A qualitative focus group study to identify the needs of survivors of stage II and III colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior survivorship research has largely focused on issues faced by survivors of childhood tumors, breast cancers, or hematologic malignancies. Relatively little is known about the needs of other prevalent survivor groups. Our aim was to identify the specific concerns of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the key domains of physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and social relationships. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with stage II and III CRC survivors who had completed their primary active anti-cancer treatments. Patients were asked to describe how their diagnosis and treatment impacted their lives, to outline deficiencies in the care that they received, and to suggest ways of addressing any unmet needs. A content analysis was subsequently conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS: Thirty CRC survivors participated in six focus groups. Individuals reported some degree of dissatisfaction with the amount and type of diagnostic and treatment information they received at their initial clinic visit. Distress from toxicities, such as peripheral neuropathy, was also common among the survivors. Similarly, the majority faced challenges adjusting to their lives and daily activities, especially in caring for their colostomy. Having survived CRC, many survivors expressed an interest in advocacy and health promotion of CRC. CONCLUSIONS: CRC survivors face many barriers after their cancer treatment. Issues with colostomy are unique to this survivor group. Interventions to improve CRC survivorship care should also incorporate opportunities for patient advocacy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The influence of physicians on colorectal cancer screening behavior.

BACKGROUND: Our aims were to determine clinical factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and to evaluate the relative role of patient contact with physicians and the quality of these patient-physician interactions in affecting screening. METHODS: Screening-eligible patients were identified from the Health Information National Trends Survey. Determinants of CRC screening were assessed with logistic regression, and a joint effects model that considered the frequency and quality of contact with physicians was developed to explore their influence on screening. RESULTS: There were 4,615 respondents of whom only 66% reported receiving CRC screening. Older age, personal history of non-CRC, family history of any cancer, high-income earners, individuals who visited their physicians ≥5 times per year, and those who rated the interactions with their physicians highly were more likely to be screened (all p < 0.05). The joint effects model revealed that quality rather than frequency of physician contact was a stronger predictor of CRC screening, but the odds of screening was highest for those who experienced both frequent and high-quality interactions with their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Contact with physicians and the quality of this interaction are associated with screening behavior. Interventions to improve these provider-related factors may promote CRC screening.

Survival Impact of CAPOX Versus FOLFOX in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) are both used in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer, and while their efficacy is assumed to be similar, they have not been directly compared. We reviewed the toxicity profiles, relative dose intensity (RDI), and survival associated with these regimens across a multi-institutional cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 394 consecutively treated patients with stage III colon cancer who received an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. RDI was defined as the total dose received divided by the intended total dose if all cycles were received. RESULTS: FOLFOX was associated with increased mucositis (6.2% vs. 0.7%, P = .0069) and neutropenia (25.9% vs. 8.6%, P < .0001), while CAPOX was associated with increased dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) (90.7% vs. 80.2%, P = .0055), diarrhea (31.8% vs. 9.0%, P < .0001), and hand-foot syndrome (19.9% vs. 2.1%, P < .0001). Higher median RDI of fluoropyrimidine (93.7% vs. 80.0%, P < .0001) and oxaliplatin (87.2% vs. 76.3%, P < .0001) was noted for patients receiving FOLFOX. Reducing the duration from 6 to 3 months would have prevented 28.7% of FOLFOX and 20.5% of CAPOX patients from ever experiencing a DLT (P = .0008). Overall survival did not differ by regimen (hazard ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.22; P = .24). However, CAPOX was associated with improved disease-free survival (3-year disease-free survival 83.8% vs. 73.4%, P = .022), which remained significant in high-risk (T4 or N2) (P = .039) but not low-risk patients (P = .19). CONCLUSION: CAPOX may be associated with improved disease-free survival despite greater toxicities and lower RDI. Reducing adjuvant chemotherapy duration to 3 months would prevent 26% of patients from ever experiencing a DLT.

