Giantonio, Bruce J.

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

Purpose Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy improves survival in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. This study was conducted to determine the effect of bevacizumab (at 10 mg/kg) on survival duration for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Eight hundred twenty-nine metastatic colorectal cancer patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) with bevacizumab; FOLFOX4 without bevacizumab; or bevacizumab alone. The primary end point was overall survival, with additional determinations of progression-free survival, response, and toxicity. Results The median duration of survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 and bevacizumab was 12.9 months compared with 10.8 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for death = 0.75; P = .0011), and 10.2 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The median progression-free survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 in combination with bevacizumab was 7.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for progression = 0.61; P < .0001), and 2.7 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The corresponding overall response rates were 22.7%, 8.6%, and 3.3%, respectively ( P < .0001 for FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab v FOLFOX4 comparison). Bevacizumab was associated with hypertension, bleeding, and vomiting. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin improves survival duration for patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

e14711 Background: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has been historically limited to single agent 5FU in stage II/III rectal cancer pts. This phase III trial evaluated differences between pts treated with adjuvant FOLFOX versus FOLFIRI versus FU alone in stage II/III rectal cancer. Methods: Eligibility: resectable (T3-4 N0,Tany N1-3) adenocarcinoma rectum ≤12cm from anal verge. Pts had the option to receive FU with pre or postoperative XRT (50.4Gy). Preoperative FU/XRT pts were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (arm A), FOLFOX (arm B), FU/LV(arm C). Postoperative FU/XRT pts were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (arm D), FOLFOX (arm E), FU/LV (arm F). Pts received 8 cycles. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, sphincter preservation and patterns of failure. Results: 225pts out of planned 3150 were enrolled (10/03 to 10/05). Data Monitoring Committee closed E3201 when the GI Intergroup developed an alternative trial with bevacizumab (E5204). 179 pts were randomized; (A:28, B:25, C:30, D:31, E:33, F:32). There was increased grade 3/4 toxicity, mainly diarrhea,in postoperative FU/XRT arms (D:39%), (E:28%), (F:48%). Twenty-two (12%) pts did not receive adjuvant therapy. At a median follow up of 7.4yrs, the five-year recurrence free rate was 69%. Median OS was 8.3 yrs. There was no statistical difference in OS between all randomized groups. Five-year OS in arms (A:B:C:D:E:F) were (73%, 83%, 83%, 73%, 78%, 73%) respectively. Conclusions: FOLFOX can be safely administered to rectal cancer pts following chemo radiation. Given limitations of early trial closure and small sample size, there was no difference in OS between pts who received FU alone, oxaliplatin based or irinotecan based adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00068692.

3526 Background: In the US pts with stage II/III rectal cancer routinely receive pre or postoperative RT/FU. To date, in addition to chemoradiation, standard adjuvant chemotherapy has been limited to single agent FU. Improved survival with irinotecan and oxaliplatin in pts with metastatic colorectal cancer led to exploration of combination chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting in pts with rectal cancer. Methods: Pts on E3201 (T3–4 Nany M0, T1- 2 N + M0) had the option to receive FU with either pre- or postoperative RT (50.4 Gy). Pts were randomized to postoperative chemotherapy: FU (500mg/m2) + LV (500mg/m2) weekly x 6/8 wks x 3 cycles or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (180mg/m2) vs oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) (85mg/m2) both administered with LV (400 mg/m2) FU (400mg/m2 bolus) + continuous FU (2.4 gm/m2/46 hours) q 2 wks x 8 cycles. Results: 225 pts of 3150 planned were recruited. 178 pts were randomized and 126 pts submitted treatment completion forms (accrual period 10/03–4/05). The Data Monitoring Committee closed E3201 when the GI Intergroup developed an alternative trial with bevacizumab (E5204). Toxicity information is reported for 93% of pts (165/178) ( Table ). There were no significant differences in toxicity between those pts treated with pre- vs postoperative RT/FU, although, for the subset of pts who received adjuvant FOLFIRI after postoperative RT/FU, there was a trend towards more diarrhea. Conclusion: FOLFOX as rectal adjuvant therapy is a common platform for new clinical trials, although there have been limited toxicity data reported. E3201 provides important comparative toxicity information demonstrating that FOLFOX can be safely administered to rectal cancer pts following chemoradiation. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [Table: see text]

AbstractBackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum.Subjects, Materials, and MethodsPatients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2 weeks for 12 cycles.ResultsE5204 registered only 355 patients (17% of planned accrual goal) as it was terminated prematurely owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. The rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 68.8% on Arm A and 70.7% on Arm B. Arm B had a higher proportion of patients who discontinued therapy early as a result of AEs and patient withdrawal than did Arm A (32.4% vs. 21.5%, p = .029).The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue.ConclusionAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.Implications for PracticeAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]