Cohort study finds reduced early chemotherapy discontinuation in gastrointestinal cancer with routine symptom reporting, highlighting the benefit of systematic toxicity monitoring.
Background Early chemotherapy (CTh) discontinuation in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients can compromise treatment effectiveness and worsen outcomes. Monitoring and addressing patient-reported symptoms may reduce early discontinuation. Yet, evidence baseline symptoms routinely collected in standard clinical practice remains limited. Methods This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with GI cancers who received CTh at Mass General Brigham between 01/2019 and 01/2024. The Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events assessed 12 symptoms at CTh initiation and at visits proximal to 30, 60, and 90 days from initiation. All patients completed baseline assessment. The primary outcome was early discontinuation due to toxicity within 90 days of initiation. Using the Fine-Gray model to account for competing risks of death and progression, we examined the association between early discontinuation and number of completed assessments over time. We tested whether this association differed across prognostic groups. To address time-varying bias from disease severity, treatment, and prior completion, we applied inverse probability weighting. Results Among 1,178 patients, the most common cancers were colorectal (35%) and pancreatic (31%), and 45% had stage IV disease. Overall, 784 (67%) completed assessments at CTh initiation and during follow-up. After adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates and time-varying bias, completing post-initiation assessments was associated with a lower cumulative risk of early discontinuation (SHR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.44–1.12]). Results were generally consistent across prognostic groups. Conclusion More frequent completion of patient-reported symptom assessment post CTh initiation was associated with a lower risk of early discontinuation in practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: