Arnold, Dirk

3626 Background: For patients (pts) with dMMR stage III colon cancer, the addition of atezolizumab (atezo) to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) significantly improved disease-free survival in ATOMIC (NCT02912559). Here we present HRQOL data. Methods: Pts with surgically resected stage III dMMR colon cancer were randomized (1:1) to receive mFOLFOX6 + atezo (840 mg IV q2 weeks) for 12 cycles (6 months [mo]) followed by atezo monotherapy for 13 cycles (12 mo total) versus mFOLFOX6 for 12 cycles. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the FACT-C (includes FACT-G), FACT/GOG-NTX, EQ5D-5L, and PRO-CTCAE. Optional participation was by paper surveys at trial registration, prior to treatment cycles 4 and 7, and at 6, 12, and 36 mo after registration. Mean changes from baseline (BL) were compared between treatment arms using general linear mixed models (negative mean changes indicate worsening). At 6 mo, a two-sided 95% confidence interval excluding a difference of 1.9 points (FACT/GOG-NTX) and 6 points (FACT-C Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) favoring the mFOLFOX6 arm would indicate non-inferiority of the addition of atezo. Rates of side effect bother (FACT-G item GP5) and pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE (composite scores, baseline adjusted) were compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 712 randomized pts, 581 (285 atezo+mFOLFOX6; 296 mFOLFOX6) consented to participate in the survey. Pts completed 2398/3021 (79%) of expected surveys across all time points (1218/1489 [82%] atezo+mFOLFOX6; 1180/1532 [77%] mFOLFOX6). The difference in mean changes from BL between arms indicated non-inferiority of the addition of atezo at 6 mo (table); differences remained small at 12 and 36 mo. No significant differences in mean changes from BL between arms were found at 6, 12, or 36 mo for any scale. At 6 mo, 16% vs 20% of pts in each arm reported at least “quite a bit” of side effect bother (p=0.34), favoring atezo. Across cycles, atezo was associated with higher rates of pt-reported itchy skin (62% vs 48%), cough (53% vs 43%), and shortness of breath (51% vs 41%) [all p<0.05]. Conclusions: Addition of atezo to mFOLFOX6 slightly increases pt-reported AEs, but its effect on HRQOL is minimal and not clinically meaningful. Results support tolerability of atezo+mFOLFOX6 as standard of care adjuvant treatment for pts with dMMR stage III colon cancer. Support: UG1CA189823, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Genentech, a member of the Roche group; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559 . Scale Mo Mean change from BL – atezo+mFOLFOX6 Mean change from BL – mFOLFOX6 Diff (95% CI) FACT/GOG-NTX 6 -10.0 -10.6 0.6 (-0.8, 2.1) 12 -8.0 -9.4 1.4 (-0.2, 2.9) 36 -7.2 -6.9 -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4) FACT-C TOI 6 -4.1 -2.5 -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6) 12 2.1 1.8 0.3 (-1.9, 2.6) 36 0.7 1.8 -1.1 (-3.7, 1.5)

