Lieu, Christopher

Abstract Background Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used as the basis of cancer drug approvals. A strong association between treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoint is essential for their validation as reliable endpoints. We assess the current evidence of trial-level surrogacy for colorectal cancer (CRC) endpoints through a novel framework. Methods We developed a framework to grade the quality of oncology surrogate endpoints in 7 domains of the surrogate relationship: data source quality (A-B); disease setting homogeneity (0-3); uniformness of surrogate and true endpoint definitions (0-3); number of trials evaluated (0-4); and individual- (0-2) and trial-level associations (0-8). We screened PubMed using keywords and medical subject headings terms for meta-analyses published before July 6, 2024, validating surrogate endpoint associations across CRC trials. Two reviewers blindly assessed each article before reaching a consensus score. The main outcomes were framework-derived evidence scores and reported trial-level associations (R2) with overall survival. Results A total of 18 articles were identified, containing 39 evaluations of 12 unique surrogate endpoints for overall survival. Evidence scores ranged from B6 to A23. Only disease-free survival consistently demonstrated high-quality evidence of trial-level surrogacy (≥A18, median R2 = 0.92). Progression-free survival and objective response rate were low-quality surrogates in metastatic CRC (progression-free survival: B6-A15, median R2 = 0.55; objective response rate: B6-A13, median R2 = 0.33). Other evaluated endpoints were demonstrated to be unreliable surrogates. Conclusion Disease-free survival shows high-quality surrogacy in stage II-III colon cancer. Endpoints identified in the metastatic setting demonstrate inconsistent surrogacy evidence. Reassessment and identification of new endpoints are warranted, particularly with immunotherapy.

PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (<50 years, named early-onset CRC [eoCRC]) has been increasing. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data on 13,365 patients with metastatic CRC enrolled between 2000 and 2012 in 17 first-line randomized trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive database were pooled. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathologic features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized and compared by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group on clinical outcomes was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables. RESULTS Overall, 2,045 patients with eoCRC (median age, 42.5) and 11,320 patients with average-onset CRC (aoCRC; median age, 63.8) were included in this analysis. Within the eoCRC population, treatment with bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy improved PFS (9.9 v 6.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.80]; P < .0001), which was similar to the findings in aoCRC population (9.4 v 7.3 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80]; P < .001; interaction P = .5415). However, epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) did not improve PFS in RAS wild-type (WT) patients with eoCRC who had left-sided primary tumors (8.3 v 8.9 months; HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.77]; P = .36), whereas EGFRi significantly improved PFS in the aoCRC population (9.9 v 8.5 months; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.86]; P < .0001; interaction P = .083). CONCLUSION Treatment-naïve patients with metastatic eoCRC appear to derive similar benefit from bevacizumab as patients with aoCRC. However, patients with eoCRC with left-sided RAS/RAF WT tumors did not appear to derive benefit from first-line EGFRi.

Background: Rates of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC), defined as disease diagnosed at <50 years of age, are increasing. The incidence and spectrum of somatic and pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in this population are not well understood. Methods: This cross-sectional study leveraged Tempus’ clinicogenomic database, including de-identified records of patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000–2022, to analyze and compare eoCRC and average-onset colorectal cancer (aoCRC, disease diagnosed ≥50 years of age) patients. The frequency and spectrum of somatic mutations and PGVs in patients with eoCRC and aoCRC were evaluated and compared. Results: Among 11,006 participants in this study, 57% were male, 76% were white, and 80% had stage 4 disease. Within the total cohort, 2379 had eoCRC and 8627 had aoCRC. Among patients with eoCRC, 4.2% had a tumor with high microsatellite instability and/or deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) and 6.8% with aoCRC had an MSI-H/dMMR tumor (p < 0.001). The most frequent somatic mutations involved TP53, APC, and KRAS, with the most significant difference in BRAF, which was more frequently mutated in aoCRC (9.8% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0001). In total, 1413 (59.4%) eoCRC and 4898 (56.8%) aoCRC patients had matched normal specimen (blood or saliva) sequencing and a PGV was identified in 6.9% of eoCRC and 5.0% of aoCRC patients. Conclusions: Somatic and germline mutation profiles were similar for eoCRC and aoCRC patients and may not adequately explain differences in tumor behavior and age of disease onset.

PURPOSEAn ASCO provisional clinical opinion offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This provisional clinical opinion addresses the appropriate use of tumor genomic testing in patients with metastatic or advanced solid tumors.CLINICAL CONTEXTAn increasing number of therapies are approved to treat cancers harboring specific genomic biomarkers. However, there is a lack of clarity as to when tumor genomic sequencing should be ordered, what type of assays should be performed, and how to interpret the results for treatment selection.PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINIONPatients with metastatic or advanced cancer should undergo genomic sequencing in a certified laboratory if the presence of one or more specific genomic alterations has regulatory approval as biomarkers to guide the use of or exclusion from certain treatments for their disease. Multigene panel–based assays should be used if more than one biomarker-linked therapy is approved for the patient's disease. Site-agnostic approvals for any cancer with a high tumor mutation burden, mismatch repair deficiency, or neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK) fusions provide a rationale for genomic testing for all solid tumors. Multigene testing may also assist in treatment selection by identifying additional targets when there are few or no genotype-based therapy approvals for the patient's disease. For treatment planning, the clinician should consider the functional impact of the targeted alteration and expected efficacy of genomic biomarker–linked options relative to other approved or investigational treatments. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/assays-and-predictive-markers-guidelines .