Arnold, Dirk

126 Background: NNT/NNH analyses can estimate the magnitude of benefit vs harm of therapeutic agents and can inform clinical decision making. We quantified the benefit/risk profile of fruquintinib (F; a highly selective, oral inhibitor of all 3 VEGFRs) vs other later-line mCRC monotherapies. Methods: Six phase 3 randomized (2:1), placebo (P)-controlled trials (F: FRESCO, FRESCO-2; regorafenib [rego]: CONCUR, CORRECT; TAS-102: TERRA, RECOURSE) were identified. NNT (average number of pts needing treatment to prevent 1 additional death/progression event) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the inverse of difference in survival function between treatment and P. NNH (average number of pts needing treatment for 1 additional pt to have an adverse event; AE) for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was calculated as the inverse of absolute risk increase relative to P. Low NNTs and high NNHs suggest a more favorable treatment profile. Results: F had the lowest NNT (most favorable) for 6-month OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO) vs rego and TAS-102 (Table). F had the highest NNH (most favorable) for grade ≥3 TEAEs, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO). TAS-102 (TERRA) had the highest NNH for diarrhea, followed by F (FRESCO-2). Consistent with mechanism of action of anti-VEGFRs, F and rego had lower NNHs for hypertension (HTN) vs TAS-102 (TERRA). F (FRESCO) had the lowest NNH for discontinuation due to TEAEs. Conclusions: In this cross-trial comparison, F had the lowest NNT for OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO/FRESCO-2), indicating survival benefit. F had the highest NNHs for grade ≥3 TEAEs, PPE (FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO), indicating a low risk profile. The analysis highlights fruquintinib as a favorable treatment for pts with mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02314819 , NCT04322539 , NCT01584830 , NCT01103323 , NCT01955837 , NCT01607957 . NNT/NNH (95% CI) for mCRC treatments.* F Rego TAS-102 FRESCO NCT02314819 N=416 FRESCO-2 NCT04322539 N=691 CONCUR NCT01584830 N=204 CORRECT NCT01103323 N=760 TERRA NCT01955837 N=406 RECOURSE NCT01607957 N=800 6-month OS 6.5(5.5–8.1) 5.3(4.8–5.9) 5.9(NA) 9.8(NA) 14.1(NA) 7.2(NA) 6-month PFS 4.2(3.7–4.8) 4.4(3.9–5.1) 5.0(NA) 9.1(NA) 7.1(NA) 7.2(NA) Grade ≥3 TEAEs 2.4 (2.0–3.1) 8.1 (5.0–22.5) 2.6 (2.0–3.7) 2.5 (2.2–3.0) 2.8 (2.3–3.6) 5.9 (4.1–10.2) TEAE leading to discontinuation 10.8 (6.7–28.5) NA † (18.0–NA) 12.5 (6.2–NA) 17.5(11.3–39.2) 250.0 (15.3–NA) 50.0 (22.9–NA) PPE 2.2 (1.9–2.5) 6.0 (4.8–8.0) 1.4 (1.3–1.7) 2.6 (2.2–3.0) NA (NA) NA (46.0–NA) HTN 2.4 (2.0–3.0) 3.6 (3.0–4.5) 5.3 (3.6–9.5) 4.5 (3.7–5.8) 14.3 (10.0–25.2) NA (NA) Diarrhea 5.1 (3.8–7.4) 7.3 (5.2–12.3) 6.2 (4.3–11.4) 3.8 (3.2–4.8) 7.9 (5.7–13.0) 5.0 (3.9–6.9) Fatigue 32.5 (10.3–NA) 25.8 (10.1–NA) 10 (5.3–80.3) 5.3 (3.8–8.4) 7.4 (5.0–13.9) 8.3 (5.4–18.1) *All trials except TERRA included best supportive care in both arms. † Lower rate of pts discontinued F vs P due to TEAEs, thus NNH was not applicable (NA).

142 Background: Fruquintinib (F) is a highly selective, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of all 3 vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs -1, -2, -3) that is approved by the US FDA and in the EU, UK, and Japan for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), regardless of biomarker status. FRESCO-2 (NCT04322539) met its primary endpoint demonstrating significantly improved overall survival (OS) with F + best supportive care (BSC) vs placebo (P) + BSC. This subgroup analysis assessed landmark survival of all FRESCO-2 patients (pts), and baseline (BL) characteristics and safety data of pts treated with F who had OS ≥10 months (mos) compared with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (pop). Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive F 5 mg or matching P, by mouth, once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off, + BSC. Pts had received prior chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild type, anti-EGFR therapy; and had prior exposure to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and/or regorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) between the two treatment arms was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as the only covariate in the model. Results: In the ITT pop, OS was improved with F vs P (HR 0.66); OS rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) at 6 and 9 mos were 60.4% (55.9–64.9) vs 41.5% (35.0–48.0) and 41.1% (36.4–45.8) vs 28.2% (22.1–34.3), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates (95% CIs) at 6 and 9 mos were 23.8% (19.7–28.0) vs 1.1% (0–2.6) and 11.3% (8.1–14.6) vs 0.5% (0–1.6), respectively. Of 461 pts who received F, 113 (24.5%) had OS ≥10 mos (range 10.0–18.9) with a median duration of F treatment of 6.3 mos (range 0.7–19.1). Among pts receiving F, a higher proportion (≥10% difference) of pts with OS ≥10 mos had no liver metastases (mets) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 at BL compared with the ITT pop (Table). In pts with OS ≥10 mos, 61.9% experienced a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event compared with 62.7% in the ITT pop. Conclusions: Longer-term OS and PFS rates at 6 and 9 mos were higher with F vs P in the FRESCO-2 ITT pop. The data show a higher proportion of pts with OS ≥10 mos had an absence of liver mets and ECOG PS 0 at BL than the ITT pop. The safety profile of F in pts with OS ≥10 mos was consistent with the ITT pop. Clinical trial information: NCT04322539 . BL characteristics of pts treated with F with OS ≥10 mos vs ITT pop. BL characteristic Pts with OS ≥10 mos (n=113) ITT pop(n=461) ECOG PS (0 / 1), % 54.0 / 46.0 42.5 / 57.5 Median time since 1 st CRC diagnosis, mos 52.0 47.2 Primary tumor location at 1 st diagnosis (colon / rectum / both), % 51.3 / 35.4 / 13.3 60.5 / 31.0 / 8.5 Primary site at 1 st diagnosis (colon left / colon right), % 42.5 / 15.9 41.6 / 21.0 Liver mets, % 58.4 73.5 Median duration of mCRC, mos 42.7 37.9 Prior lines of therapy for mCRC (≤3 / >3), % 26.5 / 73.5 27.1 / 72.9 Prior TAS-102, % 46.9 52.1 Prior regorafenib, % 12.4 8.7

