Nieder Carsten, Syed Mohsan A, Dalhaug Astrid, Pawinski Adam, Norum Jan
Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine, Nordland Hospital, 8092, Bodø, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, 9037, Tromsö, Norway.
Med Oncol. 2017 Sep;34(9):149. doi: 10.1007/s12032-017-1002-6. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
Previous research has identified disparities between urban and rural cancer care, including clinical trial access. Therefore, we addressed three different questions in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer managed according to national guidelines in a rural Norwegian standard practice setting. (1) How many patients would have been eligible for three recent landmark randomized clinical trials? (2) Is survival different between eligible and non-eligible patients receiving first-line systemic therapy? (3) Is survival different between eligible patients and published trial results? We performed a retrospective analysis of 101 consecutive patients (2006-2016). Only 52% of the patients were eligible for the first-line study of pazopanib versus sunitinib. The main reasons for violating inclusion or exclusion criteria were presence of brain metastases, absence of clear cell histology, and poor performance status. Even fewer patients were eligible for trials of nivolumab and cabozantinib in pre-treated patients. Eligible patients had significantly better survival than non-eligible patients, median 29.2 versus 8.5 months (p = 0.0001). These results confirm that many patients from rural practices do not fulfill all mandatory trial eligibility criteria. However, eligible patients managed according to national guidelines had survival outcomes in line with published first-line trial results.
先前的研究已经确定了城乡癌症护理之间的差异,包括临床试验的可及性。因此,我们针对挪威农村标准实践环境中按照国家指南管理的转移性肾细胞癌患者提出了三个不同的问题。(1)有多少患者符合三项近期具有里程碑意义的随机临床试验的条件?(2)接受一线全身治疗的符合条件和不符合条件的患者的生存率是否不同?(3)符合条件的患者与已发表的试验结果之间的生存率是否不同?我们对101例连续患者(2006 - 2016年)进行了回顾性分析。只有52%的患者符合帕唑帕尼与舒尼替尼一线研究的条件。违反纳入或排除标准的主要原因是存在脑转移、无透明细胞组织学以及体能状态差。在接受过治疗的患者中,符合纳武单抗和卡博替尼试验条件的患者更少。符合条件的患者的生存率明显高于不符合条件的患者,中位生存期分别为29.2个月和8.5个月(p = 0.0001)。这些结果证实,许多来自农村医疗机构的患者未满足所有强制性试验合格标准。然而,按照国家指南管理的符合条件的患者的生存结果与已发表的一线试验结果一致。