess the impact of biological therapy on mCRC outcomes, particularly the effect of bevacizumab, from a population-based clinical registry by comparing two time cohorts with differences in therapy accessibility. Material and methods A retrospective cohort study was performed by analyzing the South Australian (SA) mCRC registry data based on diagnosis in two time periods: 1 February 2006-31 May 2009 (Cohort A) versus 1 June 2009-30 June 2014 (Cohort B). The demarcation for these cohorts was chosen to reflect the change in accessibility of bevacizumab from July 2009. Results Between February 2006 and June 2014, 3308 patients were identified through the SA mCRC registry: 1464 (44%) in Cohort A and 1844 (56%) in Cohort B. 61 and 59% patients in Cohort A and B, respectively received systemic therapy (p = 0.26). Major differences in clinical characteristics were: biological therapy use 18 versus 33% (p < 0.001) and clinical trial enrolment 12 versus 7% (p < 0.001). Uptake of bevacizumab was: first-line 9 versus 42% and second-line 6 versus 16%. Median overall survival (mOS) for the entire group was: 13.1 versus 17.1 months (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.74-0.87). Evaluation restricted to patients receiving systemic therapy was 20.5 versus 25.2 months (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89). Multivariate analysis indicated that biological therapy and Cohort B were associated with improved mOS. Conclusion The expected rise in bevacizumab administration was observed in Cohort B. Its use in first-line therapy remained relatively low even after the reimbursement, potentially reflecting real world practice where comorbidities, primary in-situ and age may contraindicate its use. mOS improvement over time was attributed to increased access to biological therapy, especially bevacizumab and possibly advance in peri-operative and supportive care.

Comparable survival outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer in Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients: Retrospective analysis of the South Australian metastatic colorectal cancer registry.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate disparities in demographics, disease characteristics, treatment and overall survival between South Australian (SA) Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: This employs a retrospective population study using the SA mCRC registry. SETTING: The SA mCRC registry identifies mCRC patients from hospital encounters, histopathology reports, medical oncology letters, clinician notification, attendances at multidisciplinary meetings and death audits by the SA Cancer Registry. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2865 adult mCRC patients including 14 Indigenous patients were identified through the SA mCRC registry between February 2006 and August 2013. Patients were linked to the SA Cancer Registry to obtain Indigenous status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic, disease and treatment characteristics were compared using Chi-squared test and t-test; while overall survival defined as time to any cause of death was analysed using Cox regression. RESULTS: No difference was observed for clinical characteristics, except for a higher proportion of Indigenous patients receiving chemotherapy (85.7% versus 58.5%; P = 0.04). The rate of liver surgery was similar across the two groups (21.0% versus 15.1%; P = 0.40). The median overall survivals were equivalent (11.9 months versus 15.1 months; hazard ratio = 1.00; 95% confidence interval for hazard ratio, 0.54-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics and survival outcomes were similar between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients captured on the SA mCRC registry, and outcome of those who have an access to comprehensive cancer care appeared independent of Indigenous status and in line with large clinical trials. Underestimation of Indigenous cases due to their lower utilisation of cancer service could not be excluded and ultimately the accurate reporting of these patients is crucial.

BRAF Mutation Testing and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Community Setting: Is There an Urgent Need for More Education?

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with BRAF mutation (BRAF MT) generally have a poorer prognosis. BRAF MT may also have implications for treatment strategy. Despite this, inclusion of BRAF in routine molecular testing varies. Here we report the frequency of BRAF reporting in the South Australian (SA) mCRC registry reflecting community practice, together with the survival outcomes based on mutation status. METHODS: The SA population-based mCRC registry was analysed to assess the number of patients where a BRAF MT result was available. The patient characteristics are reported and overall survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of the 3639 patients who have been entered in the registry, only 6.2% (227) have BRAF MT results available. Of the patients tested, the BRAF MT rate is 12.7%. The mutation rate was highest in rightsided primary; right colon 23 versus left colon 8.9% and rectum 7%. There was no significant difference in median age or male/female proportion. The median overall survival (mOS) for BRAF MT versus wild-type (WT) patients is 14.0 versus 32.9 months (p = 0.003). For patients who have chemotherapy (plus or minus surgery) the mOS is 14.6 months BRAF MT versus 36.1 months (p ≤ 0.001) WT. Liver or lung resection was performed on only 8% of the BRAF MT group versus 26.5% of the WT group. CONCLUSION: Results in a population setting confirm our understanding that BRAF MT is more frequently right sided and of lower frequency in rectal cancer. Survival is lower for patients with mCRC that have BRAF MT, regardless of the therapy. BRAF testing is currently performed infrequently in an Australian setting despite its importance as a significant prognostic factor, and the implications for alternate therapeutic approaches.