LBA1 Background: Standard adjuvant chemotherapy of stage III colon cancer consists of a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin. In patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer and deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), the benefit of an immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with adjuvant chemotherapy is unknown. The phase III ATOMIC trial (NCT02912559) was conducted to determine whether atezolizumab (atezo), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, can improve pt outcomes when added to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in pts with stage III dMMR tumors. Methods: We conducted an NCI-sponsored, multicenter and randomized phase III trial in pts with surgically resected stage III dMMR colon adenocarcinoma (any T, N 1,2 M 0 ). Pts, age > 12 years (yr), were accrued at NCTN sites and the German AIO. Tumor dMMR was determined by local immunohistochemistry and centrally verified. Pts were randomized 1:1 to mFOLFOX6 plus atezo (840 mg IV q2 weeks) for 12 cycles (6 months)[mo] followed by atezo monotherapy for 13 cycles (12 mo total) versus mFOLFOX6 alone for 12 cycles. Randomization stratification factors were N-stage (N 1 /N 1c vs N 2 ), T-stage (T 1 -T 3 vs T 4 ) and site (proximal vs distal). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival and adverse event (AE) profile (CTCAE, PRO-CTCAE). Primary efficacy analysis was done in the intent-to-treat population; DFS was compared by arm (stratified log-rank test). Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox model; 3-yr DFS was determined by Kaplan-Meier method. Among 700 pts., 165 DFS events with two interim analyses (50% , 75% of events) yielded 90% power to detect HR 0.6 (3-yr DFS 75% vs. 84.2%) assuming exponential survival and 1-sided alpha (0.025). Results: From 9/2017 to 1/2023, 712 pts were randomized (1 pediatric) to either atezo plus mFOLFOX6 (n= 355; atezo arm) or mFOLFOX6 (n= 357). Median pt age was 64 yr. 55.1% were female. Among tumors, 83.8% were proximal, 46.1% were clinical low risk (T 1-3 N 1 ) and 53.9% high risk (T 4 and/or N 2 ). At the second interim analysis, median pt follow-up was 37.2 mo (interquartile range, 24.2 to 55.5) and 124 DFS events were observed. Three-year DFS was 86.4 % (95% CI, 81.8 to 89.9) in the atezo arm and 76.6 % (95% CI, 71.3 to 81.0) in the mFOLFOX6 arm (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72). Stratified log-rank p-value was <0.0001, crossing the pre-specified efficacy boundary of 0.009. Efficacy for the atezo arm was consistent across subgroups, including pts >70 yr and low- and high-risk groups. Treatment-related > grade 3 AEs occurred in 71.7 % of pts in the atezo arm vs 62.1 % in the mFOLFOX6 arm. Conclusion: The addition of atezolizumab to mFOLFOX6 significantly improved DFS and should be considered the new adjuvant standard of care for patients with dMMR stage III colon cancer. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Genentech, a member of the Roche group; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559 .

3554 Background: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases (LM). Liver is the most common organ of metastasis of CRC. The ARCAD database contains individual patient data of randomized trials that included CRC pts with initially unresectable metastases treated with systemic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the response and survival outcomes in non-LM (NLM) vs LM across different lines of treatment. Methods: We analyzed survival outcomes of mCRC pts with either single site (SS) or multiple sites (MS) according to LM status in the following treatment groups: A: chemotherapy (CT) alone, B: CT + VEGF-antibodies, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies in KRAS wild-type tumors, within first-line (1L) and second line (2L) of therapy and D: pts enrolled on third line (≥3L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib and placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) which were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox models on ECOG PS, age, and gender. Results: We included 26 trials with 17924 pts. 14066 pts had LM. Pts with LM had a higher rate of colon vs rectum as primary tumor (72 vs 62%; P < .001) and less SS (31 vs 47%; P < .001) than those with NLM. OS and PFS results in subgroups are reported in the table. In groups A and B, we found better OS and PFS outcomes in NLM pts as either SS or MS in 1L and 2L. In group C from 1L, we found better survival outcomes in pts with SS LM. In pts with MS, NLM superiority was observed in OS but not in PFS. However, these results were influenced by primary tumor sidedness. In group D, better OS and PFS was observed in pts without LM than those with LM whether in pts with SS or MS. Response rates were higher in LM than in NLM in most 1L and 2L subgroups. Conclusions: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from the 1L to ≥3L. Survival with CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF according to LM and NLM differs significantly in 1L and 2L but not with CT + anti-EGFR. This data justifies using LM as a stratification factor at least in ≥3L trials. [Table: see text]

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 &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;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.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [Table: see text]

5‐Fluorouracil (5‐FU) is dosed by body surface area, a practice unable to reduce the interindividual variability in exposure. Endorsed by the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT), we evaluated clinical evidence and strongly recommend TDM for the management of 5‐FU therapy in patients with colorectal or head‐and‐neck cancer receiving common 5‐FU regimens. Our systematic methodology provides a framework to evaluate published evidence in support of TDM recommendations in oncology.