Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 22, 2025
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Characteristics and survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use-a cohort study
Andreas Michael Schmitt1,2, Martin Walter1, Amanda Katherina Herbrand1
1Medical Oncology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Objective:
To describe the characteristics and the survival of patients with cancer with intended off-label use (OLU) cancer treatment and reimbursement request.
Design:
Cohort study using medical record data.
Setting:
Three major cancer centres in Switzerland.
Participants:
519 patients with cancer and a reimbursement request for OLU between January 2015 and July 2018.
Main Outcomes:
Characteristics of patients with cancer with and without access to intended OLU. Characteristics included the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) which includes C reactive protein and albumin and discriminates prognostic groups.
Results:
OLU was intended for 519 (17%) of 3046 patients with cancer, as first-line treatment in 51% (n=264) and second-line in 31% (n=162). Of the 519 patients, 63% (n=328) were male, 63% (n=329) had solid cancer and 21% (n=111) had a haematological malignancy. Their median overall survival was 23.6 months (95% CI: 19.0 to 32.5). Access to OLU had 389 (75%) patients who were compared with patients without access on average 4.9 years younger (mean; 95% CI: 1.9 to 7.9 years), had a better overall prognosis according to the GPS (51% with GPS of 0 vs 39%; OR: 1.62 (95% CI: 1.01 to 2.59)), had less frequently solid cancer (62% vs 71%; OR: 0.66 (95% CI: 0.41 to 1.05)) and advanced stage cancer (53% vs 70%; OR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.75)), were more frequently treatment-naive (53% vs 43%; OR: 1.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.39)) and were more frequently in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment setting (14% vs 5%; OR: 3.39 (95% CI: 1.45 to 9.93)). Patients with access to OLU had a median OS of 31.1 months versus 8.7 months for patients without access (unadjusted HR: 0.54; (95% CI: 0.41 to 0.70)).
Conclusion:
Contrary to the common assumption, OLU in oncology is typically not primarily intended for patients with exhausted treatment options. Patient characteristics largely differ between patients with and without access to intended OLU. More systematic evaluations of the benefits and harms of OLU in cancer care and the regulation of its access is warranted.
More Related Videos
09:20Preclinical Assessment of the Bioactivity of the Anticancer Coumarin OT48 by Spheroids, Colony Formation Assays, and Zebrafish Xenografts
Published on: June 26, 2018
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis
02:56Treatment Resistant Cancers
02:50Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
02:49Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...
01:24Kaplan-Meier Approach
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups