J 2017

Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review

KRIEKEN, Han J. van, G. KAFATOS, J. BENNETT, L. MINEUR, Jiří TOMÁŠEK et. al.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review

Autoři

KRIEKEN, Han J. van (528 Nizozemské království), G. KAFATOS (826 Velká Británie a Severní Irsko), J. BENNETT (826 Velká Británie a Severní Irsko), L. MINEUR (250 Francie), Jiří TOMÁŠEK (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí), E. ROULEAU (250 Francie), Pavel FABIAN (203 Česká republika, domácí), G. DE MAGLIO (380 Itálie), P. GARCIA-ALFONSO (724 Španělsko), G. APRILE (380 Itálie), P. PARKAR (826 Velká Británie a Severní Irsko), G. DOWNEY (826 Velká Británie a Severní Irsko), G. DEMONTY (756 Švýcarsko) a J. TROJAN (276 Německo)

Vydání

BMC Cancer, London, BioMed Central, 2017, 1471-2407

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30204 Oncology

Stát vydavatele

Velká Británie a Severní Irsko

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 3.288

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14110/17:00099927

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

DOI

UT WoS

000416427500005

Klíčová slova anglicky

Panitumumab; Metastatic colorectal cancer; mCRC; RAS; Physician survey; Medical records review

Štítky

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 20. 3. 2018 19:09, Soňa Böhmová

Anotace

V originále

Background: In Europe, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with panitumumab requires prior confirmation of RAS wild-type mutation status. Two studies - a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR) - were conducted to evaluate the use of panitumumab and awareness among prescribing oncologists of the associated RAS testing requirements in clinical practice. Methods: Both studies enrolled participants from nine European countries and were carried out in three consecutive rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012-2013) examined KRAS (exon 2) testing only; the results have been published in full previously. Round 3 (2014-2015) examined full RAS testing (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) and was initiated following a change in prescribing guidelines, from requiring KRAS alone to requiring full RAS testing. For the physician survey, telephone interviews were conducted with oncologists who had prescribed panitumumab to patients with mCRC in the previous 6 months. For the MRR, oncologists were asked to provide anonymised clinical information, extracted from their patients' records. Results: In Round 3, 152 oncologists and 131 patients' records were included in the physician survey and MRR, respectively. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly identified that panitumumab should only be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC compared with 99.0% (n = 298) of 301 participants in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients included in the study had confirmed KRAS or RAS wild-type status prior to initiation of panitumumab compared with 97.7% (n = 299) of 306 patients in Rounds 1 and 2 (KRAS only). Of those patients in Round 3, 83.2% (n = 109) had been tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) had been tested for KRAS status only. Conclusions: Physicians' adherence to prescribing guidelines has remained high over time in Europe, despite the change in indication for panitumumab treatment, from KRAS to RAS wild-type mCRC. Additionally, this study demonstrates the uptake of full RAS testing among the majority of oncologists and pathologists.