Punt, Cornelis J.A.

3533 Background: PFS has previously been established as a surrogate for OS based on IPD from first-line mCRC trials conducted before 1999. As mCRC treatment (trt) has advanced in the last decade and OS has increased from 1 to 2 years, this surrogacy required re-examination. Methods: IPD from 16,762 pts, median age 62, 62% male, 53% ECOG PS 0 were available from 22 1st line mCRC studies conducted from 1997-2006; 12 tested targeted (anti-angiogenic and/or anti-EGFR) regimens. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated at patient-, trt-arm-, and trial-levels using correlation (corr.) coefficients and R2 (closer to 1 the better) from weighted least square (WLS) regression of arm-specific survival rates and trial-specific hazard ratios (HRs), estimated using Cox and Copula bivariate models. The concordance of significance (CoS) of the treatment effects (TEs) on both endpoints was calculated. Results: 44% pts received a targeted regimen. Median PFS was 8 and OS was18 months. The corr. between PFS and OS was modest at all three levels with low CoS in TE comparisons (see Table). Analyses limited to trials testing targeted trts, non-strategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy. Conclusions: In modern mCRC trials, where survival post-first progression exceeds time to first progression, PFS TEs do not reliably predict TEs on OS. Nonetheless, until alternative endpoints of clinical benefit can be validated, PFS remains a relevant primary endpoint for 1st line mCRC trials, as our data demonstrate that the ability for any agent to produce an OS benefit from a single line of therapy is challenging. [Table: see text]

612 Background: mCRC is a heterogeneous disease leading to possible disparate responses among lesions in a single pt. This study assesses the heterogeneity of lesion responses and evaluates the prognostic value of LBR12 and its mortality risk discrimination beyond RECIST responses. Methods: Pts with ≥ 2 lesions and no new lesions at 12 weeks (wks) were eligible. For each pt, after 12 wks of Rx, each lesion was categorized as progressive disease (L-PD: ≥20% increase in the longest diameter [LD]), partial response (L-PR: ≥30% decrease in LD), or stable disease (L-SD: neither L-PD nor L-PR). LBR12 was defined, per patient, by the combination of lesion responses: homogeneous LBR12 (L-PD, L-SD, L-PR only) and heterogeneous LBR12 (mixture of L-PD/L-SD, L-PD/L-PR, L-SD/L-PR). LBR12 and overall survival (OS) were correlated using stratified multivariate Cox models after adjusting for age, gender, and ECOG PS. Results: Among 9,092 mCRCs (Rx: chemo alone 44%; chemo + VEGF inhibitor [VEGFi] 42%; chemo + EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi] 10%) from 16 1st-line studies. Median OS: 2.2 years. Per RECIST at 12 wks, CR 0%; PR 36.1%; SD 60.9%; PD 3.0%. Responses in 52% were heterogeneous (Table). VEGFi and EGFRi treated pts had the highest rate of L-SD/L-PR (45%) and L-PR only (22%) status, respectively. Median OS increased monotonically across pts with more L-PRs and fewer L-PDs (Table). Pts with L-SD/L-PR status, among which 51% had SD per RECIST, had longer OS than those with L-SD only status (HRadj.= .81, padj.< .0001), but shorter OS than those with L-PR only status (HRadj.= 1.46, padj.< .0001). Pts with L-PD/L-SD status, among which 71% were SD per RECIST, had shorter OS than those with L-SD only status (HRadj.= 2.22, padj.< .0001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimens. Conclusions: The lesion-based response captures the heterogeneity of within pt lesion responses and provides refinement in predicting outcome beyond RECIST response at 12 wks. [Table: see text]

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]

