Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Conclusion
Abbreviations:
OS (overall survival), FTD/TPI (trifluridine/tipiracil), mCRC (metastatic colorectal cancer), QoL (quality of life), PLCRC (Prospective Dutch CRC cohort), PH (proportional hazards), PFS (progression-free survival), QoL-SS (QLQ-C30 Summary Score), PS (performance status), PROs (patient-reported outcomes), AEs (adverse events), NCR (Netherlands Cancer Registry), ICD-O-3 (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology), PROFILES (Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship), GHS (Global Health Status), HRs (hazard ratios), CI (confidence interval), TCI (threshold for clinical importance), CUP (compassionate use program)Introduction
Methods
Study Design and Population
Data Collection
Clinical Characteristics
Quality of Life
- van de Poll-Franse L
- Horevoorts N
- Van Eenbergen M
- et al.
Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd Edition) Brussels 2001; https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf.
Statistical Analysis
Quality of Life
Time to Treatment Failure and Survival
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug administration, Oncology Center of Excellence, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. 2018. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download.
Total study population | 150 (100%) |
Male sex | 102 (68.0%) |
Age in y at diagnosis CRC | |
- Mean (±SD) | 61.8 (±9.3) |
- Range | 32-82 |
Age at start of FTD/TPI, mean (±SD) | 65.0 (±9.1) |
Level of education | |
- Low | 48 (32.2%) |
- Medium | 45 (30.0%) |
- High | 56 (37.3%) |
- Missing | 1 (0.7%) |
Cohabitants | |
- Living alone | 21 (14.0%) |
- With partner | 95 (63.3%) |
- With partner and children | 22 (14.7%) |
- Otherwise | 10 (6.7%) |
- Missing | 2 (1.3%) |
Y of diagnosis first metastasis CRC | |
2009-2013 | 11 (7.3%) |
2014 | 17 (11.3%) |
2015 | 27 (18.0%) |
2016 | 47 (31.3%) |
2017 | 27 (18.0%) |
2018 | 9 (6.0%) |
Missing | 12 (8.0%) |
Y in which FTD/TPI was started | |
2016 | 3 (2.0%) |
2017 | 31 (20.7%) |
2018 | 85 (56.7%) |
2019 | 31 (20.7%) |
Primary tumor site | |
- Right-sided colon | 44 (29.3%) |
- Left-sided colon | 54 (36.0%) |
- Rectal | 52 (34.7%) |
Primary tumor resection | 113 (75.3%) |
Synchronous mCRC (stage IV CRC at diagnosis) | 98 (65.3%) |
Metachronous mCRC | 52 (34.7%) |
> 1 Primary tumor | 4 (2.7%) |
Morphology | |
- Adenocarcinoma | 141 (94.0%) |
- Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 8 (5.3%) |
- Signet ring cell carcinoma | 1 (0.7%) |
Molecular pathology | |
BRAF mutation | 4 (2.7%) |
BRAF wildtype | 108 (72.0%) |
BRAF status unavailable | 38 (25.3%) |
RAS mutation | 67 (44.7%) |
RAS wildtype | 49 (32.7%) |
RAS status unavailable | 34 (22.7%) |
MSI | 2 (1.3%) |
MSS | 87 (58.0%) |
MS status unavailable | 61 (40.7%) |
Number of metastatic sites at the start of FTD/TPI | |
- No distant metastasis | 1 (0.7%) |
- 1 organ | 20 (13.3%) |
- 2 organs | 57 (38.0%) |
- 3 organs | 48 (32.0%) |
- ≥ 4 organs | 24 (16.0%) |
Localization of metastases at the start of FTD/TPI | |
- Liver | 115 (76.7%) |
- Liver-only | 10 (6.7%) |
- Lung | 102 (68.0%) |
- Lung-only | 6 (4.0%) |
- Peritoneal | 31 (20.7%) |
- Peritoneal-only | 4 (2.7%) |
- Bone | 28 (18.7%) |
- Brain | 3 (2.0%) |
Number of prior systemic treatment regimens | |
0 | 1 (0.7%) |
1 | 18 (12.0%) |
2 | 76 (50.7%) |
3 | 41 (27.3%) |
4 | 14 (9.3%) |
Exposure to prior systemic anticancer agents | |
- fluoropyrimidine | 150 (100%) |
- irinotecan | 82 (54.7%) |
- oxaliplatin | 132 (88.0%) |
- bevacizumab | 95 (63.3%) |
- anti–EGFR | 47 (31.3%) |
- regorafenib | 0 (0%) |
Exposure to all standard chemotherapy agents (fluoropyrimidine,oxaliplatin, irinotecan) | 75 (50%) |
Exposure to all standard chemotherapy agents + bevacizumab | 55 (36.7%) |
Bevacizumab received simultaneously with FTD/TPI | 2 (1.3%) |
Time in mo between diagnosis mCRC and start FTD/TPI | |
Median (IQR) | 26.2 (16.8-40.8) |
< 18 mo | 43 (28.7%) |
≥ 18 mo | 107 (71.3%) |
R Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Results
Study Population

