Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20665
Title: Patients' preferences for adjuvant sorafenib after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial: what makes it worthwhile?
Authors: Blinman, P L;Davis, I D;Martin, A;Troon, S;Sengupta, Shomik;Hovey, E;Coskinas, X;Kaplan, R;Ritchie, A;Meade, A;Eisen, T;Stockler, M R
Affiliation: Eastern Health, Box Hill, Australia
ANZUP Cancer Trials Group, Camperdown, Australia
NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, Australia
Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia
Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Australia
Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, Australia
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK..
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK..
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK..
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK..
Issue Date: 1-Feb-2018
Citation: Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 2018; 29(2): 370-376
Abstract: We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for 1 year, or for 3 years after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial. SORCE participants from all sites in Australia and New Zealand, and selected sites in the UK, completed a validated preferences questionnaire at months 0, 3, 15, and 42 to elicit the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for 1 year (versus observation), or for 3 years (versus 1 year). The questionnaires used reference survival times of 5 and 15 years; and reference survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. The 233 participants had a median age of 57 years (range 29-78) and 71% were male. For 1 year of sorafenib versus no adjuvant therapy, the median benefits in survival times judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra 9 months beyond 5 years and an extra 1 year beyond 15 years; the median benefit in survival rates were an extra 4% beyond 65% and an extra 3% beyond 85% at 5 years. For 3 years of sorafenib versus 1 year of sorafenib, the median benefit in survival time judged sufficient to warrant extended treatment was an extra 1 year beyond both 5 and 15 years. Participants randomly allocated to treatment with sorafenib judged larger benefits necessary than those allocated to placebo. Participants' preferences were not associated with their baseline characteristics or the interval from randomisation. Most participants judged an extra year of survival necessary to warrant 1 year of adjuvant sorafenib worthwhile, and an additional year of survival to warrant extending the duration of sorafenib from 1 to 3 years. Patients' preferences are important in shared decision making. NCT00492258.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/20665
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx715
ORCID: 0000-0003-3357-1216
PubMed URL: 29177440
Type: Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.