Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

BACKGROUND: Trial accrual patterns were examined to determine whether metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients enrolled in trials are representative of a general cancer population concerning patient characteristics and survival.

METHODS: A total of 760 mCRC patients referred for their first oncological consideration at 3 hospitals in Scandinavia covering defined populations were registered consecutively during 2003 to 2006. Clinical trial enrollment, patient characteristics, and treatment were recorded prospectively, and the follow-up was complete.

RESULTS: Palliative chemotherapy was initiated in 61% of the patients. Approximately one-third (36%) of patients receiving chemotherapy were included in a trial. The main reason for nonparticipation was failed eligibility criteria (69%). The median survival after chemotherapy was 15.8 months for all patients, and 18 months after combination chemotherapy. Trial patients had better prognostic characteristics and significantly longer survival than nontrial patients: 21.3 months versus 15.2 months when receiving combination chemotherapy. Poor performance status was the main reason for giving best supportive care only, and the median survival was then only 2.1 months. The median survival for all 760 nonresectable mCRC patients was 10.7 months.

CONCLUSIONS: mCRC patients enrolled into clinical trials differ in characteristics from patients receiving chemotherapy outside protocol and have better survival, even when given the same treatment. Although trial patients have a median survival close to 2 years, survival is lower for all patients receiving chemotherapy and much lower for all patients diagnosed with mCRC. Studies that better accept the heterogeneity of the population with mCRC are needed.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) and social support influences cancer survival. If SES and social support affects cancer treatment has not been thoroughly explored. METHODS: A cohort consisting of all patients who were initially diagnosed with or who developed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC, n = 781) in three Scandinavian university hospitals from October 2003 to August 2006 was set up. Clinical and socioeconomic data were registered prospectively. RESULTS: Patients living alone more often had synchronous metastases at presentation and were less often treated with combination chemotherapy than those cohabitating (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85, P = 0.03). Surgical removal of metastases was less common in patients living alone (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10-0.86, P = 0.02) but more common among university-educated patients (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.10-4.49, P = 0.02). Smoking, being married and having children did not influence treatment or survival. Median survival was 7.7 months in patients living alone and 11.7 months in patients living with someone (P < 0.001). Living alone remained a prognostic factor for survival after correction for age and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Patients living alone received less combination chemotherapy and less secondary surgery. Living alone is a strong independent risk factor for poor survival in mCRC. 

Objective: Treatment gradients by socioeconomic status have been observed within cancer care in several countries. The objective of this study was to explore whether patients' educational level and social network influence oncologists' clinical decision-making. Design: Semi-structured interviews on factors considered when deciding on treatment for cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Setting: Oncologists in Swedish university-and non-university hospitals were interviewed in their respective places of work. Participants: Twenty Swedish clinical oncologists selected through maximum-variation sampling. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Elements which influence oncologists' decision-making process were explored with focus on educational level and patients' social support systems. Results: Oncologists consciously used less combination chemotherapy for patients living alone, fearing treatment toxicity. Highly educated patients were considered as well-read, demanding and sometimes difficult to reason with. Patients with higher education, those very keen to have treatment and persuasive relatives were considered as challenges for the oncologist. Having large groups of relatives in a room made doctors feel outnumbered. A desire to please patients and relatives was posed as the main reason for giving in to patients' demands, even when this resulted in treatment with limited efficacy. Conclusions: Oncologists tailor treatment for patients living alone to avoid harmful side-effects. Many find patients' demands difficult to handle and this may result in strong socioeconomic groups being over-treated.