IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0157067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time to Definitive Health-Related Quality of Life Score Deterioration in Patients with Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with FOLFOX4 versus Sequential Dose-Dense FOLFOX7 followed by FOLFIRI: The MIROX Randomized Phase III Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Zeinab Hamidou
  • Benoist Chibaudel
  • Mohamed Hebbar
  • Marine Hug de Larauze
  • Thierry André
  • Christophe Louvet
  • David Brusquant
  • Marie-Line Garcia-Larnicol
  • Aimery de Gramont
  • Franck Bonnetain

Abstract

Purpose: We previously showed that a sequential chemotherapy with dose-dense oxaliplatin (FOLFOX7) and irinotecan (FOLFIRI; irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) is not superior to FOLFOX4 in patients at advanced stage of colorectal cancer with liver metastases. Here we aimed to determine whether time to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score definitive deterioration (TUDD) differs by study arm. Methods: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 at baseline and every 4 cycles until the end of the study or death. Functional scale, symptom scale, global health status, and financial difficulties were analyzed. The TUDD was defined as the time interval between randomization and the first decrease in HRQoL score ≥ 5-point with no further improvement in HRQoL score ≥ 5 points or any further HRQoL data. TUDD was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the long-rank test. Cox regression analyses were used to identify HRQoL items influencing TUDD. Sensitivity analyses were done using a multiple imputation method and different definitions of TUDD. Results: Of the 284 patients, 171 (60.2%) completed HRQoL questionnaires. Cox multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant difference in TUDD for most of the QLQ-C30 scales between treatments. Patients with dyspnea and those without symptoms at baseline had a significantly longer TUDD when there was a delay >12 months between diagnosis of the primary tumor and metastases (HR 0.48 [0.26–0.89]) and when there was diarrhea (HR 0.59 [0.36–0.96]), respectively. Conclusion: This study shows that TUDD does not differ significantly according to type of treatment. The TUDD method produces meaningful longitudinal HRQoL results that may facilitate effective clinical decision making in patients with mCRC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268398

Suggested Citation

  • Zeinab Hamidou & Benoist Chibaudel & Mohamed Hebbar & Marine Hug de Larauze & Thierry André & Christophe Louvet & David Brusquant & Marie-Line Garcia-Larnicol & Aimery de Gramont & Franck Bonnetain, 2016. "Time to Definitive Health-Related Quality of Life Score Deterioration in Patients with Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with FOLFOX4 versus Sequential Dose-Dense FOLFOX7 followed by FOL," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157067
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157067
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157067&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0157067?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.