Treatment patterns for metastatic colorectal cancer in Spain

• E. Aranda ^[1] ; E. Polo ^[5] ; C. Camps ^[2] ; A. Carrato ^[3] ; E. Díaz Rubio ^[3] ; V. Guillem ^[4] ; R. López ^[3] ; A. Antón ^[5]
  1. [1] Universidad de Córdoba

     Universidad de Córdoba

     Cordoba, España

     
  2. [2] Hospital General Universitario de Valencia

     Hospital General Universitario de Valencia

     Valencia, España

     
  3. [3] Instituto de Salud Carlos III

     Instituto de Salud Carlos III

     Madrid, España

     
  4. [4] Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia

     Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia

     Valencia, España

     
  5. [5] Medical Oncology Department, Miguel Servet University Hospital, IIS Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Clinical & translational oncology, ISSN 1699-048X, Vol. 22, Nº. 9, 2020, págs. 1455-1462
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Purpose The primary aim of this retrospective study was to describe the treatment patterns according to the type of treat- ment received by patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

    Methods This was a retrospective, observational, multicenter study performed by 33 sites throughout Spain that included consecutive patients aged 18 years or older who had received or were receiving treatment for mCRC.

    Results At the time of inclusion, of the 873 evaluable patients, 507 (58%) had received two lines, 235 (27%) had received three lines, 106 (12%) had received four lines, and the remaining patients had received up to ten lines. The most frequent chemotherapy schemes were the FOLFOX or CAPOX regimens (66%) for first-line treatment, FOLFOX, CAPOX or FOL - FIRI (70%) for second-line treatment, and FOLFOX, FOLFIRI or other fluoropyrimidine-based regimens for third- and fourth-line (over 60%) treatment. Sixty percent of patients received targeted therapy as part of their first-line treatment, and this proportion increased up to approximately 70% of patients as part of the second-line of treatment. A relevant proportion of patients were treated with unknown KRAS, and especially the BRAF, mutation statuses.

    Conclusions This study reveals inconsistencies regarding adherence to the recommendations of the ESMO guidelines for the management of mCRC in Spain. Improved adherence to the standard practice described in such guidelines for the deter - mination of RAS and BRAF mutation statuses and the use of targeted therapies in first-line treatment should be considered to guarantee that patients can benefit from the best therapeutic approaches available