Cost-minimisation analysis of rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy based on fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil)

Vascular access device type for systemic anti-cancer therapies in cancer patients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer can expect to receive numerous invasive vascular access procedures for intravenous therapy and clinical diagnostics. Due to the increased incidence and prevalence of cancer globally there will be significantly more people who require first-line intravenous chemotherapy over the next ten years.

METHODS

Our objective was to determine the types of evidence that exist for the vascular access device (VAD) type for the delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) in cancer patients. We used JBI scoping review methodology to identify the types of VADs used for SACT and with a specific search strategy included articles from 2012-2022 published in the English language. We identify (i) type of VADs used for SACT delivery (ii) the type of insertion and post-insertion complications (iii) the geographical location and clinical environment (iv) and whether VAD choice impacts on quality of life (QOL). Findings were presented using the PAGER framework.

MAIN FINDINGS

Our search strategy identified 10,390 titles, of these, 5318 duplicates were removed. The remaining 5072 sources were screened for eligibility, 240 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common design include retrospective study designs (n = 91) followed by prospective study designs (n = 31). We found 28 interventional studies with 21 registered in a clinical trial registry and identified no core outcome sets papers specific to VAD for SACT. The most prevalent publications were those that featured two or more VAD types (n = 70), followed by tunnelled intravenous VADs (n = 67). Of 38 unique complications identified, the most frequent catheter related complication was catheter related thrombosis (n = 178, 74%), followed by infection (n = 170, 71%). The county where the most publications originated from was China (n = 62) with one randomized controlled multicenter study from a comprehensive cancer centre. Of the thirty three studies that included QOL we found 4 which reported on body image. No QOL measurement tools specific to the process of SACT administration via VAD are available INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest a systematic review and meta-analysis of VAD use for intravenous SACT can be considered. However, the development of a core outcome set for SACT should be prioritised. Funding for high quality programs of research for VAD in cancer are needed. Comprehensive cancer centres should lead this research agenda.

Chemoradiation for muscle-invasive bladder cancer using 5-fluorouracil versus capecitabine: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Oral capecitabine and intravenous 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) are both used as a radiosensitizer in chemoradiotherapy (CRT). A capecitabine-based regimen is more convenient for both patients and healthcare professionals. Since large comparative studies are lacking, we compared toxicity, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between both CRT-regimens in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic MIBC between November 2017-November 2019 were consecutively included in the BlaZIB study. Data on patient, tumor, treatment characteristics and toxicity were prospectively collected from the medical files. From this cohort, all patients with cT2-4aN0-2/xM0/x, treated with capecitabine or 5-FU-based CRT were included in the current study. Toxicity in both groups was compared using Fisher-exact tests. Propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to correct for baseline differences between groups. IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier OS and DFS curves were compared using log-rank tests.

RESULTS

Of the 222 included patients, 111 (50%) were treated with 5-FU and 111 (50%) with capecitabine. Curative CRT was completed according to treatment plan in 77% of patients in the capecitabine-based group and 62% of the 5-FU group (p = 0.06). Adverse events (14 vs 21%, p = 0.29), 2-year OS (73% vs 61%, p = 0.07) and 2-year DFS (56% vs 50%, p = 0.50) did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine and MMC is associated with a similar toxicity profile compared to 5-FU plus MMC and no difference in survival was found. Capecitabine-based CRT, as a more patient-friendly schedule, may be considered as an alternative to a 5-FU-based regimen.