3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sex and Adverse Events of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: An Analysis of 34 640 Patients in the ACCENT Database

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment option for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. Sex is one of several factors responsible for the wide inter-patient variability in drug responses. Amalgamated data on the effect of sex on the toxicity of current standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer are missing.

          Methods

          The objective of our study was to compare incidence and severity of major toxicities of fluoropyrimidine- (5FU or capecitabine) based adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without oxaliplatin, between male and female patients after curative surgery for colon cancer. Adult patients enrolled in 27 relevant randomized trials included in the ACCENT (Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points) database, a large, multi-group, international data repository containing individual patient data, were included. Comparisons were conducted using logistic regression models (stratified by study and treatment arm) within each type of adjuvant chemotherapy (5FU, FOLFOX, capecitabine, CAPOX, and FOLFIRI). The following major toxicities were compared (grade III or IV and grade I-IV, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria [NCI-CTC] criteria, regardless of attribution): nausea, vomiting, nausea or vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neuropathy (in patients treated with oxaliplatin).

          Results

          Data from 34 640 patients were analyzed. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the occurrence of grade III or IV nonhematological {especially nausea (5FU: odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90 to 2.87, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.11, P < .001), vomiting (5FU: OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.86 to 3.04, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.66, P < .001; CAPOX: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.55 to 3.46, P < .001), and diarrhea (5FU: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.90, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.97, P < .001)} as well as hematological toxicities (neutropenia [5FU: OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.76, P < .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71 to 2.25, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.43, P < .001; capecitabine: OR = 4.07, 95% CI = 1.84 to 8.99, P < .001] and leukopenia [5FU: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.17, P < .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.40, P < .001]) were observed, with women being consistently at increased risk.

          Conclusions

          Our analysis confirms that women with colon cancer receiving adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy are at increased risk of toxicity. Given the known sex differences in fluoropyrimidine pharmacokinetics, sex-specific dosing of fluoropyrimidines warrants further investigation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

          Significant differences that exist between the sexes affect the prevalence, incidence and severity of a broad range of diseases and conditions. Men and women also differ in their response to drug treatment. It is therefore essential to understand these reactions in order to appropriately conduct risk assessment and to design safe and effective treatments. Even from that modest perspective, how and when we use drugs can result in unwanted and unexpected outcomes. This review summarizes the sex-based differences that impact on pharmacokinetics, and includes a general comparison of clinical pharmacology as it applies to men, women and pregnant women. Sex-related or pregnancy-induced changes in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination, when significant, may guide changes in dosage regimen or therapeutic monitoring to increase its effectiveness or reduce potential toxicity. Given those parameters, and our knowledge of sex differences, we can derive essentially all factors necessary for therapeutic optimization. Since this is a rapidly evolving area, it is essential for the practitioner to review drug prescribing information and recent literature in order to fully understand the impact of these differences on clinical therapeutics.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review

            Transgender people are a diverse population affected by a variety of negative health indicators across high, middle, and low income settings. Studies consistently document high prevalence of adverse health outcomes in this population, including HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), mental health distress, and substance use and abuse. However, many other health areas remain understudied, population-based representative samples and longitudinal studies are lacking, and routine surveillance efforts for transgender population health are scarce. The absence of survey items with which to identify transgender respondents in general surveys often limits availability of data to estimate the magnitude of health inequities and characterize transgender population-level health globally. Despite limitations, there are sufficient data highlighting the unique biological, behavioral, social, and structural contextual factors surrounding health risks and resiliencies for transgender people. To mitigate these risks and foster resilience, a comprehensive approach is needed that includes gender affirmation as a public health framework, improved health systems and access to healthcare informed by high quality data, and effectively partnering with local transgender communities to ensure responsiveness of and cultural specificity in programming. Transgender health underscores the need to explicitly consider sex and gender pathways in epidemiologic research and public health surveillance more broadly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0027-8874
                1460-2105
                April 01 2021
                April 06 2021
                August 24 2020
                April 01 2021
                April 06 2021
                August 24 2020
                : 113
                : 4
                : 400-407
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2 ]West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Germantown, TN, USA
                [3 ]Sorbonne University and Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France
                [4 ]Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                [5 ]NRG Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [6 ]Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [7 ]The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
                [8 ]Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France
                [9 ]University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [10 ]Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                [11 ]Department of Medicine and University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA
                [12 ]NSABP Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [13 ]Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [14 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Georges-Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université de Paris, Paris, France
                [15 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
                [16 ]Southwest Oncology Group, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [17 ]University of Florence, Florence, Italy
                [18 ]Adjuvant Colorectal Cancer Group, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [19 ]NRG Oncology and the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
                [20 ]Timone Hospital, Aix-Marseille-University, Marseille, France
                [21 ]Precision Oncology, The FIRC Institute Of Molecular Oncology, Milan, Italy
                [22 ]West Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA
                Article
                10.1093/jnci/djaa124
                32835356
                04613cd7-8851-4180-95b3-161141637c0c
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article