Bonnetain, Franck

LBA1 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

LBA1 Background: Since 2004, 6 months (m) of oxaliplatin (oxali)-based treatment has been the standard of care as adjuvant therapy for stage III CC. Since oxali is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, shorter duration of adjuv therapy could spare pts toxicity and lead to substantial saving in health expenditures. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of 6 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, Alliance/SWOG 80702, IDEA France (GERCOR/PRODIGE), ACHIEVE, HORG) was performed to evaluate the non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adjuv FOLFOX/XELOX. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from enrolment to relapse, 2nd CRC, and death (all causes). NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.12. NI was examined within regimen and stage subgroups as pre-planned. Results: The analysis included 12,834 pts from 12 countries, accrued from 6/07 to 12/15. Stage distribution: 13% T1-2, 66% T3, 21% T4; 28% N2; 40% received XELOX. G3+ neurotoxicity was higher in the 6m v 3m arm (16 v 3% FOLFOX, 9 v 3% XELOX, p<0.0001). With a median follow-up of 39 mos, 3263 DFS events were observed. Overall, the 3 year DFS rate was 74.6% (3m) and 75.5% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.07 (95%CI, 1.00-1.15). The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.16 (95%CI, 1.06-1.26) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.06) for FOLFOX and XELOX treated pts, respectively. The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.01 (95%CI, 0.90-1.12) in T1-3 N1, and 1.12 (95%CI, 1.03-1.23) for T4 or N2 pts. Conclusions: While NI was not established for the overall cohort, NI of 3m v 6m oxali-based adjuv therapy was supported for XELOX. As each IDEA trial treated varying proportions of pts with XELOX (0 to 75%), the regimen interaction likely produced the differential outcomes observed between individual studies. Certain substages (T1-3 N1) also showed NI for 3m v 6m. These data provide a framework for discussions on risks and benefits of individualized adjuv therapy approaches. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180835, INCA, PHRC2009, EME 09/800/34, HTA 14/140/84, CRUK C1348/A15960, JFMC. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045.

Abstract Purpose: Clinical trials are expensive and lengthy, where success of a given trial depends on observing a prospectively defined number of patient events required to answer the clinical question. The point at which this analysis time occurs depends on both patient accrual and primary event rates, which typically vary throughout the trial's duration. We demonstrate real-time analysis date projections using data from a collection of six clinical trials that are part of the IDEA collaboration, an international preplanned pooling of data from six trials testing the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer, and we additionally consider the hypothetical impact of one trial's early termination of follow-up. Patients and Methods: In the absence of outcome data from IDEA, monthly accrual rates for each of the six IDEA trials were used to project subsequent trial-specific accrual, while historical data from similar Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) Group trials were used to construct a parametric model for IDEA's primary endpoint, disease-free survival, under the same treatment regimen. With this information and using the planned total accrual from each IDEA trial protocol, individual patient accrual and event dates were simulated and the overall IDEA interim and final analysis times projected. Projections were then compared with actual (previously undisclosed) trial-specific event totals at a recent census time for validation. The change in projected final analysis date assuming early termination of follow-up for one IDEA trial was also calculated. Results: Trial-specific predicted event totals were close to the actual number of events per trial for the recent census date at which the number of events per trial was known, with the overall IDEA projected number of events only off by eight patients. Potential early termination of follow-up by one IDEA trial was estimated to postpone the overall IDEA final analysis date by 9 months. Conclusions: Real-time projection of the final analysis time during a trial, or the overall analysis time during a trial collaborative such as IDEA, has practical implications for trial feasibility when these projections are translated into additional time and resources required.

PurposeProgression-free survival (PFS) is not an optimal end point to evaluate therapeutic strategies in advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). Therefore, composite end points have been proposed to evaluate a chemotherapy strategy when sequential treatments are available: duration of disease control (DDC) and time to failure of strategy (TFS). The goal of this study was to evaluate these alternative end points and their potential surrogacy for overall survival (OS).MethodsWe pooled individual patient data from three randomized trials evaluating chemotherapy strategy, which accrued 1,042 patients with previously untreated ACRC. In these trials, first-line treatment was either oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Compared with TFS, DDC included neither time interval between progression and next sequence of treatment nor time to progression if the best result of the next sequence of treatment was progression.ResultsThere was good correlation between DDC and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.62; correlation of hazard ratio [HR]: adjusted copula R2, 0.72) and between TFS and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.59; correlation of HR: adjusted copula R2, 0.67). There was no correlation between PFS and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.45; correlation of HR: adjusted copula R2, 0.47).ConclusionDDC and TFS roughly achieved the same results. Both are acceptable new end points to evaluate a therapeutic strategy in ACRC. Although TFS achieved a pragmatic evaluation of a multiline strategy, DDC captured the effect of a specific sequence in a therapeutic strategy.