Cassidy, Jim

4011 Background: The ACCENT group previously validated DFS with 3 years (yr) median follow-up (f-up) based on 20,898 pts from trials testing 5-FU based regimens (rx) (3yr DFS) as an endpoint to predict overall survival with 5 yr median f-up (5yr OS) (Sargent, JCO 2005). ACCENT further proposed (1) 2yr DFS predicts 5yr OS, (2) a stronger relationship between DFS and OS in stage III pts (Sargent JCO 2007) and (3) 6 or 7 yrs are necessary to demonstrate DFS and OS association in future trials due to extended survival following recurrence (de Gramont ASCO 2008). The relationship between endpoints in more recent trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan is unknown. Methods: Concordance between 2 and 3yr DFS, and 5 and 6yr OS was examined in 6 randomized phase III trials from 1997–2002. Individual data for 12,676 pts was analyzed; 2 trials tested oxaliplatin, 2 irinotecan, and 2 oral rx vs 5-FU/LV control. Association between DFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) via weighted least squares (WLS), and concordance between predicted and actual within-trial HRs, were calculated overall and for stage III pts. Results: Overall association between 3 yr DFS and 5 yr OS HRs was reduced compared to the prior ACCENT analysis (Table). In stage III pts, the association between DFS and OS HRs remained strong. Observed 5 and 6yr OS HRs were predicted accurately by 2yr DFS overall and in stage III pts (within 95% prediction limits in all trials). In all pts, DFS HRs were more highly associated with 6 vs 5yr OS HRs. Conclusions: In recent trials in stage III pts, DFS HRs based on 2yr median f-up are highly predictive of 5 and 6yr OS HRs. In all pts the association between DFS and OS HRs is stronger for 6yr OS, but 7yr follow-up may be required. These data support 3yr DFS as a primary endpoint for modern stage III trials, and indicate that 2yr DFS would also be an appropriate primary endpoint. [Table: see text] [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.