Patiyil, Smitha

e15031 Background: Two web based prognostic calculators, Adjuvant! and Numeracy (JCO 22:1797–1806, 2004) are widely used to provide individual patient outcome predictions to aid decisions regarding adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. The comparability of these tools has not been studied yet. The aim of this project was to assess whether the Numeracy and Adjuvant! Colon cancer prognostic tools produced similar results for patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer based on a set of hypothetical patients. Methods: All possible hypothetical scenarios were formulated for the Numeracy calculator based on all potential combinations of age, lymph nodes status, tumor stage, and grade of tumor. These were applied to three post- surgical therapy choices: observation, 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), or FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin). Predictions for these hypothetical scenarios (N= 192 for males and 192 for females) were also entered into the Adjuvant! Program. Predicted relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using both calculators. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the numerical predictions between the calculators for each outcome. Results: In the majority of the 384 hypothetical patient scenarios, predictions for RFS and OS from Adjuvant! were statistically significantly higher than from Numeracy (p value < 0.05), except for age≥70 for FOLFOX, and the number of positive nodes of 0 and 1–4 using FOLFOX, among males. The net estimate of benefit for RFS and OS for 5-FU over surgery, obtained from Adjuvant! and Numeracy, were similar (for both males and females), but the benefit in RFS and OS for FOLFOX over 5-FU obtained from Adjuvant! was significantly lower than the estimate obtained from Numeracy (p value < 0.05). Conclusions: Based on a hypothetical set of patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer, the estimated benefit in RFS and OS of FOLFOX over 5-FU based chemotherapy is lower in Adjuvant! than in the Numeracy tool (but benefit for 5-FU over surgery alone is similar). Further studies are needed to clarify the discrepancy and to assess which of these tools most accurately reflects actual patient outcome. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Purpose The traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS). We previously validated disease-free survival (DFS) after 3-year follow-up as an excellent predictor of 5-year OS results. Here we explore shorter term DFS and OS end points, as well as stage dependency. Methods Individual patient data from 18 phase III trials including 43 arms and 20,898 patients were pooled. Association measures included correlation of event rates within arms, correlation of hazard ratios (HRs) between arms, trial level significance comparisons (via log-rank testing), and a formal surrogacy model. Results DFS at earlier times was less accurate in predicting OS than 3-year DFS, but 2-year DFS remained a strong predictor. DFS with 1-year minimum follow-up demonstrated perfect negative predicted value; all trials negative at 1 year for DFS were negative for 5-year OS. OS with 3-year minimum follow-up was also an excellent predictor for 5-year OS; OS at earlier time points provided inaccurate prediction. The association between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was greater for stage III patients; correlation of HR within trials was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.95) for stage III patients and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80) for stage II patients. Conclusion DFS outcomes after 2- or 3-year median follow-up are excellent predictors of 5-year OS. DFS outcomes are appropriate for trials in which the majority of patients are stage III. DFS after 2- or 3-year median follow-up should be considered as the primary end point in future colon adjuvant trials.