Peeters, Marc

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]