Delphi consensus for the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[García Alfonso P] Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria (IiSGM), Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. [Vera R] Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdISNA), Pamplona, Navarra, Spain. [Aranda E] Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Universidad de Córdoba, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Córdoba, Spain. [Élez E] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. [Rivera F] Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, IDIVAL, Santander, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2024-05-31T11:39:12Z

2024-05-31T11:39:12Z

2024-06



Abstract

Delphi; Quality of life; Regorafenib


Delphi; Qualitat de vida; Regorafenib


Delphi; Calidad de vida; Regorafenib


Purpose The optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are candidates for third-line (3L) or subsequent treatment. The aim of this study is to know the opinion of experts on the most appropriate treatment options for mCRC in 3L and to clarify certain clinical decisions in Spain. Methods Using a modified Delphi method, a group of experts discussed the treatment in 3L of patients with mCRC and developed a questionnaire with 21 items divided into 5 sections. Results After 2 rounds, the 67 panelists consulted agreed on 17 items (81%). They considered that the main objective of 3L is to equally increase survival and improve patients’ quality of life (QoL), but preferably the QoL. It was agreed that patients with mCRC in 3L prefer to receive active versus symptomatic treatment. Panelists considered trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) to be the best oral treatment available to them in 3L. In patients with MSI-H or dMMR and BRAF V600E, the panelists mostly prefer targeted treatments. Panelists agreed the use of a therapeutic sequence that not only increases outcomes but also allows patients to be treated later. Finally, it was agreed that FTD/TPI has a mechanism of action that allows it to be used in patients refractory to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil. Conclusion The experts agreed with most of the proposed items on 3L treatment of mCRC, prioritizing therapeutic options that increase survival and preserve QoL, while facilitating the possibility that patients can continue to be treated later.


Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Servier funded this project without participating in any way.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Springer

Related items

Clinical and Translational Oncology;26(6)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-023-03369-1

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)