Haller, Daniel G.

Purpose The traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS). We previously validated disease-free survival (DFS) after 3-year follow-up as an excellent predictor of 5-year OS results. Here we explore shorter term DFS and OS end points, as well as stage dependency. Methods Individual patient data from 18 phase III trials including 43 arms and 20,898 patients were pooled. Association measures included correlation of event rates within arms, correlation of hazard ratios (HRs) between arms, trial level significance comparisons (via log-rank testing), and a formal surrogacy model. Results DFS at earlier times was less accurate in predicting OS than 3-year DFS, but 2-year DFS remained a strong predictor. DFS with 1-year minimum follow-up demonstrated perfect negative predicted value; all trials negative at 1 year for DFS were negative for 5-year OS. OS with 3-year minimum follow-up was also an excellent predictor for 5-year OS; OS at earlier time points provided inaccurate prediction. The association between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was greater for stage III patients; correlation of HR within trials was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.95) for stage III patients and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80) for stage II patients. Conclusion DFS outcomes after 2- or 3-year median follow-up are excellent predictors of 5-year OS. DFS outcomes are appropriate for trials in which the majority of patients are stage III. DFS after 2- or 3-year median follow-up should be considered as the primary end point in future colon adjuvant trials.

Purpose We update Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113), a comparison of chemotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with localized esophageal cancer. The relationship between resection type and between tumor response and outcome were also analyzed. Patients and Methods The chemotherapy group received preoperative cisplatin plus fluorouracil. Outcome based on the type of resection (R0, R1, R2, or no resection) was evaluated. The main end point was overall survival. Disease-free survival, relapse pattern, the influence of postoperative treatment, and the relationship between response to preoperative chemotherapy and outcome were also evaluated. Results Two hundred sixteen patients received preoperative chemotherapy, 227 underwent immediate surgery. Fifty-nine percent of surgery only and 63% of chemotherapy plus surgery patients underwent R0 resections (P = .5137). Patients undergoing less than an R0 resection had an ominous prognosis; 32% of patients with R0 resections were alive and free of disease at 5 years, only 5% of patients undergoing an R1 resection survived for longer than 5 years. The median survival rates for patients with R1, R2, or no resections were not significantly different. While, as initially reported, there was no difference in overall survival for patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy compared with the surgery only group, patients with objective tumor regression after preoperative chemotherapy had improved survival. Conclusion For patients with localized esophageal cancer, whether or not preoperative chemotherapy is administered, only an R0 resection results in substantial long-term survival. Even microscopically positive margins are an ominous prognostic factor. After a R1 resection, postoperative chemoradiotherapy therapy offers the possibility of long-term disease-free survival to a small percentage of patients.

Emerging technologies have greatly expanded our ability to detect, characterize, and treat colorectal cancer. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a multidisciplinary panel, the Scientific Leadership Council in GI cancer, to discuss and advise on the priorities and opportunities to advance current and future approaches into the clinical arena to impact most rapidly the morbidity and mortality from this disease. The Council's recommendations for research priorities are the result of engagement of community and academic oncologists, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and governmental agencies. We detail some key prospects for investigation in the areas of colon cancer detection, prevention, and surgical and medical management. Many are in early or definitive clinical trials, and a focus on rapid accrual is urged. The implementation of biology-directed laboratory investigations, both in association with ongoing clinical trials and as a separate developmental strategy for targeted therapies, is supported as the route to individualized therapy.

Purpose A traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS), with 5 years demonstrating adequate follow-up. A shorter-term end point providing convincing evidence to allow treatment comparisons could significantly speed the translation of advances into practice. Methods Individual patient data were pooled from 18 randomized phase III colon cancer adjuvant clinical trials. Trials included 43 arms, with a pooled sample size of 20,898 patients. The primary hypothesis was that disease-free survival (DFS), with 3 years of follow-up, is an appropriate primary end point to replace OS with 5 years of follow-up. Results The recurrence rates for years 1 through 5 were 12%, 14%, 8%, 5%, and 3%, respectively. Median time from recurrence to death was 12 months. Eighty percent of recurrences were in the first 3 years; 91% of patients with recurrence by 3 years died before 5 years. Correlation between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was 0.89. Comparing control versus experimental arms within each trial, the correlation between hazard ratios for DFS and OS was 0.92. Within-trial log-rank testing using both DFS and OS provided the same conclusion in 23 (92%) of 25 cases. Formal measures of surrogacy were satisfied. Conclusion In patients treated on phase III adjuvant colon clinical trials, DFS and OS are highly correlated, both within patients and across trials. These results suggest that DFS after 3 years of median follow-up is an appropriate end point for adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials of fluorouracil-based regimens, although marginally significant DFS improvements may not translate into significant OS benefits.

Purpose Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. Methods We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. Results Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of ≤ 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of ≤ 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. Conclusion The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.

