Cargando…

Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study

PURPOSE: Trials of novel drugs used in advanced disease often show only progression-free survival or modest overall survival benefits. Hypothetical studies suggest that stabilisation of metastatic disease and/or symptom burden are worth treatment-related side effects. We examined this premise contem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jenkins, V., Farewell, V., May, S., Catt, S., Matthews, L., Shilling, V., Dickson, J., Simcock, R., Fallowfield, L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182366/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845422
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3
_version_ 1783362546600771584
author Jenkins, V.
Farewell, V.
May, S.
Catt, S.
Matthews, L.
Shilling, V.
Dickson, J.
Simcock, R.
Fallowfield, L.
author_facet Jenkins, V.
Farewell, V.
May, S.
Catt, S.
Matthews, L.
Shilling, V.
Dickson, J.
Simcock, R.
Fallowfield, L.
author_sort Jenkins, V.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Trials of novel drugs used in advanced disease often show only progression-free survival or modest overall survival benefits. Hypothetical studies suggest that stabilisation of metastatic disease and/or symptom burden are worth treatment-related side effects. We examined this premise contemporaneously using qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: Patients with metastatic cancers expected to live > 6 months and prescribed drugs aimed at cancer control were interviewed: at baseline, at 6 weeks, at progression, and if treatment was stopped for toxicity. They also completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) plus Anti-Angiogenesis (AA) subscale questionnaires at baseline then monthly for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety out of 120 (75%) eligible patients participated: 41 (45%) remained on study for 6 months, 36 progressed or died, 4 had treatment breaks, and 9 withdrew due to toxicity. By 6 weeks, 66/69 (96%) patients were experiencing side effects which impacted their activities. Low QoL scores at baseline did not predict a higher risk of death or dropout. At 6-week interviews, as the side effect severity increased, patients were significantly less inclined to view the benefit of cancer control as worthwhile (X(2) = 50.7, P < 0.001). Emotional well-being initially improved from baseline by 10 weeks, then gradually returned to baseline levels. CONCLUSION: Maintaining QoL is vital to most patients with advanced cancer so minimising treatment-related side effects is essential. As side effect severity increased, drugs that controlled cancer for short periods were not viewed as worthwhile. Patients need to have the therapeutic aims of further anti-cancer treatment explained honestly and sensitively. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6182366
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61823662018-10-22 Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study Jenkins, V. Farewell, V. May, S. Catt, S. Matthews, L. Shilling, V. Dickson, J. Simcock, R. Fallowfield, L. Support Care Cancer Original Article PURPOSE: Trials of novel drugs used in advanced disease often show only progression-free survival or modest overall survival benefits. Hypothetical studies suggest that stabilisation of metastatic disease and/or symptom burden are worth treatment-related side effects. We examined this premise contemporaneously using qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: Patients with metastatic cancers expected to live > 6 months and prescribed drugs aimed at cancer control were interviewed: at baseline, at 6 weeks, at progression, and if treatment was stopped for toxicity. They also completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) plus Anti-Angiogenesis (AA) subscale questionnaires at baseline then monthly for 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety out of 120 (75%) eligible patients participated: 41 (45%) remained on study for 6 months, 36 progressed or died, 4 had treatment breaks, and 9 withdrew due to toxicity. By 6 weeks, 66/69 (96%) patients were experiencing side effects which impacted their activities. Low QoL scores at baseline did not predict a higher risk of death or dropout. At 6-week interviews, as the side effect severity increased, patients were significantly less inclined to view the benefit of cancer control as worthwhile (X(2) = 50.7, P < 0.001). Emotional well-being initially improved from baseline by 10 weeks, then gradually returned to baseline levels. CONCLUSION: Maintaining QoL is vital to most patients with advanced cancer so minimising treatment-related side effects is essential. As side effect severity increased, drugs that controlled cancer for short periods were not viewed as worthwhile. Patients need to have the therapeutic aims of further anti-cancer treatment explained honestly and sensitively. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-05-29 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6182366/ /pubmed/29845422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jenkins, V.
Farewell, V.
May, S.
Catt, S.
Matthews, L.
Shilling, V.
Dickson, J.
Simcock, R.
Fallowfield, L.
Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title_full Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title_fullStr Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title_full_unstemmed Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title_short Do drugs offering only PFS maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? Results from AVALPROFS (Assessing the ‘VALue’ to patients of PROgression Free Survival) study
title_sort do drugs offering only pfs maintain quality of life sufficiently from a patient’s perspective? results from avalprofs (assessing the ‘value’ to patients of progression free survival) study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182366/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29845422
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4273-3
work_keys_str_mv AT jenkinsv dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT farewellv dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT mays dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT catts dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT matthewsl dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT shillingv dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT dicksonj dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT simcockr dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy
AT fallowfieldl dodrugsofferingonlypfsmaintainqualityoflifesufficientlyfromapatientsperspectiveresultsfromavalprofsassessingthevaluetopatientsofprogressionfreesurvivalstudy