Quality of life and survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with trifluridine-tipiracil (QUALITAS)

Clinically meaningful outcomes in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a decade of defining and raising the bar

Currently, there is no consensus definition for clinically meaningful outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate new treatments for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Since 2014, recommended targets for improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival have been published by several societies, including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinically Meaningful Outcomes Working Group in 2014, the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) in 2015, and Colorectal Cancer Canada (CCC) consensus statements in 2019. However, evidence from several systematic reviews suggests that in a substantial proportion of RCTs that led to oncology drug approvals, the recommended thresholds of ASCO and ESMO-MCBS were not met. In addition to efficacy and safety, quality of life (QoL) is important to patients with mCRC, especially for those who are receiving later-line therapy or end-of-life care. As such, both ESMO-MCBS and CCC recommend the inclusion of QoL assessments in the design of mCRC clinical trials. Since the publication of the ASCO recommendations in 2014, there has been significant progress in the development of treatment options for patients with refractory mCRC; these include the approvals of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) as a single agent and in combination with bevacizumab, and the approval of fruquintinib. Among the phase III RCTs in third-line mCRC, only the SUNLIGHT trial of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab met all recommended thresholds for clinically meaningful improvements, while also demonstrating a manageable safety profile and slower deterioration in multiple measures of QoL compared with FTD/TPI alone. The results from the SUNLIGHT study show that incremental gains in several clinically meaningful endpoints are achievable, thus raising the bar in defining clinically meaningful outcomes for emerging therapies in refractory mCRC.

Global quality of life and mortality risk in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of global quality of life (QOL) on mortality risk in patients with cancer, considering cancer type and timepoint of QOL assessment.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Scopus databases from inception to December 2022. Observational studies that assessed QOL and examined mortality risk in patients with cancer were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed for cancer types and timepoints of QOL assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, global QOL was significantly associated with mortality risk (hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.07; p < 0.00001). A subgroup analysis based on cancer type demonstrated that lung, head and neck, breast, esophagus, colon, prostate, hematologic, liver, gynecologic, stomach, brain, bladder, bone and soft tissue, and mixed type cancers were significantly associated with mortality risk; however, melanoma and pancreatic cancer were not significantly associated with mortality risk. Additionally, global QOL was associated with mortality risk at all timepoints (pretreatment, posttreatment, and palliative phase); pretreatment QOL had the largest impact, followed by posttreatment QOL.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide evidence that QOL is associated with mortality risk in patients with cancer at any timepoint. These results indicate the importance of evaluating the QOL and supportive interventions to improve QOL in any phase.

Subgroup analyses from patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer receiving trifluridine/tipiracil: results of the TALLISUR trial

BACKGROUND

In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) of patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subsequently, the TALLISUR trial provided post-authorisation efficacy and safety data and patient-reported outcomes on quality of life (QoL) in a German patient cohort. The present analysis reports the final data on efficacy, safety and QoL and investigates the impact of baseline characteristics and associated prognostic subgroups on outcome.

METHODS

In this prospective, multi-centre, Germany-wide, phase IV study, patients with pre-treated mCRC were given the choice to receive either FTD/TPI or best supportive care (BSC). To assess the primary endpoint, QoL, EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires were employed. Secondary endpoints included QoL assessed through EQ-5D-5L questionnaires, OS, PFS and safety. Additionally, 3 subgroups were defined according to a post-hoc analysis of the RECOURSE trial: best, good and poor prognostic characteristics (BPC, GPC, PPC). Patients with < 3 metastatic sites at inclusion and/or ≥ 18 months from diagnosis to inclusion were considered to have GPC. GPC patients without liver metastasis at inclusion were considered to have BPC. All remaining patients were considered to have PPC.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients, 186 decided to receive FTD/TPI and 9 to receive BSC. The low number of patients in the BSC-arm did not allow statistically meaningful analyses. Treatment with FTD/TPI was associated with maintained QoL. For all patients, median OS was 6.9 months (95% CI 6.1 - 8.3) and for the defined subgroups (BPC n = 20 vs GPC n = 65 vs PPC n = 121) 12.2, 7.9 and 6.8 months (95% CI 6.0 - 18.2, 6.2 - 13.3, 5.4 - 8.1). The most frequent TEAEs were neutropenia (29.6%), anaemia (24.7%) and nausea (23.7%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients suffering from pre-treated mCRC with FTD/TPI was associated not only with prolonged survival and delayed progression, but also with maintained QoL. Independent of other baseline characteristics such as ECOG performance status and age, low metastatic burden and indolent disease were factors associated with favourable outcome.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT-Number 2017-000292-83, first registration 19/06/2017.

