Sobrero, Alberto F.

757 Background: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) appear to differ across trials, even when pts receive the same regimen (REG). This analysis aimed to benchmark the clinical outcomes in the 2nd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Individual patient (pt) data was available on 6,462 pts with mCRC enrolled in 7 2ndline clinical trials (8 REGs) in the ARCAD database. Regimens used in at least two trials included FOLFIRI +/- an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), FOLFOX +/- a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi), and irinotecan (IRI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe pt demographics. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences (DIFFs) in PFS and OS, while p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant (SS). Results: 500-1400 pts received each REG (see Table). Median OS and PFS differed by 0.2 to 4.6 months (mo) and 0.8 to 2.5 mo across trials within the same REG. These DIFFs were SS except for PFS in REGs containing FOLFIRI +/- EGFRi. After multivariable adjustment, all DIFFs in OS were attenuated and non-significant. DIFFs in PFS attenuated for most REGs but remained SS for FOLFOX and IRI. Conclusions: After multivariable adjustment, there were no SS DIFFs in outcomes across trials within the same REG, with the exception of PFS in FOLFOX and IRI. The initial observed DIFFs in outcomes could be due to confounding factors and the remaining SS DIFFs in PFS in FOLFOX and IRI may be due to variation in definition of progression across trials. Therefore, caution is warranted when using historical data to design future trials.[Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: To establish the concept of minimum clinically meaningful outcome (mCMO) of treatment in advanced solid tumors, to establish its threshold and evaluate how many superiority trials of new antineoplastic agents pass this threshold. Experimental Design: We chose overall survival as the primary indicator of patient benefit. Four conceptually different types of treatment effect can be identified in OS curves: HR, gains in median OS, proportional, and absolute increases at long-term OS. We postulated threshold levels for these four parameters defining the mCMO and set the bar at three different levels of required benefit: high, medium, and low. The postulated values were then studied by comparing our thresholds with the actual results of the pivotal superiority phase III trials on new drugs reporting on mature OS data. Results: Forty-three trials on 35,419 patients in 12 cancer types on 23 novel agents met these criteria. Only two trials reached the postulated “high” thresholds for HR and median OS. The number of “positive trials” increased to eight and 15 when the bar was lowered to the “medium” and “low” levels, respectively. The same analysis was done for proportional and absolute increases in long-term OS. No trial satisfied the criteria for long-term benefit, whereas only two and nine trials satisfied both parameters for the “medium and low” required benefit levels, respectively. Conclusions: All four OS-related parameters contribute to define the mCMO. If the bar for the mCMO is raised too much, positive trials are exceptional. Clin Cancer Res; 21(5); 1036–43. ©2014 AACR. See related commentary by Schilsky, p. 947