Association of BMI with overall survival in patients with mCRC who received chemotherapy versus EGFR and VEGF-targeted therapies.

Although a raised body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and recurrence after adjuvant treatment, data in the metastatic setting is limited. We compared overall survival (OS) across BMI groups for metastatic CRC, and specifically examined the effect of BMI within the group of patients treated with targeted therapies (TT). Retrospective data were obtained from the South Australian Registry for mCRC from February 2006 to October 2012. The BMI at first treatment was grouped as underweight <18.5 kg/m(2) , Normal = 18.5 to <25 kg/m(2) , Overweight = 25 to <30 kg/m(2) , Obese I = 30 to <35 kg/m(2) , Obese II ≥35 kg/m(2) . Of 1174 patients, 42 were underweight, 462 overweight, 175 Obese I, and 77 Obese II. The OS was shorter for patients who were underweight and overweight compared to normal (OS 13.7 and 22.3 vs. 24.1 months, respectively, hazard ratio [HR] 2.21 and 1.23). The adjusted median OS was longer for normal versus overweight or obese I patients receiving chemotherapy + targeted therapy (35.7 vs 25.1 or 22.8 months, HR 1.59 and 1.63, respectively) with no difference in OS for chemotherapy alone. On breakdown by type of targeted therapy, overweight and obese I patients had a poorer outcome with Bevacizumab. The BMI is predictive of a poorer outcome for underweight and overweight patients in the whole population. Of those receiving chemotherapy and targeted therapy, BMI is an independent predictor for OS for overweight and obese I patients, specifically for those treated with Bevacizumab. Patients who are overweight or obese (group I) may be a target group for lifestyle and nutrition advice to improve OS with TT.

Does the primary site of colorectal cancer impact outcomes for patients with metastatic disease?

BACKGROUND: Previous reports have described differences in biology and outcome for colorectal cancer based on whether the primary is right or left sided. Further division by right, left, and rectum or even exact primary site has also been explored. Possible differences in response to biological agents have also been reported based on side of primary lesion. METHODS: We explored the South Australian registry for metastatic colorectal cancer to assess if there were any differences in patient characteristics, prognostic markers, and treatment received and outcomes based on whether the primary was right or left sided. We also explored if differences exist based on left colon and rectum and by exact primary site. RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred seventy-two patients were analyzed. Thirty-five percent had a right-sided primary. The median overall survival for the entire group right versus left was 9.6 versus 20.3 months (P < .001). Multivariate analysis confirmed side of primary as an independent prognostic factor. For the group that had active therapy, defined as chemotherapy (± metastasis resection), median overall survival was right, 18.2 months; and left, 29.4 months (P < .001). Importantly, we found no suggestion of major differences if left side was divided by left colon and rectum, and trends by individual site still supported a left and right division. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a right-sided primary have more negative prognostic factors and indeed have inferior outcomes compared with those with a left-sided primary. Our data with further breakdown by exact site still favor a simple left-versus-right division moving forward for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Equivalence of outcomes for rural and metropolitan patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in South Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the management and outcome of rural and metropolitan patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in South Australia. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with mCRC submitted to the South Australian mCRC registry between 2 February 2006 and a cut-off date of 28 May 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in oncological and surgical management and overall survival (calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method) between city and rural patients. RESULTS: Of 2289 patients, 624 (27.3%) were rural. There was a higher proportion of male patients in the rural cohort, but other patient characteristics did not significantly differ between the cohorts. Equivalent rates of chemotherapy administration between city and rural patients were observed across each line of treatment (first line: 56.0% v 58.3%, P = 0.32; second line: 23.3% v 22.5%, P = 0.78; and third line: 10.1% v 9.3%, P = 0.69). A higher proportion of city patients received combination chemotherapy in the first-line setting (67.4% v 59.9%; P = 0.01). When an oxaliplatin combination was prescribed, oral capecitabine was used more frequently in rural patients (22.9% v 8.4%; P < 0.001). No significant difference was seen in rates of hepatic resection or other non-chemotherapy treatments between cohorts. Median overall survival was equivalent between city and rural patients (14.6 v 14.9 months, P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Patterns of chemotherapy and surgical management of rural patients with mCRC in SA are equivalent to their metropolitan counterparts and lead to comparable overall survival. The centralised model of oncological care in SA may ensure rural patients gain access to optimal care.

