Cutsem, Eric Van

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

4023 Background: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) remains a deadly disease with very limited treatment options. FFX is a standard first-line therapy for mPC with a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.1 months. CPI-613 is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic cycle preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells. In a phase I study, CPI-613+mFFX was safe and exhibited promising signal of efficacy. Methods: A global, randomized phase 3 trial was conducted across 73 sites to investigate the efficacy and safety of CPI-613 in combination with mFFX compared to standard dose FFX in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment was administered in 2-weekly cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. In the experimental arm, CPI-613 at 500 mg/m2 was given intravenously on days 1 and 3. The doses of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in the experimental arm were 65 mg/m2, 140 mg/m2, and 2,400 mg/2, respectively. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics, patient reported outcomes and safety. Results: 528 patients were randomly assigned (266 in test and 262 in control arm). There were 362 deaths, with a mOS of 11.1 months for CPI-613+mFFX vs. 11.7 months for FFX [hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18; P = 0.655]; mPFS was 7.8 months vs. 8.0 months respectively [HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29; P = 0.94]; ORR was 39% in the test arm vs. 34% in the control arm [ORR ratio, 1.23 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.75)]. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with ≥ 10% frequency in CPI-613 plus mFFX vs. FFX arm were diarrhea (11.2% vs. 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% vs. 14.9%), anemia (13.9% vs. 13.6%), neutropenia (11.2% vs. 14.0%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% vs. 13.6%) and fatigue (10.8% vs. 11.5%). Conclusions: The addition of CPI-613 to mFFX failed to show significant improvements of ORR, PFS or OS. The mFFX in the test arm that had the lowest prospectively tested doses of FFX was without compromise on PFS or OS and may be considered as a reference for future FFX administration. Clinical trial information: NCT03504423.

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Abstract Background Disease-free survival (DFS) with a 3-year median follow-up (3-year DFS) was validated as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) with a 5-year median follow-up (5-year OS) in adjuvant chemotherapy colon cancer (CC) trials. Recent data show further improvements in OS and survival after recurrence in patients who received adjuvant FOLFOX. Hence, reevaluation of the association between DFS and OS and determination of the optimal follow-up duration of OS to aid its utility in future adjuvant trials are needed. Methods Individual patient data from 9 randomized studies conducted between 1998 and 2009 were included; 3 trials tested biologics. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates of 3-year DFS with 5 to 6.5-year OS was evaluated using both linear regression (RWLS2) and Copula bivariate (RCopula2) models and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For R2, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. Results Data from a total of 18 396 patients were analyzed (median age = 59 years; 54.0% male), with 54.1% having low-risk tumors (T1-3 and N1), 31.6% KRAS mutated, 12.3% BRAF mutated, and 12.4% microsatellite instability high or deficient mismatch repair tumors. Trial-level correlation between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS remained strong (RWLS2 = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.98; RCopula2 = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.00) and increased as the median follow-up of OS extended. Analyses limited to trials that tested biologics showed consistent results. Conclusions Three-year DFS remains a validated surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in adjuvant CC trials. The correlation was likely strengthened with 6 years of follow-up for OS.

BACKGROUND: Colectomy and proctocolectomy are the initial standard of care for patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Pharmacotherapy to prevent the progression of polyposis and surgeries in the lower GI tract would be beneficial to patients with this disease. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of eflornithine-sulindac combination versus monotherapy in delaying time to disease progression in the lower GI tract of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. DESIGN: This is a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase 3 trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 21 hospitals in 7 countries treating patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. PATIENTS: Adults with familial adenomatous polyposis were randomly assigned 1:1:1 into 3 arms. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either eflornithine (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg), or both once daily for up to 48 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy was evaluated as the time from randomization to predefined primary disease progression end points. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included in the study. Disease progression was observed in 2 of 54 (3.7%), 9 of 53 (17.0%), and 10 of 51 (19.6%) patients with at least partial lower GI tract in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions of 80% (p = 0.02) and 83% (p = 0.01) between combination and sulindac or eflornithine. When endoscopic excision of adenomas ≥10 mm in size was censored, the need for major surgery was observed in 0 of 54, 7 of 53 (13.2%), and 8 of 51 (15.7%) patients in the combination, sulindac, and eflornithine arms, corresponding to risk reductions approaching 100% between combination and sulindac (p = 0.005) or combination and eflornithine (p = 0.003). LIMITATIONS: This was a post hoc analysis, the sample size was small, and there were fewer than expected events. CONCLUSIONS: Eflornithine-sulindac combination therapy was superior to either drug alone in delaying or preventing the need for lower GI tract surgery in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01483144; EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2012-000427-41 LA COMBINACIÓN DE SULINDAC Y EFLORNITINA RETRASA LA NECESIDAD DE CIRUGÍA DEL TUBO DIGESTIVO BAJO EN PACIENTES CON PAF: ANÁLISIS POST-HOC DE UN ENSAYO CLÍNICO ALEATORIZADO ANTECEDENTES: La colectomía y la proctocolectomía son el estándar inicial de atención para los pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. La farmacoterapia para prevenir la progresión de la poliposis y las cirugías en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior sería beneficiosa para los pacientes con esta enfermedad. OBJETIVO: Este análisis tuvo como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la combinación de eflornitina-sulindac versus la monoterapia en el retraso del tiempo hasta la progresión de la enfermedad en el tracto gastrointestinal inferior de pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. DISEÑO: Este es un análisis posthoc de un ensayo de fase 3 aleatorizado. ENTORNO CLINICO: Veintiún hospitales en 7 países que tratan a pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. PACIENTES: Adultos con poliposis adenomatosa familiar fueron aleatorizados 1: 1: 1 en 3 brazos. INTERVENCIONES: Los pacientes recibieron eflornitina (750 mg), sulindac (150 mg) o ambos una vez al día durante un máximo de 48 meses. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: La eficacia se evaluó como el tiempo desde la aleatorización hasta los criterios de valoración primarios predefinidos de progresión de la enfermedad. RESULTADOS: Los resultados se informan para la población de estudio excluyendo a los pacientes que se habían sometido a ileostomías permanentes (n = 158). Se observó progresión de la enfermedad en 2/54 (3,7%), 9/53 (17,0%) y 10/51 (19,6%) pacientes con al menos tracto gastrointestinal inferior parcial en los brazos de combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes al riesgo de reducciones del 80% (p = 0,02) y del 83% (p = 0,01) entre la combinación y el sulindaco o la eflornitina, respectivamente. Cuando se censuró la escisión endoscópica de adenomas ≥10 mm de tamaño, se observó la necesidad de cirugía mayor en 0/54, 7/53 (13,2%) y 8/51 (15,7%) pacientes en la combinación, sulindac y eflornitina, respectivamente, correspondientes a reducciones de riesgo cercanas al 100% entre combinación y sulindac (p = 0,005) o combinación y eflornitina (p = 0,003). LIMITACIONES: Este fue un análisis posthoc, el tamaño de la muestra fue pequeño y hubo menos eventos de los esperados. CONCLUSIONES: La terapia de combinación de eflornitina-sulindac fue superior a cualquier fármaco solo para retrasar o prevenir la necesidad de cirugía del tracto gastrointestinal inferior en pacientes con poliposis adenomatosa familiar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B658.

Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland ( p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3–4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.