Quality of life assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving maintenance therapy after first-line induction treatment: a preplanned analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial
The unique analysis, the first preplanned HRQOL analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial, demonstrates that continuation of active maintenance treatment (FP/Bev or Bev alone) after induction treatment is not associated with a remarkable detrimental effect on HRQOL compared with treatment discontinuation. Median EORTC QLQ-C30 scores and deterioration rates did not differ between maintenance arms.
Background
First-line maintenance strategies are a current matter of debate in the management of mCRC. Their impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess whether differences in HRQOL during any active maintenance treatment compared with no maintenance treatment exist.
Patient and methods
Eight hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the AIO KRK 0207 trial. Four hundred and seventy-two underwent randomization (after 24 weeks of induction treatment) into one of the maintenance arms: FP plus Bev (arm A), Bev alone (arm B), or no active treatment (arm C). HRQOL were assessed every 6 weeks during induction and maintenance treatment independent from treatment stop, delay, or modification, and also continued after progression, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29. The mean value of the global quality of life dimension (GHS/QoL) of the EORTC QLQ-C30, calculated as the average of all available time points after randomization was considered as pre-specified main endpoint. Additionally, EORTC QLQ-C30 response scores were analyzed.
Results
For HRQOL analysis, 413 patients were eligible (arm A: 136; arm B: 142, arm C: 135). Compliance rate with the HRQOL questionnaires was 95% at time of randomization and remained high during maintenance (98%, 99%, 97% and 97% at week 6, 12, 18 and 24). No significant differences between treatment arms in the mean GHS/QoL scores were observed at any time point. Also, rates of GHS/QoL score deterioration were similar (20.5%; 17.2% and 20.7% of patients), whereas a score improvement occurred in 36.1%; 43.8% and 42.1% (arms A, B and C).
Conclusion
Continuation of an active maintenance treatment with FP/Bev after induction treatment was neither associated with a detrimental effect on GHS/QoL scores when compared with both, less active treatment with Bev alone or no active treatment.