Rural populations have equal surgical and survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Previous Australian studies have suggested poorer survival of patients with colorectal cancer in remote areas. To date no studies have assessed the geographic disparity in patients with metastatic disease. This retrospective cohort study looks at geographic differences in the surgical care and survival of patients with metastatic colorectal disease. The paper utilises data from the South Australian Clinical Registry for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (SACRMCC). DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on patients' socio-economic status, primary and metastatic tumour characteristics, treatment and survival was extracted from the SACRMCC database. A binomial model analysis was used to identify geographical differences in the surgical treatment of patients and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify any geographic differences in survival. RESULTS: The findings showed no differences in the diagnosis of liver metastases or provision of liver surgery between geographic areas, however there was a reduced likelihood of liver surgery with increasing age. The median overall survival rate, from the date of diagnosis of metastatic disease, was 20.0 months and the distribution by geographic remoteness was 19.1 months, 20.2 months, 22.0 months and 20.4 months in Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional and Remote areas respectively. This was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no evidence of a geographical disparity in the diagnosis, surgical treatment or survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. This may be due to the shift toward centralising surgical care in South Australia. Nevertheless, there remains a need to improve the uptake of surgical care in the growing elderly population.

Colorectal cancer survival: An analysis of patients with metastatic disease synchronous and metachronous with the primary tumor.

BACKGROUND: Whether metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that presents synchronously with the primary lesion behaves differently from mCRC that appears metachronously to the primary disease is not clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The South Australian Clinical Registry for mCRC collects data for patients diagnosed after February 2006. Data from 2502 patients, available on October 22, 2012, were analyzed according to stage at initial diagnosis (SAID) to compare outcomes between metachronous tumors (MTs) (stages I, II, III) and synchronous tumors (STs) (stage IV). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of mCRC diagnosis. RESULTS: Patients with ST had more liver-only metastases, and patients with MT had more lung-only, non-lung and non-liver, and non-lung metastases. The median time to recurrence differed significantly according to SAID: stage I, 49.3 mo (n = 29), stage II, 25.2 mo (n = 346) and stage III, 18.4 mo (n = 497). The median OS was longer for patients with MT than for those with ST (19.0 vs.14.9 mo, P = .003). For patients who received any treatment for mCRC, the OS was longer for patients with MT than for those with ST (19.2 vs. 15.3 mo, P = .005). In patients who received only chemotherapy for mCRC, the median OS was longer for patients with MT than for those with ST (15.2 vs. 9.9 mo, P < .0001). No difference in OS between the MT and ST groups for patients who did not receive treatment for mCRC (1.6 vs. 2.6 mo; P = .95). CONCLUSION: Patients with MT have a longer OS than those with ST, independent of treatment. Classification of patients according to whether they have metachronous or synchronous presentation of mCRC is prognostic. These results may add further support for population screening with the aim to reduce de novo metastatic disease.

Liver only metastatic disease in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: impact of surgery and chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatectomy in colorectal cancer (CRC) is now a standard of care with improved survival reported. Conversion chemotherapy has increased the population who are suitable for surgery. Here we assess patterns of care and treatment outcome in liver only metastases in South Australia using the clinical registry for advanced CRC. METHODS: We analysed the outcomes for patients with liver only metastatic involvement from the SA Metastatic CRC Database with the aim to investigate the role of chemotherapy on liver resection and outcome in comparison to liver resection only and chemotherapy without liver resection. Patients who had no therapy or non-surgical liver interventions were excluded for this analysis. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred and eight patients were available for analysis, 687 (36%) had liver only metastatic disease and 455 (24%) had active therapy as defined. In total 54.2% (247/455) had chemotherapy alone, 19.1% (87/455) had liver resection alone, and 26.6% (121/455) had combined treatment. The three-year survival for chemotherapy, resection and combined treatment subgroups is 19.5%, 73.8% and 73.7%, respectively. The addition of chemotherapy to surgery did not improve survival. Switching chemotherapy was associated with a poorer outcome; three-year overall survival for chemotherapy switch was 62.5%, compared with same regimen pre- and post-74%, and chemo post-resection 80%. CONCLUSION: Liver only metastatic disease is common in CRC and patients undergoing liver resection have improved long-term survival. Survival for a combined approach of chemotherapy and hepatic resection is similar to surgery alone. Patients not suitable for surgery with liver only disease have a poorer prognosis highlighting the need for improved liver-directed therapies and attempts to covert non-resectable to resectable disease if possible.