Abstract Background. Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare gastrointestinal malignancy that is treated primarily with surgery. Even with optimal resection, however, survival is poor and recurrences are common. Response rates to palliative combination chemotherapy are low, and the median duration of survival for metastatic disease is less than 1 year. This study aimed to document the response rate and survival time for patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma who were not surgically curable and were treated with a regimen of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), mitomycin C (Mutamycin®; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ), and doxorubicin (Adriamycin®; Bedford Laboratories; Bedford, OH), the FAM regimen. Methods. This multi-institutional study was performed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). Between November, 1983 and December, 1985, 39 patients with advanced or recurrent disease were enrolled. Chemotherapy was given as follows: 5-FU, 600 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 29 and 36; mitomycin C, 10 mg/m2 on day 1; and doxorubicin, 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29. Eligibility criteria included an ECOG performance status score of 0–2, measurable disease, and adequate baseline organ function. Prior chemotherapy was allowed. Response was measured by examination and imaging techniques. Survival time and time to progression were evaluated by the method of Kaplan and Meier, and these outcomes were stratified by clinical and laboratory covariates. Results. Of the 39 evaluated patients, 38 were eligible and 36 were evaluable for response. Grade 3–5 toxicities were experienced by a total of 26 patients (20 grade 3, 5 grade 4, 1 grade 5). The most common adverse events were neutropenia and vomiting. Responses were seen in a total of seven patients (2 complete responses, 5 partial responses), for a response rate of 18.4% (95% confidence interval of 7.8%–34.4%). The median survival time was 8 months. Conclusions. The FAM regimen was active and tolerable for patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma; however, the results were no better than those seen with other chemotherapy combinations.

Purpose To determine survival and relapse rates by T and N stage and treatment method in five randomized phase III North American rectal adjuvant studies. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from 3,791 eligible patients enrolled onto North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 79-47-51, NCCTG 86-47-51, US Gastrointestinal Intergroup 0114, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R01, and NSABP R02. Surgery alone (S) was the treatment arm in 179 patients. The remaining patients received adjuvant treatment as follows: irradiation (RT) alone (n = 281), RT + fluorouracil (FU) ± semustine bolus chemotherapy (CT; n = 779), RT + protracted venous infusion CT (n = 325), RT + FU ± leucovorin or levamisole bolus CT (n = 1,695), or CT alone (n = 532). Five-year follow-up was available in 94% of surviving patients, and 8-year follow-up, in 62%. Results Overall (OS) and disease-free survival were dependent on TN stage, NT stage, and treatment method. Even among N2 patients, T substage influenced 5-year OS (T1-2, 67%; T3, 44%; T4, 37%; P < .001). Three risk groups of patients were defined: (1) intermediate (T1-2/N1, T3/N0), (2) moderately high (T1-2/N2, T3/N1, T4/N0), and (3) high (T3/N2, T4/N1, T4/N2). For intermediate-risk patients, those receiving S plus CT had 5-year OS rates of 85% (T1-2/N1) and 84% (T3/N0), which was similar to results with S plus RT plus CT (T1-2/N1, 78% to 83%; T3/N0, 74% to 80%). For moderately high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 43% to 70% with S plus CT, and 44% to 80% with S plus RT plus CT. For high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 25% to 45% with S plus CT, and 29% to 57% with S plus RT plus CT. Conclusion Different treatment strategies may be indicated for intermediate-risk versus moderately high- or high-risk patients based on differential survival rates and rates of relapse. Use of trimodality treatment for all patients with intermediate-risk lesions may be excessive, since S plus CT resulted in 5-year OS of approximately 85%; however, 5-year disease-free survival rates with S plus CT were 78% (T1-2/N1) and 69%(T3/N0), indicating room for improvement.

Purpose Although it is well-established that fluorouracil- (FU-) based adjuvant therapy improves survival for patients with resected high-risk colon cancer, the magnitude of adjuvant therapy benefit across specific subgroups and for individual patients has been uncertain. Patients and Methods Using a pooled data set of 3,302 patients with stage II and III colon cancer from seven randomized trials comparing FU + leucovorin or FU + levamisole to surgery alone, we performed an analysis based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Treatment, age, sex, tumor location, T stage, nodal status, and grade were tested for both prognostic and predictive significance. Model derived estimates of 5-year disease-free survival and overall survival (OS) for surgery alone and surgery plus FU-based therapy were calculated for a range of patient subsets. Results Nodal status, T stage, and grade were the only prognostic factors independently significant for both disease-free survival and OS. Age was significant only for OS. In a multivariate analysis, adjuvant therapy showed a beneficial treatment effect across all subsets. Treatment benefits were consistent across sex, location, age, T-stage, and grade. A significant stage by treatment interaction was present, with treatment benefiting stage III patients to a greater degree than stage II patients. Conclusion Patients with high-risk resected colon cancer obtain benefit from FU-based therapy across subsets of age, sex, location, T stage, nodal status, and grade. Model estimates of survival stratified by T stage, nodal status, grade, and age are available at http://www.mayoclinic.com/calcs . This information may improve patients' and physicians' understanding of the potential benefits of adjuvant therapy.