Benson, Al

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

PURPOSE Several lines of treatment can be used sequentially in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated the evolution of patient/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across treatment lines to develop an overall prognostic score (OPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 48 randomized trials were analyzed. The end point was overall survival (from random assignment to death). Missing data were imputed. The complete data set was then separated into construction (80%) and validation sets (20%). The Cox's model was used to define risk groups for survival using the OPS. The discrimination capability was assessed in each treatment-line via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices. Internal validation was done in the validation set. RESULTS A total of 37,560 patients (26,974 in first-line [1L], 7,693 in second-line [2L], and 2,893 in third-line [3L]) were analyzed. Some clinical, biological, and molecular characteristics of patients/tumors included in therapeutic trials evolve over the lines. Seven independent prognostic variables were retained in the final multivariate model common to all lines: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, hemoglobin, platelet count, WBC/absolute neutrophil count ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and the number of metastatic sites. The OPS was used to define four patient subgroups with significantly different prognoses in 1L, 2L, and 3L, separately, with adequate C-indices: 0.65, 0.66, and 0.69 in the construction set and 0.65, 0.66, and 0.68 in the validation set, respectively. The OPS was not predictive, with 3L drugs ( v placebo) or subsequent line (2L/1L or 3L/2L) extending survival in all prognostic groups. CONCLUSION The same prognostic model using practical variables can be used before all treatment lines. The OPS could better stratify patients in future clinical trials and help to therapeutic decision in routine practice.

PURPOSE The recommended duration of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is based on tumor classification into clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and high-risk (T4 or N2) groups. We determined whether Immunoscore can enhance prognostication within these risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon carcinomas (N = 600) were randomly selected from the infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin arm of adjuvant trial NCCTG N0147 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Tumors were evaluated for Immunoscore that quantifies CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell densities in the tumor center and invasive margin by digital image analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) by Immunoscore was analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression model in each risk group with adjustment for covariates including KRAS, BRAF V600E, and mismatch repair status. RESULTS Of 559 cancers with Immunoscore data, 299 (53.5%) were classified as clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and 260 (46.5%) as clinically high-risk (T4 and/or N2). Among patients with low-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors had significantly worse 5-year DFS rates (77.5% v 91.8%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.79; P = .037). Among patients with high-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors also had significantly worse DFS (55.3% v 70.3%; hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.47; P = .013). Tumors that were low-risk/Immunoscore-Low had similar outcomes as did tumors that were high-risk/Immunoscore-High ( P = .174). Prognostication was significantly improved in multivariable models where Immunoscore was added to clinical risk parameters and limited biomarkers (likelihood ratio test P = .0003). CONCLUSION Immunoscore can refine patient prognosis beyond clinical risk group classification, suggesting its potential utility for adjuvant decision making.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

PURPOSECurrent tools in predicting survival outcomes for patients with colon cancer predominantly rely on clinical and pathologic characteristics, but increasing evidence suggests that diet and lifestyle habits are associated with patient outcomes and should be considered to enhance model accuracy.METHODSUsing an adjuvant chemotherapy trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB 89803), we developed prediction models of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival by additionally incorporating self-reported nine diet and lifestyle factors. Both models were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and externally validated using another trial for stage III colon cancer (CALGB/SWOG 80702), and visual nomograms of prediction models were constructed accordingly. We also proposed three hypothetical scenarios for patients with (1) good-risk, (2) average-risk, and (3) poor-risk clinical and pathologic features, and estimated their predictive survival by considering clinical and pathologic features with or without adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors.RESULTSAmong 1,024 patients (median age 60.0 years, 43.8% female), we observed 394 DFS events and 311 deaths after median follow-up of 7.3 years. Adding self-reported diet and lifestyle factors to clinical and pathologic characteristics meaningfully improved performance of prediction models (c-index from 0.64 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.67] to 0.69 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.72] for DFS, and from 0.67 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.70] to 0.71 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.75] for overall survival). External validation also indicated good performance of discrimination and calibration. Adding most self-reported favorable diet and lifestyle exposures to multivariate modeling improved 5-year DFS of all patients and by 6.3% for good-risk, 21.4% for average-risk, and 42.6% for poor-risk clinical and pathologic features.CONCLUSIONDiet and lifestyle factors further inform current recurrence and survival prediction models for patients with stage III colon cancer.