Hurwitz, Herbert I.

3520 Background: EOTR has been suggested as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mCRC and allows early assessment of treatment efficacy, facilitating adaptive trial design. We assessed at the individual patient level, the correlation between EOTR (complete or partial response) at 6, 8 and 12 weeks (wk), OS and progression free survival (PFS) in pts with mCRC treated with 1stline chemotherapy with or without a targeted agent as a first step in a surrogacy demonstration. Methods: IPD from 13,949 pts enrolled on 15 randomized Phase III trials in 1st line mCRC were used; 8 trials included targeted (anti-angiogenic and anti-EGFR) agents. EOTR prognostic value was assessed by landmark analyses using Cox models stratified by treatment assignment. P-values <0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of 13,949 pts, 11,987 had sufficient response data to be included in the analysis. Median OS was 21.7 months (mo) in pts with an EOTR vs. 16.5 mo without EOTR at 6 wk (p<.0001, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.70, c statistic [c] 0.55). HRs were similar whether pts were treated with targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80, x 0.54) or non-targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.69, x 0.55). Median PFS was 8.4 mo in pts with EOTR at 6 wk vs. 7.0 mo in pts without EOTR (p<.0001, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). EOTR at 8 and 12 wks were also significantly associated with longer OS and PFS. The prognostic value of EOTR at 6, 8 and 12 wks remained significant (p<0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, performance statusand location of metastatic disease (lung or liver). Overall tumor response (to 26 wk) however provided superior OS prediction (p<.0001, HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.47-0.56, CS 0.61) vs. EOTR. Conclusions: Early response measured at 6, 8 or 12 wk after starting 1st line treatment was a strong and independent predictor of both OS and PFS in patient with mCRC and warrants further consideration as a potential endpoint for future trials, particularly randomized phase II trials.

3516 Background: A previous report noted that patients (pts) in the phase III study of IFL ± BV who received BV had significantly longer PFS and OS regardless of whether or not they responded according to RECIST criteria (Mass et al, ASCO 2005). It is unclear if this phenomenon is specific to the addition of a biologic to chemotherapy (CT) or a more general benefit from improved therapy since it has been suggested that stable as well as responding disease is beneficial for pts. We repeated the analysis of Mass et al on pts enrolled in N9741, a study which established the superiority of FOLFOX over IFL and contained no biologic compound. Methods: For this retrospective analysis, pts were defined as ‘responders‘ or ‘nonresponders‘ according to whether criteria for complete or partial response (by RECIST -AVF2107g or WHO criteria -N9741) were either achieved (responders) or not achieved (nonresponders). PFS and OS were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves; hazard ratios (HR) for progression and death in each subgroup were estimated by Cox regression. Results: In both trials, response was associated with superior outcome. However, statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed in both responders and non-responders treated with either IFL + BV or FOLFOX versus IFL, and the magnitude of improvement was similar regardless of response ( Table ). Conclusions: Analysis of two large recent mCRC phase III trials clearly demonstrate that pts who do not achieve a response according to traditional criteria still have significant benefit from the superior regimen, with a similar magnitude of benefit for responders and non-responders, regardless if the regimen called for CT alone or included the antiangiogenic biologic BV. These data support the conclusion that PFS and the percentage of pts experiencing tumor control may more accurately reflect pt benefit than does response rate in phase III trials in mCRC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