A population-based study of metastatic colorectal cancer in individuals aged ≥ 80 years: findings from the South Australian Clinical Registry for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy is increasing, and more patients are presenting with cancer at an advanced age (≥80 years). Optimal management for this group of patients has not been well defined. METHODS: The South Australian Clinical Registry for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) collects data on all patients diagnosed since February 2006 in South Australia. The authors examined cancer characteristics, treatments administered, and outcomes for patients aged ≥80 years compared with patients aged <80 years. RESULTS: Data from 2314 patients were evaluable, and 29.2% of these patients were aged ≥80 years. The majority had moderately differentiated tumors. Poorly differentiated tumors were reported in fewer patients aged ≥80 years (20.1% vs 26.1%; P < .005). Overall, 28.1% of patients aged ≥80 years received chemotherapy, and 74.2% received single-agent fluoropyrimidines as first-line treatment. By comparison, 68.2% of patients aged <80 years received chemotherapy, 74.3% received combination chemotherapy, and 25.7% received single-agent fluoropyrimidine as first-line treatment. No treatment was received by 38.2% of patients aged ≥80 years compared with 11.4% of those aged <80 years. Participation in clinical trials was lower in patients aged ≥80 years (2% vs 13%). The median survival was worse for patients aged ≥80 years (8.2 months vs 19.2 months; P < .001), and the median survival of patients who received chemotherapy was 19.0 months for those aged ≥80 years and 22.3 months for those aged <80 years (P = .139). Patients who did not receive treatment had a poor median survival regardless of age (2.6 months for patients aged ≥80 years vs 2.7 months for patients aged <80 years). CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged ≥80 years were less likely to receive intervention for their metastatic colorectal cancer and had poorer survival. The survival of selected patients aged ≥80 years who received chemotherapy was similar to the survival of those aged <80 years despite the receipt of single-agent therapy. Patients aged ≥80 years with metastatic colorectal cancer are less likely to receive intervention for their disease and have poorer survival. Survival for selected patients aged ≥80 years who receive chemotherapy is similar to the survival of patients aged <80 years despite the receipt of single-agent therapy.

Rechallenge with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine for metastatic colorectal carcinoma after prior therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) who have received oxaliplatin, 5-fluoropyrimidine, and irinotecan chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab) and antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapy (if KRAS is wild type) have no further standard treatment options. Although repeating a prior chemotherapy [in particular, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (FOX)] is an option, there is very little evidence in the literature for this approach; thus, we reviewed our registry to assess the frequency and outcome of rechallenging with FOX. METHODS: Patients who had been rechallenged with FOX were identified from the South Australian metastatic CRC database. Patient characteristics were analyzed, and tumor response was retrospectively assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. RESULTS: Twenty patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The number of prior lines of therapy received for metastatic CRC was 4 lines for 2 patients, 3 lines for 6 patients, 2 lines for 7 patients, and 1 line for 3 patients, with 3 patients having received oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy. Four patients had received bevacizumab previously, 7 patients had undergone antiepidermal growth factor receptor treatment, and 4 patients had undergone liver resection earlier. Response rate was 18%, and 47% had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, median overall survival was 7.8 months, and 1-year survival was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population, there is evidence of modest activity of rechallenge with FOX chemotherapy, although radiologic response is uncommon.

Survival differences in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and with single site metastatic disease at initial presentation: results from South Australian clinical registry for advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Australia. The median overall survival for metastatic colorectal cancer is nearly 2 years. However, there may be survival differences based on site of metastatic disease. METHODS: Data was collected from the South Australian Registry for Advanced Colorectal Cancer. A total of 1207 patients with single site metastatic disease at initial diagnosis were subclassified into 6 subgroups: liver only (n = 780), pelvic only (n = 148), lung only (n = 142), lymph node only (n = 95), bone only (n = 32), and brain only (n = 10). Univariate and multivariate parametric survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 20.3 months for the whole group. The overall survival for lung-only metastases group was 41.1 months followed by liver- and pelvic-only disease groups (22.8 and 23.8 months, respectively). Patients with isolated bone-only and brain-only metastases had poor overall survival (5.1 and 5.7 months, respectively). On multivariate analysis, prognosis was superior for the lung-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Lung only group had the longest median overall survival. Bone and brain sites had a poor outlook. Site of metastatic disease at initial presentation may be prognostic.