Population-Based Cost-Minimization Analysis of CAPOX Versus Modified FOLFOX6 in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) has efficacy similar to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. CAPOX is partly administered orally and associated with a 3-week rather than a 2-week treatment cycle. A population-based cost-minimization analysis was conducted from the health care payer and societal perspectives to evaluate the potential cost savings of replacing mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX. METHODS: We applied treatment and toxicity data from phase III trials of CAPOX and FOLFOX-based regimens to the adjuvant colon cancer population in British Columbia, Canada. In this cost-minimization analysis we compared the total costs associated with chemotherapy medications, drug administration and delivery, hospital and clinic visits, treatment-related toxicities, and central venous access devices. Costs to patients in terms of lost time and travel were also considered. It was assumed that patients would receive either 8 cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the use of CAPOX resulted in cost savings of $5339 CAD per patient compared with the use of mFOLFOX6. From a societal perspective, CAPOX was also associated with savings of $6080 CAD per patient. The greatest cost savings with CAPOX were attributed to fewer visits for chemotherapy treatment and decreased central venous access device usage. CAPOX was also associated with reduced loss of time and decreased travel for patients because of the requirement of fewer clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of mFOLFOX6 with CAPOX in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer might be associated with potential cost savings from the payer and societal perspectives.

Correlation between County-Level Surgeon Density and Mortality from Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the effect of county-level general surgeon (GS) and colorectal surgeon (CS) density on colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality and to identify additional county characteristics associated with outcomes. METHODS: Using data from the Area Resource File, US Census, and National Cancer Institute, we developed multivariate regression models to determine the effect of density of GS and CS on CRC death between 2005 and 2009 while controlling for CRC incidence, county demographics, and other socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: In total, we included 1767 counties: Mean CRC incidence and death rates were 64.9 and 19.9 %, respectively. In this cohort, 45 % were metropolitan areas. Mean GS and CS densities were 7.2 and 0.15 per 100,000 people, respectively. Counties with at least 1 GS had a statistically significant decrease in CRC-specific mortality (beta coefficient -0.18, p < 0.001). Increasing GS density beyond 8 per 100,000 people did not result in any further meaningful reductions in mortality. The presence of at least 1 CS at the county-level was not associated with differences in CRC mortality (beta coefficient -0.021, p = 0.37). Metropolitan counties and a larger percentage of individuals who were <65 years old were associated with decreased CRC mortality. Conversely, a higher proportion below the poverty line was correlated with a significant increase in CRC mortality. CONCLUSION: Unlike CS, the presence of GS at the county-level was associated with lower CRC mortality. However, increasing GS density beyond a certain point did not result in further meaningful reductions in mortality. A balanced strategy of distributing the surgical workforce across all counties can result in population-based improvements in CRC outcomes.

Presentation and management of docetaxel-related adverse effects in patients with breast cancer.

The taxane chemotherapeutic agent docetaxel has been utilized in the management of breast cancer in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant and metastatic setting. Although well tolerated by the majority of patients, docetaxel toxicity may limit the dose which can be administered. Adverse events include infusion reactions, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, fluid retention, pneumonitis, cutaneous and nail toxicity, epiphora and lacrimal duct stenosis, gastrointestinal complications, and neuropathies. In this review, we explore these complications and how they can be effectively managed to improve patient quality of life during and following docetaxel therapy.

The association between county-level surgeon density and esophageal and gastric cancer mortality.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection plays an integral part in the curative treatment of esophageal (EC) and gastric cancer (GC). The impact of the allocation of surgeons at the county level on these cancer outcomes is unclear. Our aims were to examine the effect of surgeon density on EC and GC mortality and to compare the relative roles of thoracic and general surgeons on outcomes. METHODS: Using county-level data from the Area Resource File, we constructed multivariate regression models to explore the effect of thoracic and general surgeon density on EC and GC mortality, adjusting for cancer incidence rate, county-level, socioeconomic factors and health care resource metrics. RESULTS: In total, 663 and 539 counties were analyzed for EC and GC, respectively: Mean EC and GC mortality rates were 4.95 and 4.07; mean thoracic and general surgeon density were 6 and 50 per 100,000 people, respectively. When compared to counties with no thoracic surgeons, those with at least one thoracic surgeon had reduced EC mortality. For GC, counties with one or more general surgeons also had decreased deaths when compared with those without any general surgeons. While increasing the density of surgeons beyond ten only yielded minimal improvements in EC mortality, this resulted in significant further reductions in GC mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from GC appears to be more susceptible to the benefits of increased surgeon density. For EC, a strategic policy of allocating health resources and distributing the surgical workforce proportionally across counties will be best able to optimize outcomes at the population-based level.