Quality of Life



Change in QoL During FTD/TPI Treatment
Scale/item | Estimated baseline score | Estimated mean change in score per mo | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | SE | 95% CI | Score | SE | 95% CI | |
Summary Score | 76.4 | 1.27 | (73.9;78.9) | -0.53 | 0.16 | (-0.84;-0.21) |
Global Health Status | 63.2 | 1.56 | (60.2;66.3) | -0.60 | 0.23 | (-1.05;-0.15) |
Functional scales | ||||||
Physical functioning | 75.3 | 1.77 | (71.8;78.7) | -0.66 | 0.20 | (-1.05;-0.26) |
Role functioning | 61.7 | 2.38 | (57.0;66.4) | -1.08 | 0.31 | (-1.70;-0.46) |
Emotional functioning | 75.1 | 1.64 | (71.9;78.3) | -0.52 | 0.21 | (-0.93;-0.12) |
Cognitive functioning | 84.6 | 1.57 | (81.5;87.6) | -0.11 | 0.18 | (-0.46;0.24) |
Social functioning | 75.5 | 1.85 | (71.8;79.1) | -0.45 | 0.27 | (-0.97;0.08) |
Symptom scales/items | ||||||
Fatigue | 40.9 | 2.05 | (36.9;44.9) | 0.95 | 0.29 | (0.38;1.52) |
Nausea and vomiting | 14.4 | 1.52 | (11.4;17.4) | 0.23 | 0.21 | (-0.17;0.64) |
Pain | 23.3 | 2.28 | (18.9;27.8) | 0.77 | 0.30 | (0.17;1.36) |
Dyspnea | 21.8 | 2.13 | (17.6;26.0) | 1.57 | 0.38 | (0.83;2.30) |
Insomnia | 27.9 | 3.01 | (22.0;33.8) | -0.32 | 0.62 | (-1.54;0.89) |
Appetite loss | 24.4 | 2.47 | (19.5;29.2) | 0.83 | 0.31 | (0.22;1.45) |
Constipation | 13.2 | 1.78 | (9.8;16.7) | 0.52 | 0.25 | (0.03;1.00) |
Diarrhea | 17.2 | 1.13 | (15.0;19.4) | -0.23 | 0.22 | (-0.65;0.20) |
Financial difficulties | 11.2 | 1.80 | (7.6;14.7) | -0.33 | 0.17 | (-0.67;0.01) |
Estimated baseline score | Estimated mean change in score per mo | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | SE | 95% CI | Score | SE | 95% CI | |
Overall | 76.4 | 1.27 | (73.9;78.9) | -0.53 | 0.16 | (-0.84;-0.21) |
FTD/TPI treatment duration: | ||||||
< 3 mo | 73.6 | 1.84 | (70.0;77.2) | -6.73 | 1.24 | (-9.16;-4.30) |
≥ 3 mo | 79.9 | 1.60 | (76.8-83.1) | -0.55 | 0.18 | (-0.89;-0.20) |
EORTC QLQ-C30 Summary Score Stratified by FTD/TPI Treatment Duration

Time to Treatment Failure and Survival

Prognostic Factors
Prognostic factor | HR for death | 95% CI | P value |
---|---|---|---|
Number of metastatic sites at start of FTD/TPI | 1.20 | 0.96-1.49 | .110 |
Time between diagnosis mCRC and start FTD/TPI (per mo increase) | 0.98 | 0.97-1.00 | .018 |
Age at start of FTD/TPI (per 5-y increase) | 0.93 | 0.84-1.04 | .198 |
Sidedness primary tumor (left vs. right sided) | 0.71 | 0.46-1.10 | .128 |
Stage at diagnosis CRC (stage IV vs. metachronous mCRC) | 1.54 | 0.86-2.76 | .147 |
Liver metastasis at start of FTD/TPI | 0.81 | 0.47-1.40 | .445 |
Liver-only metastasis at start of FTD/TPI | 0.85 | 0.37-1.98 | .710 |
Peritoneal metastasis at start of FTD/TPI | 0.64 | 0.39-1.06 | .084 |
Prior exposure to all standard treatments | 1.58 | 1.06-2.36 | .025 |
Primary tumor resection | 1.06 | 0.63-1.79 | .814 |
Baseline Summary Score EORTC QLQ-C30 (per 10-point increase) | 0.45 | 0.32-0.63 | .0000043 |
- Interaction with time (in mo) | 1.05 | 1.01-1.10 | .011 |
- After 10 mo of FTD/TPI treatment | 0.45 x (1.05 ^ 10) = 0.73 |