Abstract Purpose: GOG-0218, a double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial, compared carboplatin and paclitaxel with placebo, bevacizumab followed by placebo, or bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Results demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), but no overall survival (OS) benefit with bevacizumab. Blood samples were collected for biomarker analyses. Experimental Design: Plasma samples were analyzed via multiplex ELISA technology for seven prespecified biomarkers [IL6, Ang-2, osteopontin (OPN), stromal cell–derived factor-1 (SDF-1), VEGF-D, IL6 receptor (IL6R), and GP130]. The predictive value of each biomarker with respect to PFS and OS was assessed using a protein marker by treatment interaction term within the framework of a Cox proportional hazards model. Prognostic markers were identified using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. Results: Baseline samples were available from 751 patients. According to our prespecified analysis plan, IL6 was predictive of a therapeutic advantage with bevacizumab for PFS (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.003). IL6 and OPN were found to be negative prognostic markers for both PFS and OS (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with high median IL6 levels (dichotomized at the median) treated with bevacizumab had longer PFS (14.2 vs. 8.7 months) and OS (39.6 vs. 33.1 months) compared with placebo. Conclusions: The inflammatory cytokine IL6 may be predictive of therapeutic benefit from bevacizumab when combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Aligning with results observed in patients with renal cancer treated with antiangiogenic therapies, it appears plasma IL6 may also define those patients with EOC more or less likely to benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy.

3539 Background: Previous studies suggest a possible gender-specific response to Bev in mCRC, showing a benefit in males, while the effect in females is less significant. Therefore, we evaluated response to Bev according to gender. Methods: Data from 3369 mCRC patients enrolled on 4 first-line randomized trials testing Bev (2000-2007) were pooled. Association between gender and progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS) was evaluated by stratified Cox regression model, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive value was evaluated by interaction (inter.) effect between gender and treatment. In a pre-planned secondary analysis, analyses were stratified using an age cut-point of 60 years (commonly used in breast cancer trials) to evaluate the possible role of menopausal-related effects. Results: OS was not statistically different between males and females (median OS [mOS], 18.8 vs. 17.6 months [mo], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.03, p, 0.15) in the overall population. Bev was associated with an improved mOS in males and females, with a 2.3 and 0.6 mo benefit, respectively, as well as an improved PFS. There was no statistically significant interaction effect between gender and treatment (see table). Further stratified by age (< vs. ≥ 60 years), Bev resulted in improved PFS and OS in both genders, at all ages, except for the effect in young females which did not reach statistical significance (see table). Conclusions: Our results confirmed the mOS benefit from addition of Bev to first-line chemotherapy in mCRC in both genders, although the benefit in females was < 1 month. For females under the age of 60, there are uncertainties for mOS benefit from addition of Bev and further evaluation is needed. [Table: see text]

588 Background: CALGB/SWOG 80405 found no difference in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in 1137 patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with either the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab (Bev) or the anti-EGFR agent cetuximab (Cet) in combination with chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy. Additional molecular biomarkers are required for the optimization of treatment choices for patients with mCRC. Methods: Levels of 24 proteins were assayed in EDTA-plasma samples using multiplex ELISA techniques. Plasma samples were collected at baseline and cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1). Analyses of baseline markers have been presented previously. Changes from baseline to C2D1 were expressed as an L-ratio (LR, log2 of C2D1 divided by baseline measure). LRs dichotomized at 0 were analyzed for potential prognostic and predictive effects on OS and PFS using Cox models while adjusting for confounders (post-hoc optimized cutpoints were used for PLGF, TIMP1, VCAM1, and VEGFR3 due to skew in the distributions of these markers). P-values are not corrected for multiple testing. Results: Baseline and matched C2D1 samples from 446 patients (212 Bev/234 Cet) were available for analysis. Thirteen markers were differentially modulated between arms (p < 0.05). Early increases in CD73 (p = 0.001), ICAM1 (p = 0.022), TIMP1 (p = 0.001), TSP2 (p = 0.024), and VEGFR3 (p = 0.006) were prognostic for shorter OS. Increases in ICAM1 (p = 0.008), TIMP1 (p = 0.042), and TGFB1 (p = 0.039) were prognostic for shorter PFS. Changes in VEGFR3 (pint = 0.097) and TGFBR3 (pint = 0.052) were predictive for OS and PFS, respectively. No other markers were predictive for OS or PFS (p < 0.1). Conclusions: Changes in circulating plasma protein biomarkers observed in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405 were both prognostic and predictive for OS and PFS and warrant further study. Such changes could provide valuable information and help guide treatment decisions. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180830; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00265850. [Table: see text]