Purpose Regulatory guidance suggests capturing patient-reported overall side effect impact in cancer trials. We examined whether the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item (“I am bothered by side effects of treatment”) post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy differed between oxaliplatin vs. non- oxaliplatin arms in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 trial of stage II–III rectal cancer patients. Methods The R-04 neoadjuvant trial compared local-regional tumor control between patients randomized to receive 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine with radiation, with or without oxaliplatin (4 treatment arms). Participants completed surveys at baseline and immediately after chemoradiotherapy. GP5 has a 5-point response scale: “Not at all” (0), “A little bit” (1), “Somewhat” (2), “Quite a bit” (3), and “Very much” (4). Logistic regression compared the odds of reporting moderate-high side effect impact (GP5 2–4) between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not after chemoradiotherapy, controlling for relevant patient characteristics. We examined associations between GP5 and other patient-reported outcomes reflecting side effects. Results Analyses were performed among 1132 study participants. Participants receiving oxaliplatin were 1.58 times (95% CI: 1.22–2.05) more likely to report moderate-high side effect bother at post-chemotherapy/radiation. In both arms, worse overall side effect impact was associated with patient-reported diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy ( p < 0.01 for all). Conclusion This secondary analysis of R-04 found that GP5 distinguished between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not as part of their post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adding patient-centric evidence on the reduced tolerability of oxaliplatin and demonstrating that GP5 is sensitive to known toxicity differences between treatments. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00058474.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peipert et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: