Meyers, Jeffrey P.

BACKGROUNDOxaliplatin in combination with either 5‐fluorouracil or capecitabine is commonly used as first‐line therapy for patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma. The addition of irinotecan improves survival in other gastrointestinal tumors but at the cost of hematologic toxicity. The authors performed a phase 2 cooperative group study (North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0543, Alliance) using genotype‐dosed capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (gCAPIRINOX), with dosing assigned based on UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 (UGT1A1) genotype to test: 1) whether the addition of irinotecan would improve outcomes; and 2) whether UGT1A1 genotype‐based dosing could optimize tolerability.METHODSPreviously untreated patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma received irinotecan (day 1), oxaliplatin (day 1), and capecitabine (days 2‐15) in a 21‐day cycle and were dosed with gCAPIRINOX according to UGT1A1*28 genotypes (6/6, 6/7, and 7/7).RESULTSA total of 33 patients (17 with the 6/6 genotype, 10 with the 6/7 genotype, and 6 with the 7/7 genotype) were enrolled from October 2007 to November 2013; 73% were male, with a mean age of 64 years (range, 41‐77 years). Location of the primary tumor included the duodenum (58%), jejunum (30%), and ileum (9%). The regimen yielded a confirmed response rate of 37.5% (95% confidence interval, 21%‐56%), with a median progression‐free survival of 8.9 months and a median overall survival of 13.4 months. Neither hematologic toxicity (grade ≥3 in 52.9%, 30.0%, and 33.3%, respectively, of the 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 genotype groups) nor tumor response rate (41.2%, 33%, and 33%, respectively) were found to differ significantly by UGT1A1 genotype.CONCLUSIONSUGT1A1 genotype‐directed dosing (gCAPIRINOX) appears to be feasible with favorable rates of hematologic toxicity compared with prior 3‐drug studies in unselected patients. Larger studies would be needed to determine the regimen's comparability to oxaliplatin and capecitabine (CapeOx) alone or if response/toxicity differs among patients with different UGT1A1 genotypes. Cancer 2017;123:3494‐501. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

656 Background: Patients (pts) with peritoneal metastases from CRC (pmCRC) have reduced OS compared to mCRC pts without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the impact of number and location of metastases among pts receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. Methods: Individual patient data were available on 9,265 pts (median age 64; 63% male; 93% ECOG PS 0-1; 68% colon primary tumor; brain metastases excluded) enrolled onto 12 first-line randomized trials (4 tested targeted regimens). Stratified multivariable Cox models were used to assess the associations with overall survival (OS); adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals are reported (CI). Results: There were 7,963 (86%) pts with non-pmCRC (3,904 with one disease site; 4,059 with ≥2 disease sites), 191 (2%) pts with isolated pmCRC, and 1,111 (12%) non-isolated pmCRC. These groups were similar in age, race, and use of targeted chemotherapy. Compared to non-pmCRC, pts with pmCRC were more likely to be female (41% vs. 36%, p<.001), have colon primary tumors (85% vs. 67%, p<.0001), and have PS2 (10% vs. 6%, p<.0001). Compared to isolated pmCRC, pts with solitary non-peritoneal sites (both M1a) had significantly better OS (HRadj=0.78; CI, 0.64-0.94, p=.009) while pts with ≥2 non-peritoneal sites had similar OS (HRadj=1.06; CI 0.88-1.28, p=.535). OS of pts with pmCRC with a single other disease site (n=446) was similar to isolated pmCRC (HRadj=1.13; CI 0.91-1.40, p=.28), but those with pmCRC + ≥2 additional disease sites (n=665) had shortest survival (HRadj=1.44; CI 1.17-1.77, p<.001). A combination of peritoneal and liver metastases (n=821; HRadj=1.37, CI 1.12-1.67, p=.002) was associated with poorer survival compared with isolated pmCRC; but combination with extrahepatic sites (n=290; HRadj=1.15, CI 0.91-1.45, p=.25) was not. Conclusions: pmCRC pts have significantly worse survival than those with other solitary site mCRC. Among those with multiple disease sites, poorer survival is a function of increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement, which indicates prognostic heterogeneities among M1b pts.

659 Background: Prospective survival prediction of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is difficult. Prognosis estimation based on readily available clinicopathologic factors has the potential to inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for OS and PFS in mCRC using the multi-trial ARCAD database. Methods: Data from 19,678 mCRC pts accrued to 24 first line randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models for PFS and OS, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included age, gender, BMI, performance status, colon vs. rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, sites of metastases (liver, lung, lymph nodes), and baseline bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (dNLR). Missing data (<11%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions considered if p<0.001. Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices, and externally validated using a 10% holdout sample from each trial. Results: Nomograms for OS and PFS including remaining variables were well calibrated with C-indices of 0.66 and 0.60, respectively. Evaluation of external validity revealed good concordance; 71% and 67% respectively between predicted (> vs. <50% probability) and actual (yes/no) 1-year OS and 6-month PFS, and median 1-year OS and 6-month PFS predictions fell within the actual 95% Kaplan-Meier intervals. Gender, liver and lung metastases, and dNLR were not prognostic for OS; prior chemo, colon vs. rectum, dNLR, liver and lymph node metastases, and gender did not predict for PFS. No clinically relevant pairwise interactions were identified. Conclusions: The proposed nomograms are well calibrated and internally and externally valid. These tools have the potential to aid prognostication and patient/physician communication, and balance risk in randomized trials in mCRC.

Purpose Phase II clinical trials inform go/no-go decisions for proceeding to phase III trials, and appropriate end points in phase II trials are critical for facilitating this decision. Phase II solid tumor trials have traditionally used end points such as tumor response defined by Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST). We previously reported that absolute and relative changes in tumor measurements demonstrated potential, but not convincing, improvement over RECIST to predict overall survival (OS). We have evaluated the metrics by using additional measures of clinical utility and data from phase III trials. Methods Resampling methods were used to assess the clinical utility of metrics to predict phase III outcomes from simulated phase II trials. In all, 2,000 phase II trials were simulated from four actual phase III trials (two positive for OS and two negative for OS). Cox models for three metrics landmarked at 12 weeks and adjusted for baseline tumor burden were fit for each phase II trial: absolute changes, relative changes, and RECIST. Clinical utility was assessed by positive predictive value and negative predictive value, that is, the probability of a positive or negative phase II trial predicting an effective or ineffective phase III conclusion, by prediction error, and by concordance index (c-index). Results Absolute and relative change metrics had higher positive predictive value and negative predictive value than RECIST in five of six treatment comparisons and lower prediction error curves in all six. However, differences were negligible. No statistically significant difference in c-index across metrics was found. Conclusion The absolute and relative change metrics are not meaningfully better than RECIST in predicting OS.

Purpose This study addressed whether age is prognostic for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 20,023 patients from 24 first-line clinical trials in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Primary age effects and interactions with age, sex, performance status (PS), and metastatic site were modeled using Cox proportional hazards stratified by treatment arm within study. Results Of total patients, 3,051 (15%) were age ≤ 50 years. Age was prognostic for both OS (P < .001) and PFS (P < .001), with U-shaped risk (ie, highest risk was evident in youngest and oldest patients). Relative to patients of middle age, the youngest patients experienced 19% (95% CI, 7% to 33%) increased risk of death and 22% (95% CI, 10% to 35%) increased risk of progression. The oldest patients experienced 42% (95% CI, 31% to 54%) increased risk of death and 15% (95% CI, 7% to 24%) increased risk of progression or death. This relationship was more pronounced in the first year of follow-up. Age remained marginally significant for OS (P = .08) when adjusted for PS, sex, and presence of liver, lung, or peritoneal metastases, and age was significant in an adjusted model for PFS (P = .005). The age effect did not differ by site of metastatic disease, year of enrollment, type of therapy received, or biomarker mutational status. Conclusion Younger and older age are associated with poorer OS and PFS among treated patients with mCRC. Younger and older patients may represent higher-risk populations, and additional studies are warranted.

Purpose We sought to test and validate the predictive utility of trichotomous tumor response (TriTR; complete response [CR] or partial response [PR] v stable disease [SD] v progressive disease [PD]), disease control rate (DCR; CR/PR/SD v PD), and dichotomous tumor response (DiTR; CR/PR v others) metrics using alternate cut points for PR and PD. The data warehouse assembled to guide the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was used. Methods Data from 13 trials (5,480 patients with metastatic breast cancer, non–small-cell lung cancer, or colorectal cancer) were randomly split (60:40) into training and validation data sets. In all, 27 pairs of cut points for PR and PD were considered: PR (10% to 50% decrease by 5% increments) and PD (10% to 20% increase by 5% increments), for which 30% and 20% correspond to the RECIST categorization. Cox proportional hazards models with landmark analyses at 12 and 24 weeks stratified by study and number of lesions (fewer than three v three or more) and adjusted for average baseline tumor size were used to assess the impact of each metric on overall survival (OS). Model discrimination was assessed by using the concordance index (c-index). Results Standard RECIST cut points demonstrated predictive ability similar to the alternate PR and PD cut points. Regardless of tumor type, the TriTR, DiTR, and DCR metrics had similar predictive performance. The 24-week metrics (albeit with higher c-index point estimate) were not meaningfully better than the 12-week metrics. None of the metrics did particularly well for breast cancer. Conclusion Alternative cut points to RECIST standards provided no meaningful improvement in OS prediction. Metrics assessed at 12 weeks have good predictive performance.