726 Background: Primary tumor location is an important prognostic factor in mCRC. Efficacy differences with EGFR antibodies by tumor location show a predictive effect (Arnold et al. Ann Oncol 2017). Two first-line (1L) pivotal bev trials showed the prognostic value of sidedness (Loupakis et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015). In this exploratory study, further analysis of the predictive effect of bev is presented. Methods: Data from two randomized phase III studies (NO16966 [NCT00069095], AVF2107g [NCT00109070]) of bev+CT vs CT-alone as 1L treatment for mCRC were analyzed retrospectively. Patients (pts) with sidedness information available were included; pts from NO16966 (part 1) randomized to CT only were excluded. Sidedness was identified by case report forms. Results: Sidedness was determined in 1590 pts (27% Right and 73% Left) out of 2214 pts total (Table). In the pooled analysis, PFS improved with bev+CT compared to CT only in both right-sided (HR=0.75; 95% CI 0.61, 0.93) and left-sided (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.67, 0.86) mCRC with similar magnitude of benefit in both sides. OS also improved with bev+CT in right-sided (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03) and left-sided (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.74, 0.98) pts. Conclusions: This exploratory subgroup analysis of two pivotal studies indicates that the effect of bev is independent of tumor location in mCRC patients. Survival outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT00069095 and NCT00109070. [Table: see text]

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]

757 Background: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) appear to differ across trials, even when pts receive the same regimen (REG). This analysis aimed to benchmark the clinical outcomes in the 2nd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Individual patient (pt) data was available on 6,462 pts with mCRC enrolled in 7 2ndline clinical trials (8 REGs) in the ARCAD database. Regimens used in at least two trials included FOLFIRI +/- an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), FOLFOX +/- a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi), and irinotecan (IRI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe pt demographics. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences (DIFFs) in PFS and OS, while p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant (SS). Results: 500-1400 pts received each REG (see Table). Median OS and PFS differed by 0.2 to 4.6 months (mo) and 0.8 to 2.5 mo across trials within the same REG. These DIFFs were SS except for PFS in REGs containing FOLFIRI +/- EGFRi. After multivariable adjustment, all DIFFs in OS were attenuated and non-significant. DIFFs in PFS attenuated for most REGs but remained SS for FOLFOX and IRI. Conclusions: After multivariable adjustment, there were no SS DIFFs in outcomes across trials within the same REG, with the exception of PFS in FOLFOX and IRI. The initial observed DIFFs in outcomes could be due to confounding factors and the remaining SS DIFFs in PFS in FOLFOX and IRI may be due to variation in definition of progression across trials. Therefore, caution is warranted when using historical data to design future trials.[Table: see text]

Purpose Six randomized phase II and III trials have investigated the role of oxaliplatin (OX) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) or infusional fluorouracil (FU) in metastatic colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of CAP/OX compared with infusional FU/OX. Patients and Methods This analysis compared all published CAP/OX versus infusional FU/OX regimens. A total of 3,494 patients (FU, n = 1,737; CAP, n = 1,757) were analyzed for response rate (RR), progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results The fixed-effect pooled estimate for RR showed higher RR for FU-based regimens (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P = .02) whereas the analysis of chemotherapy-only trials, excluding the bevacizumab containing NO16966 and TREE 2 trials, led to an OR of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .007). However, for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.12; P = .17) and OS (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.12; P = .41) all models suggested similar outcome within the range of noninferiority. Grade 3/4 toxicities (thrombocytopenia—HR = 2.07, 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.03; P < .0002; diarrhea—HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.66; P < .0009; and grade 2/3 hand-foot-syndrome [HFS]—HR = 3.54; 95% CI, 2.07 to 6.05; P < .00001) were less prominent with FU-based regimens whereas neutropenia (HR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.19; P < .00001) was lower in the CAP regimens. Conclusion The combination of CAP and OX resulted in lower RR, but this did not affect PFS and OS, which were similar in both treatment arms. The toxicity analysis showed the characteristic toxicity of each of the different FU schedules, with thrombocytopenia and HFS consistently more prominent in the CAP regimens.