Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

A patient's reminder that even clinically-graded "mild" side effects like grade 2 diarrhea can be debilitating highlights a disconnect between clinical assessment and patient experience. This underscores the need for oncologists to consider the real-world impact of toxicities, like the ability to leave the house, when choosing a treatment regimen.

Related Insights

Despite compelling data from trials like PATINA, some patients with ER+/HER2+ breast cancer refuse maintenance endocrine therapy due to side effects. This highlights a real-world gap between clinical trial evidence and patient adherence, forcing oncologists to navigate patient preferences against optimal treatment protocols.

The failure of an adjuvant trial for the TKI pazopanib was likely caused by a protocol change that reduced the dose to manage transaminitis. While well-intentioned to improve tolerability and adherence, the lower dose was sub-therapeutic. This serves as a critical lesson that managing side effects by compromising dose can nullify a drug's potential efficacy.

An ADC may show better response rates than chemotherapy, but its true benefit is compromised if toxicities lead to treatment discontinuation. As seen with failed PARP/IO combinations, if patients cannot tolerate a drug long enough, the regimen's overall effectiveness can become inferior to standard therapy.

When debating immunotherapy risks, clinicians separate manageable side effects from truly life-altering events. Hypothyroidism requiring a daily pill is deemed acceptable, whereas toxicities like diabetes or myocarditis (each ~1% risk) are viewed as major concerns that heavily weigh on the risk-benefit scale for early-stage disease.

A critical distinction exists between a clinical adverse event (AE) and its impact on a patient's quality of life (QOL). For example, a drop in platelet count is a reportable AE, but the patient may be asymptomatic and feel fine. This highlights the need to look beyond toxicity tables to understand the true patient experience.

When treating elderly patients (e.g., age 80+) with metastatic breast cancer, clinicians may prioritize quality of life over marginal overall survival gains seen in clinical trials. This justifies using a better-tolerated CDK4/6 inhibitor like palbociclib, even though ribociclib has demonstrated a statistical survival benefit, especially when patients have comorbidities or a preference for fewer side effects.

In late-stage metastatic colorectal cancer, the goal shifts from achieving significant tumor shrinkage to stabilizing the disease. This recalibration of 'success' focuses on maintaining quality of life and managing symptoms for patients who have undergone multiple prior therapies.

As survival times for metastatic gastric cancer patients extend, managing long-term toxicity is paramount. Clinicians typically administer only 6-8 cycles of oxaliplatin to prevent severe, cumulative peripheral neuropathy, allowing for longer, better-tolerated maintenance therapy with biologics.

The KVA grading scale for Bellemaf's ocular side effects can trigger a grade 2 event based on an ophthalmologist's exam, even if the patient's functional vision (e.g., ability to read or drive) is unaffected. This disconnect between clinical grading and patient experience is crucial for managing treatment holds and counseling.

In third-line mCRC, drug selection is heavily guided by a patient's accumulated toxicities. For instance, a patient with bone marrow issues from prior chemotherapy might receive a VEGF inhibitor instead of another chemotherapy agent, prioritizing tolerability and quality of life.