Baseline functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 predict overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

A consensus has not been reached on the value of quality of life (QoL) as a prognostic factor for survival in gastrointestinal cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between functioning scales of the EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the overall survival (OS) in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases, until February 7, 2023. The studies included were those that investigated the association between baseline QoL measured by the functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 and OS in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The prognostic capacity of QoL was calculated by pooling the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies' analyses reported by 22 eligible articles involving 11,609 patients were included. When compared with good parameters of QoL, poor global QoL (HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.13), physical functioning (HR 1.51; 95% CI 1.31-1.74), social functioning (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.30-2.15), and role functioning scale (HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.29) were significantly associated with decreased OS. For each 10-point increase in QLQ-C30 parameters, the pooled HR of OS was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for global QoL, 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for physical functioning, and 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.97) for role functioning. However, each 10-point increase in social, emotional, or cognitive functioning scale did not significantly predict OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline health-related QoL defined by the physical functioning or global QoL scale of EORTC QLQ-C30 significantly predicts OS in patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Influence of reminiscence therapy on mental health and quality of life in elderly patients with unresectable, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer

Reminiscence therapy (RT) attenuates psychological disorders in cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of RT on anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, and quality of life in elderly patients with unresectable, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer. A total of 222 elderly patients with unresectable, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer were randomized into RT group (RT plus usual care, n=112) or control group (usual care, n=110) with a 6-month intervention. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for Anxiety (HADS-A) and Depression (HADS-D), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp), and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) were evaluated at month (M)0, M1, M3, and M6. Concerning the primary outcome, HADS-A score at M6 decreased in the RT group compared to the control group (P=0.005). As to secondary outcomes, the RT group showed decreased HADS-A scores at M3, anxiety rate at M3, HADS-D scores at M3 and M6, depression rate at M6, as well as greater FACIT-Sp scores at M1, M3, and M6 vs the control group (all P<0.050). Additionally, QLQ-C30 global health score was elevated at M1 (P=0.046) and M6 (P=0.005), functions score was greater at M6 (P=0.038), and symptoms score was lower at M3 (P=0.019) in the RT group than in the control group. Subgroup analysis revealed that the addition of RT was more effective for patients with anxiety or depression at baseline. In summary, RT alleviated anxiety and depression, and improved the spiritual well-being and quality of life within 6 months in elderly patients with unresectable, metastatic gastrointestinal cancer.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT

Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Impact of Primary Tumor Location on Demographics, Resectability, Outcomes, and Quality of Life in Finnish Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients (Subgroup Analysis of the RAXO Study)

The primary tumor location (PTL) is associated with the phenotype, metastatic sites, mutations, and outcomes of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, but this has mostly been studied according to sidedness (right vs. left sided). We studied right colon vs. left colon vs. rectal PTL in a real-life study population (n = 1080). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed multi-cross-sectionally with QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, EQ-5D, and 15D. A chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression were used to compare the groups. The PTL was in the right colon in 310 patients (29%), the left colon in 396 patients (37%), and the rectum in 375 patients (35%). The PTL was associated with distinct differences in metastatic sites during the disease trajectory. The resectability, conversion, and resection rates were lowest in the right colon, followed by the rectum, and were highest in the left colon. Overall survival was shortest for right colon compared with left colon or rectal PTL (median 21 vs. 35 vs. 36 months), with the same trends after metastasectomy or systemic therapy only. PTL also remained statistically significant in a multivariable model. The distribution of symptoms varied according to PTL, especially between the right colon (with general symptoms of metastases) and rectal PTL (with sexual- and bowel-related symptoms). mCRC, according to PTL, behaves differently regarding metastatic sites, resectability of the metastases, outcomes of treatment, and HRQoL.

External Validation of the Colon Life Nomogram for Predicting 12-Week Mortality in Dutch Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Daily Practice

Simple Summary

Predicting prognosis in cancer patients is needed to guide decision making. In order to predict survival, nomograms can be used to estimate chances of survival based on clinical characteristics. In order to identify metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with a very short life expectancy (less than 12 weeks) after receiving multiple standard treatments, the Colon Life nomogram was previously developed. Before a nomogram can be used in daily practice, it is essential to show that it accurately predicts survival in different real-life populations and can be used to guide clinical decision making. This is called external validation. We externally validated the Colon Life nomogram in a cohort of patients with refractory mCRC who were treated with a last treatment option, trifluridine/tipiracil, in daily practice. We demonstrated that the nomogram severely overestimated 12-week mortality and therefore should not be used in clinical practice in its present form. We also showed that quality of life reported by patients themselves can improve the prediction of survival, stressing the importance of patient-reported outcomes. We recommend conducting a study with a sufficiently large sample size to update the Colon Life nomogram or to develop a new model and include quality of life.

Abstract

Background: Predicting prognosis in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is needed to guide decision making. The Colon Life nomogram was developed to predict 12-week mortality in refractory mCRC patients. The aim of this study is to validate the Colon Life nomogram in last line/refractory patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in daily practice. Methods: The validation cohort consists of 150 QUALITAS study patients, an observational substudy of the Prospective Dutch CRC cohort, who were treated with FTD/TPI between 2016 and 2019. Model performance was assessed on discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness. The additional prognostic value of baseline quality of life (QoL) and thymidine kinase (TK1) expression in tissue was explored. Results: Of the 150 patients, 25 (16.7%) died within 12 weeks of starting FTD/TPI treatment. The C-statistic was 0.63 (95% C.I. 0.56–0.70). The observed/expected ratio was 0.52 (0.37–0.73). The calibration intercept and slope were −1.06 (−1.53 to −0.58) and 0.41 (0.01–0.81), respectively, which indicated overestimation of 12-week mortality by the nomogram. Decision curve analysis showed the nomogram did not yield a positive net benefit at clinically meaningful thresholds for predicted 12-week mortality. Addition of QoL to the nomogram improved the C-statistic to 0.85 (0.81–0.89). TK1 expression was associated with progression-free survival but not with overall survival. Conclusion: We demonstrated evident miscalibration of the Colon Life nomogram upon external validation, which hampers its use in clinical practice. We recommend conducting a study with a sufficiently large sample size to update the Colon Life nomogram or to develop a new model including QoL.