"Watchful waiting" for metastatic colorectal cancer, antediluvian or an option to be considered again?

AIM: The role of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is firmly established and the option of watchful waiting (WW) has become an alternative rarely considered. However, there may be a group of patients who are diagnosed with low volume and asymptomatic disease and who may be suitable for a WW plan. METHODS: From the South Australian Cancer Registry for mCRC we examined cancer characteristics and outcomes of patients who were suitable for chemotherapy but had their treatment delayed by more than 3 months from diagnosis of metastatic disease. RESULTS: Data from 417 mCRC patients who received chemotherapy as first intervention have been entered in the Registry to date and 38 (9.1%) had chemotherapy commencement delayed by more than 3 months from diagnosis. Their median age was 76.7 years (range 38-85). Overall 87% of patients had metachronous metastatic cancer with a median time to recurrence of 2.1 years (range 0.53-7.71) and 65.5% had single organ metastasis. Median delay from the diagnosis of metastatic disease to chemotherapy was 5.03 months (range 3-28). The median survival has yet to be reached. The 2-year overall survival is 65%. CONCLUSION: We found that almost 10% of all patients with mCRC had a delay in the initiation of chemotherapy, with most due to a WW approach based on case note review. Patients with a delay in chemotherapy initiation are more likely to have a single organ site of metastatic disease and are older than those who do not. Despite the treatment delay, there is no evidence of a negative impact on survival.

Impact of age on choice of chemotherapy and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Age is a major risk factor for development of sporadic colorectal cancer but elderly patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and are potentially offered chemotherapy less often. METHODS: Data were obtained from South Australian Clinical Registry for advanced colorectal cancer between 1st February 2006 and 9th September 2010. Patients who received chemotherapy were analysed to assess the impact of single versus combination chemotherapy and to assess the outcome in two age cohorts, age < 70 years and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1745 patients in the database during this time period, 951 (54.5%) received systemic chemotherapy. 286 (30%) received first line therapy (median age 74 years) with single agent fluoropyrimidine and 643 patients (68%) received first line combination chemotherapy (median age 64 years). The median overall survival of patients receiving first line combination chemotherapy was 23.9 months compared to 17.2 months for those who received single agent fluoropyrimidine (p<0.001). Combination chemotherapy was given to 81% of patients aged < 70 years compared to 53% of those ≥ 70 years. There was no significant difference in median overall survival of patients receiving chemotherapy by age cohort, 21.3 months for age <70 years and 21.1 months for age ≥ 70 years (p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Treatment outcomes are comparable in both the elderly and younger patients. Patients who received initial combination chemotherapy were younger and had a longer median overall survival. In our study, age appeared to influence the treatment choices but not necessarily outcome.

South Australian clinical registry for metastatic colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of the South Australian Clinical Registry for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer are to record case outcomes according to site of recurrence and mode of clinical practice and to utilize the accumulated information for quality assurance activities. METHODS: All patients who had a diagnosis of synchronous or metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) after 1 February 2006 were eligible to be included in the registry. Data on patient details, disease characteristics, investigations, histopathology and treatment were collected. Disease-specific survival data were assessed using Kaplan-Meier product moment estimates and the log-rank test of equality was used for comparisons. RESULTS: 1544 patients have been entered as of 22 March 2010. In addition, 54.7% of primary CRCs were in the rectosigmoid area, 92.9% of them adenocarcinomas. Also, 52.6% of patients received chemotherapy and 15% had radiotherapy. Two hundred five patients underwent liver resection, nine had radiofrequency ablation and seven had selective internal radiotherapy. The overall 3-year survival from time of diagnosis of metastatic CRC was 29.5%. There was no significant survival difference between patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic CRC. Patients with lung- or liver-only metastases have significantly improved survival if they underwent surgical resection. DISCUSSION: The treatment of patients with metastatic CRC continues to progress with modern medical and surgical developments. Important insights into the current patterns of care and clinical outcomes for metastatic CRC are provided by these data. In addition, this registry provides a feasible and useful database for the evaluation of current treatments established as best evidence in this population.