Roach, Nancy

702 Background: Median overall survival (OS) in mCRC has significantly improved over the past 20 yrs, but the observed range of OS in pts remains wide; a large percentage of pts have OS <1 yr or >4 yrs. ARIES was a prospective OCS conducted from 2006–2012 that evaluated outcomes in pts receiving BV + chemotherapy (CT) for mCRC in general clinical practice. The objective of this analysis is to examine clinical characteristics of pts with long vs short OS. Methods: This analysis included 1,417/1,550 first-line (1L) BV-treated mCRC pts who died or had complete follow-up on study. Long OS was defined as OS within the upper quartile of the analysis population (range 42–67 mos); short OS was defined as OS within the lower quartile (range 0.3–12 mos). Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Pt and disease characteristics and treatment patterns were described using summary statistics. Results: Pt and disease characteristics are shown in the Table. Median PFS was 22.3 mos (95% CI, 19.9–23.3) vs. 4.9 mos (95% CI, 4.6–5.4), in the long-OS vs. short-OS groups. More pts with long OS received any second-line (2L) therapy (71% vs. 46%), and were exposed to 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan throughout the course of their disease (53% vs. 32%) compared with pts with short OS. KRAS/BRAF mutation status was not collected. Conclusions: Pts with long OS had better baseline performance status, primary tumors more likely to have been resected, and were more likely to have received 2L CT. Additional analyses of detailed treatment patterns and safety are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00388206. [Table: see text]

ABSTRACTPurposeThis analysis from Avastin® Registries: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) examined the association between exposure to bevacizumab after disease progression (PD) and postprogression survival (PPS) in bevacizumab‐exposed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through the application of time‐dependent and time‐fixed analytical methods.MethodsPatients with mCRC who were treated with first‐line bevacizumab and who survived first PD (PD1) were included. A time‐dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative bevacizumab exposure on PPS, while controlling for potential confounders. In addition to support findings from previous studies, a modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT) analysis compared PPS in patients who received bevacizumab beyond disease progression (BBP) with those who did not (No‐BBP).ResultsOf 1550 patients, 1199 survived PD1 and had a median PPS of 13.4 months. Cumulative bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved PPS (p = 0.0040). After adjusting for confounders, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PPS decreased, on average, by 1.2% (range, 1.1–1.3%) with each additional dose of bevacizumab. In the mITT analysis, the median PPS for BBP (n = 438) was 14.4 months vs 10.6 months with for No‐BBP (n = 667). BBP was found to be independently associated with longer PPS in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.97). Protocol‐specified adverse events suspected to be associated with bevacizumab occurred in 13.0% of patients with BBP.ConclusionThis analysis supports the observation that bevacizumab exposure after PD1 is associated with longer PPS in mCRC. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract Background. The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. Methods. The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. Conclusions. In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

Abstract Systemic therapy has led to a median survival time for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) almost fourfold longer than that expected with best supportive care, an outcome achieved through combining chemotherapeutic and targeted biologic agents. Although the latter can include anti–epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, we now have strong evidence that patients whose tumors harbor mutated KRAS will not benefit from this class of agent. Acceptance of the reliability and importance of the KRAS data took several years to evolve, however, for a variety of reasons. The timeline from the presentation and publication of small, retrospective phase II studies to widespread acceptance of the KRAS predictive value and changes in behavior—specifically, modifications of ongoing national trials in advanced/metastatic CRC, changes in national guidelines and practice patterns, and adjustments to the labeled indications for the monoclonal antibodies—was lengthy. In this commentary, we discuss whether or not the process of data disclosure regarding KRAS status and treatment of advanced CRC patients was effective in permitting timely decisions regarding ongoing publicly funded clinical trials and whether or not such decisions were rational and ethical. The overall goals are to highlight lessons learned regarding early disclosure of clinical trial results, as well as vetting and adoption of new scientific data, and to propose modifications for handling similar situations in the future.

Presented are the efforts of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association PFS Working Group to address concerns related to blinded independent central review of locally evaluated progression times and the proposed audit methodology to minimize potential biases, along with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's comments on this work.