3535 Background: CRC is known to be a heterogeneous disease. This study quantifies within pt heterogeneity in early lesion change rate (LCR) in the era of targeted agents compared to chemo alone and its potential impact on survival. Methods: Pts with 2-10 lesions measured at baseline were included. For each lesion, the early LCR was defined as the change in size (shrinking or growing) from baseline to 12 weeks on treatment. Within pt heterogeneity in early LCR among lesions was estimated by standard deviation (STD). A larger value of STD indicates larger variation of LCR per pt. Stratified multivariate Cox models were used to assess the associations between LCR STD with overall survival (OS). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Data were available on 9,092 mCRC pts (median age 61; 60% male, 55% ECOG PS 0; 61% 2+ metastatic sites) enrolled in 16 1st-line randomized trials, with 44%, 42%, and 10% of pts received chemo alone, + a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi) or an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), respectively. LCR heterogeneity is the highest among pts received EGFRi but lowest among pts received VEGFi (Table). Overall, higher heterogeneity is associated with worst OS (HRadj1.22, 95% CI (1.16, 1.27)). The effect is most pronounced in pts received VEGFi (interaction p=0.0012). Conclusions: There was heterogeneity observed in lesion size changes within pts. Its magnitude varies across treatment approaches, and was associated with poor survival. This preliminary result reveals the great potentials to define novel response endpoint and refine treatment decision-making by incorporating heterogeneities in lesion changes. [Table: see text]

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

658 Background: In patients (pts) with mCRC with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is limited evidence regarding the indication for primary tumor resection. The primary objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous mCRC pts. Methods: In this IPD analysis, a total of 3,423 pts from 8 first-line randomized trials (RCTs) with systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Five RCTs included targeted (anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR) agents. Synchronous mCRC was defined as distant metastases occurring ≤ 6 months of the initial CRC diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared by stratified multivariate Cox models. Results: There were 710 (21%), 1,705 (50%) and 1,008 (29%) pts with non-resected and resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC, respectively. Compared to the non-resection group, pts in the synchronous resection group were associated with female gender, colon tumor, isolated liver/lung involvement, single metastatic site, and lower LDH (all p<.001). Adjusted for age, gender, performance status and prior chemotherapy, the non-resection group had a significantly worse median OS (16.4m) compared to the resection (22.2m; HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, PFS was significantly worse for the non-resection group (7.9m) compared to the resection (9.7m; HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous group (8.9m; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66). Similar trends were observed in pts treated with non-targeted vs targeted agents, and anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR therapy. In a subset analysis (n= 526), the observed associations remained after additional adjustment for primary tumor location, liver/lung involvement, number of metastatic sites, BMI and LDH. Conclusions: In this largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date, primary tumor resection is associated with better OS and PFS in synchronous mCRC pts. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Prospective RCTs on this topic are ongoing.

Purpose In recent retrospective analyses of early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), low and high body mass index (BMI) scores were associated with worsened outcomes. Whether BMI is a prognostic or predictive factor in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unclear. Patients and Methods Individual data from 21,149 patients enrolled onto 25 first-line mCRC trials during 1997 to 2012 were pooled. We assessed both prognostic and predictive effects of BMI on overall survival and progression-free survival, and we accounted for patient and tumor characteristics and therapy type (targeted v nontargeted). Results BMI was prognostic for overall survival (P < .001) and progression-free survival (P < .001), with an L-shaped pattern. That is, risk of progression and/or death was greatest for low BMI; risk decreased as BMI increased to approximately 28 kg/m 2 , and then it plateaued. Relative to obese patients, patients with a BMI of 18.5 kg/m 2 had a 27% increased risk of having a PFS event (95% CI, 20% to 34%) and a 50% increased risk of death (95% CI, 43% to 56%). Low BMI was associated with poorer survival for men than women (interaction P < .001). BMI was not predictive of treatment effect. Conclusion Low BMI is associated with an increased risk of progression and death among the patients enrolled on the mCRC trials, with no increased risk for elevated BMI, in contrast to the adjuvant setting. Possible explanations include negative effects related to cancer cachexia in patients with low BMI, increased drug delivery or selection bias in patients with high BMI, and potential for an interaction between BMI and molecular signaling pathways.