Discussion
- Moriwaki T
- Fukuoka S
- Taniguchi H
- et al.
- Moriwaki T
- Fukuoka S
- Taniguchi H
- et al.
Clinical Practice Points
MicroAbstract Qualitas
Author Contributions
Funding
Ethics
Data Availability
Acknowledgments
Disclosure
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- Quality of life assessment and reporting in colorectal cancer: a systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018.Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2019; 2020102877
- Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372: 1909-1919
- ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.Ann. Oncol. 2016; 27: 1386-1422
- Patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of toxicity of anticancer treatments.Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 13: 319-325
- Prospective Dutch colorectal cancer cohort: an infrastructure for long-term observational, prognostic, predictive and (randomized) intervention research.Acta Oncol. (Madr). 2016; 55: 1273-1280
- The patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts.Eur. J. Cancer. 2011; 47: 2188-2194
- The European organisation for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 365-376
- The EORTC QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaire for colorectal cancer: validation of the Dutch version.Qual. Life Res. 2016; 25: 1853-1858
- Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer.Eur. J. Cancer. 2009; 45: 3017-3026
- Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust.J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016; 69: 79-88
Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd Edition) Brussels 2001; https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/SCmanual.pdf.
- Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.J. Clin. Oncol. 1998; 16: 139-144
- Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation.Med. Care. 2003; 41: 582-592
- JM: An R package for the joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event data.J. Stat. Softw. 2010; 35: 1-33
- Joint modeling of multiple longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and survival.J. Biopharm Stat. 2011; 21: 971-991
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug administration, Oncology Center of Excellence, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. 2018. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/71195/download.
- Effect of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients treated in RECOURSE by prognostic factors at baseline: an exploratory analysis.ESMO Open. 2020; 5
- Safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the PRECONNECT study.ESMO open. 2020; 5: 1-10
- Feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer: real-life data from The Netherlands.Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018; 23: 482-489
Therneau T. Using time dependent covariates and time dependent coefficients in the cox model (R package). 2012;1–8.
R Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
- Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research.J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020; 118: 1-8
- Regorafenib versus trifluridine/tipiracil for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective comparison.Clin. Colorectal Cancer. 2017; 16: e15-e22
- Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter register in the frame of the italian compassionate use program.Oncologist. 2018; 23: 1178-1187
- Propensity score analysis of regorafenib versus trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy (REGOTAS): a Japanese society for cancer of the colon and rectum multicenter observational study.Oncologist. 2018; 23: 7-15
- Proxies of quality of life in metastatic colorectal cancer: analyses in the RECOURSE trial.ESMO open. 2017; 2e000261
- QTWiST analysis of the RECOURSE trial of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer.ESMO Open. 2017; 2e000284
- Health-related quality of life associated with trifluridine/tipiracil in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer: results from TAGS.Gastric Cancer. 2020; 23: 689-698https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-020-01053-9
- Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) monotherapy in asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: the TERRA study.J. Clin. Oncol. 2018; 36: 350-358
- Retrospective cohort study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.BMC Cancer. 2019; 19: 1-9
- Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer in clinical practice: a feasible alternative for patients with good performance status.Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2019; 21: 1781-1785
- Cancer survivors not participating in observational patient-reported outcome studies have a lower survival compared to participants: the population-based PROFILES registry.Qual. Life Res. 2018; 27: 3313-3324
- Informing patients about expected outcomes: the efficacy-effectiveness gap.J. Clin. Oncol. 2020; 38: 1651-1654
- How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2017; 28: 2077-2085
- The EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score as prognostic factor for survival of patients with cancer in the “real-world”: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.Oncologist. 2019; 24: 1-11
- The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.J. Clin. Oncol. 2008; 26: 1355-1363
- The prognostic value of WHO performance status in relation to quality of life in advanced colorectal cancer patients.Eur. J. Cancer. 2016; 66: 138-143
- Cancer survivors who fully participate in the PROFILES registry have better health-related quality of life than those who drop out.J. Cancer Surviv. 2019; : 829-839
- Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial.J. Clin. Oncol. 2016; 34: 557-565
Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Standard Educational Classification. The Hague (the Netherlands). Edition 2019/2020.
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy