Horn, Robert Asa

e15055 Background: An increasing number of pt and tumor c have predictive and prognostic implications in mCRC. However, there is no consensus on their reporting in trial results. Methods: Pt c and SF from 136 phase III trials of systemic therapies (Rx) in mCRC published between 1988 and 2018 (68,326 pts) were collected. Trials were also grouped per publication date (G1: 1988-97; G2: 98 – 2007; G3: 08-18). Patterns of reporting and trends across G were evaluated. Results: Pt c consistently reported were performance status, PS (98.5%), age (92.6%) and gender (90.4%); race (20.6%) & weight/BMI/BSA were not (13.2%). Tumor c frequently reported were metastatic (met) spread (70.6%) while time intervals related to disease course (25%) and synchronous met vs not (19.1%) were omitted. Of note, primary site was largely reported as colon vs rectum (69%) and sidedness or anatomical location was discernable only in 10.3%. Prior Rx reporting focused on chemo (58.5%) with radiation and surgery and reported in 34% & 28.7%. Reporting of prognostic factors was variable and limited: histology grade CEA, alk phos, LDH (range 10.3-15.4%). Only 11.8% of trials reported genomic factors - KRAS MT was included in all with BRAF MT in 4.4%. Of 140 trials used for SF analysis, 115 had ≥ 1 (range 1-7). Common SF were PS (60%), geography /institution (55.7%). Prior Rx (27%), met spread (24.3%) were sometimes used while primary site (7.8%), genomic factors (6.1%) rarely were. Trends across G are per Table. Conclusions: There is marked inconsistency in pt c & SF reporting in mCRC trials. Consensus guidelines will aid in standardization of trial interpretation and future meta-analyses; and will need to be updated based on emerging data. [Table: see text]

656 Background: Despite multiple trials of new agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), long term outcomes remain poor. This study explores the changing trends in the design, interpretation and outcomes of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mCRC over time. Methods: Phase III RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC with enrollment between 1986 and 2016 were identified through 4 electronic databases and grouped into 3 time periods (1986-1996 – T1; 1997-2006 – T2 & 2007-2016 – T3). Study selection, quality appraisal and data collection were performed by 2 independent investigators. Study characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, and authors’ interpretation of results and conclusions were analyzed. Improvement in overall survival (OS) was the difference between experimental and control arms. A study was deemed positive if it met its end point, was recommended for further study or for adoption for clinical use (p ≤ 0.05 significant for all analyses). Results: One hundred fifty trials (T1=36, T2=62, T3=52) with 77494 patients (T1=12406, T2=39158, T3=25930) were included. Although 1st line therapy trials continued to be the most common across all T, the percentage (%) of trials evaluating 3rd line and beyond (T1=0, T2=3, T3=27) have increased significantly over time as have trials with targeted agents (T1=11, T2=34, T3=79). Although OS remains the most common primary end point, more trials in T2 & T3 have used progression-free survival instead (14 vs 47 & 44). The % of trials with negative results but interpreted as positive increased over time (T1=18; T2=42; T3=35). Across all T, the median improvement in OS (months, m) of these trials was significantly lower compared to the trials that met primary end point across all T (T1 = 0 vs 1.8 m, T2 = -0.1 vs 3.25, T3 = -0.25 vs 2.55). Conclusions: A significant shift has occurred over the past three decades in the design and interpretation of phase III trials in advanced CRC. Any interpretations of potential survival benefits from trials that have not met primary end point must be made with significant caution.