Author
Listed:
- Candida Mastroianni
- Caterina Viscomi
- Silvia Ceniti
- Rosanna Simone
- Aldo Filice
- Gennaro Caldarola
- Stefania Infusino
- Caterina Manfredi
- Antonio Rea
- Claudia Sandomenico
- Salvatore Turano
- Francesco Serranò
- Giovanni Condemi
- Carla Cortese
- Tullia Prantera
- Salvatore Palazzo
Abstract
Background: In recent years, patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life have become important areas of clinician focus in general cancer management. Patients’ preferences for, and/or satisfaction with, oral versus intravenous (IV) chemotherapy schedules may have a major impact on such outcomes. Objective: To evaluate preferences for oral or IV chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Methods: A multicenter, randomized, crossover trial was conducted in 12 hospitals in Southern Italy, in which 22 patients with advanced colorectal cancer received one cycle of oral capecitabine ± irinotecan or oxaliplatin, followed by one cycle of an IV de Gramont or similar regimen (arm A), or the same regimens in reverse order (arm B). Patients were aged 50–70 years and 21% had a higher level of education (graduate or similar). Patients received oral capecitabine 3500 mg/m 2 /day for 7 days (± irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 or oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 on ay 1 only), followed by an IV de Gramont regimen ± irinotecan (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin (FOLFOX); or the two schedules administered in reverse order. The main outcome measure was patients’ preferences for oral versus IV chemotherapy, as determined by a pre- and post-treatment therapy preference questionnaire (TPQ). Results: Before treatment, 75% of patients preferred oral therapy. Characteristics that patients considered to be important were that treatment should not interfere with daily activities (100% of patients) and should not cause fatigue (95%), diarrhea (76%), or painful mouth ulcers (76%); other factors considered important were the risk of infection and nausea (90%), and that treatment could be administered at home (65%). After receiving both chemotherapy schedules, only 45% of patients preferred oral therapy, while 55% preferred IV therapy. Among the latter, the most important characteristics influencing treatment choice were less nausea (66%), fewer mood effects (65%), the safety of hospital IV treatment (62%), less interference with family relationships (55%), less vomiting (55%), less interference with daily activities (50%), and less diarrhea (50%). Although the order in which patients received therapy did not influence treatment preference, significantly fewer patients with a lower rather than higher educational level preferred oral therapy (47% vs 80%; chi-square test=9.9; p=0.002). Conclusion: These results suggest that there may be a correlation between educational level and the preference of patients with advanced colorectal cancer for oral or IV chemotherapy. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2008
Suggested Citation
Candida Mastroianni & Caterina Viscomi & Silvia Ceniti & Rosanna Simone & Aldo Filice & Gennaro Caldarola & Stefania Infusino & Caterina Manfredi & Antonio Rea & Claudia Sandomenico & Salvatore Turano, 2008.
"Preferences of Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer for Treatment with Oral or Intravenous Chemotherapy,"
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(3), pages 181-187, July.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:3:p:181-187
DOI: 10.2165/1312067-200801030-00005
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009.
"Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
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:spr:patien:v:1:y:2008:i:3:p:181-187. 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.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.