Sharara, Lama

118 Background: Anti-VEGF is widely used in the treatment (trt) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Only studies with bevacizumab (BEV) have shown survival benefit (bnf) in first line trt. The magnitude of bnf might differ based on the metastatic (met) site and the chemotherapy regimen (CTR) with which BEV is partnered. ARCAD database contains individual patient data (IPD) of randomized trials that evaluated BEV+ CT. In this pooled analysis, we aimed to evaluate BEV bnf in mCRC with lung metastases (mets) either as single or multiple sites. Methods: IPD from four trials (AVF2107g, N016966, AVF2192g, AGITG) comparing CT +/- BEV were pooled. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models according to number and type of met sites and CTRs, oxaliplatin or irinotecan (OX/IRI) based. The predictive bnf of BEV was evaluated by interaction test (int) between trt and lung mets status in subgroups and considered as significant (sig) with a P < 0.1. Results: 2728 patients (pts) with known met sites and survival data were pooled. 1020 pts had single met site, 133 had only lung mets. 1708 pts had multiple met sites, 1008 had lung mets. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Sig OS bnf of BEV was observed in the whole population. In pts subgroup according to the presence or absence of lung mets, sig bnf of BEV were observed with a non-sig int ( Pint=.590). Non-sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with single site regardless of met site (lung or no lung) or CTR. Sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites without lung mets whatever the CTRs. While sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites with lung mets, we found a sig int between BEV and OX/IRI-based regimens ( Pint=.022). The bnf of BEV was observed with IRI-based regimen but not in OX-based regimen. The bnf of BEV appears greater in multiple sites without lung mets than with lung mets with a sig stratified log-rank test ( PLRT<.001). Conclusions: In pts with multiple sites mCRC, a statistically sig OS bnf of BEV added to CT was observed mainly among pts without lung mets. The overall effect of CT partner choice when combined with BEV can be different. In pts with single site, BEV did not seem to improve OS but the evaluation of efficacy of BEV in presence or absence lung mets was based on small number of pts and needs to be evaluated in trials with larger pts sample, especially trials including pts with single site lung mets. [Table: see text]

3606 Background: Standard adjuvant CT for stage III CC are FOLFOX and CAPOX. Recently, IDEA study separated stage III patients (pts) into low risk (T1 to 3, N1) and high risk (T4 or N2). We recently confirmed benefit of OX in both risk groups. However, we observed a difference in the two high-risk subgroups, with benefit in N2 but not in T4 (Margalit O et al; Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021). This prompted us to compare outcomes (OS/TTR) between treatment with OX vs. without OX within sub-stage III CC groups defined by T and N. Methods: We pooled 4941 stage III CC pts from the three studies evaluating 6 months of CT with fluoropyrimidine (FP) ± OX: MOSAIC, C-07 and XELOXA. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2 and t-test. OS was compared between OX and no OX in T and N subgroups. Kaplan-Meier analyses, adjusted and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study were used. Sub-groups classification was done according to OX benefit and verified by interaction test (Int) considered as significant with a P<0.1. We considered for recommendation of using OX-based adjuvant CT, 1) significant benefit in OS, 2) significant Int between substage and adjuvant therapy, and 3) the three individual trials showing similar results (benefit or non-benefit of OX). Results: In stage III population, T3 pts were 74.9%, T1-2 12.4%, T4 13.1%, while N stage was N1 64.7% and N2 35.3%. Population was well balanced according to treatment allocation in most subgroups. A significant benefit of OX was only observed in T3N1 and T3N2 (OS HR 0.76). Whatever N stage, there was no significant benefit of OX in the T1-2 and T4 subgroups. The effect of OX+FP vs FP alone in OS of the three studies differed between T3 and T1-2 subgroups (P = 0.047). Interaction was borderline between T3 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.10) but there was no interaction between T1-2 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.429). A benefit of OX in TTR remained in the T4 population. Discrepancy between advantage in time to relapse (TTR) and no advantage in OS was not explained by survival post relapse. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that pts with T1-2N1-2 and T4N1-2 disease had no OS benefit of addition of OX to FP. The good survival achieved with FP alone in T1-2N1-2 pts (5-yr OS 89%) question the addition of OX. In the T4 population our results suggested that benefit of OX was limited and that further studies should assess this issue or at least stratify pts on T stage in the future adjuvant trials in CC. [Table: see text]

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]