Mamon, Harvey J.

Importance Pathologic complete response (pCR) is increasingly used as a surrogate end point for survival in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of gastrointestinal oncology. Although this approach has been endorsed by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is still novel and incompletely verified. Objective To evaluate the trial-level association between pCR and survival in rectal cancer RCTs examining the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy. Data Sources A meta-analysis was conducted to identify eligible RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases published between database inception to January 3, 2024. Study Selection RCTs evaluating neoadjuvant therapies in patients with rectal cancer who underwent subsequent surgical resection and reported pCR, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two investigators extracted the data, which were verified by a third author. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool, respectively. Adjusted odds and hazard ratios with their 95% CIs were extracted. Weighted linear regression was used to assess the correlation between pCR and both OS and DFS. Main Outcomes and Measures Trial-level correlation between pCR and both OS and DFS. Results Twenty-five RCTs, including 11 882 patients, met the inclusion criteria. On meta-regression analysis, pCR was not correlated with OS (β = 0.37; 95% CI, −0.98 to 1.71; P = .57). Similarly, pCR was not correlated with DFS (β = −0.84; 95% CI, −2.55 to 0.87; P = .32). Two studies (8%) used in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. On sensitivity analysis excluding these studies, pCR was still not associated with OS or DFS. Subgroup analysis of RCTs using total neoadjuvant therapies was not possible due to limited sample size. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing neoadjuvant therapies in rectal cancer, there was no trial-level association between pCR and survival. These results suggest that the use of pCR as a surrogate end point for survival should be reexamined and used more cautiously.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). Background: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. Methods: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the “Methods.” Results: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = −0.30, P = 0.038). Conclusions: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

LBA2 Background: Radiation with sensitizing fluoropyrimidine (5FUCRT) is a standard curative intent treatment for LARC. It improves disease-free survival (DFS) by decreasing pelvic recurrence but has short- and long-term toxicity. The PROSPECT trial compares FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT (intervention) to 5FUCRT (control) for neoadjuvant treatment prior to TME for LARC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had cT2N+, cT3N-, cT3N+ rectal cancers deemed appropriate for neoadjuvant therapy prior to low anterior resection with TME. Pts with distal, T4 tumors, threatened radial margins or > 4 enlarged lymph nodes were ineligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 without blinding. Pts in the control group received 5FUCRT with 5040 cGy over 5.5 weeks with either capecitabine or 5FU. Pts in the intervention group had 6 cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by restaging. If tumor regression was > 20%, then TME was performed without radiation; if < 20%, 5FUCRT was given before TME. DFS was the 1°outcome, defined as time from randomization to any recurrence or death, analyzed in the per-protocol population. One interim analysis was conducted with α spending = 0.001. Noninferiority (NI) of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 90.2% confidence interval (CI) of the DFS hazard ratio did not exceed 1.29 (NI margin). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (CR), and toxicity. Results: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1194, pts were randomized and 1128 initiated protocol-assigned treatment. Median age was 57, 34.5% were women and 61.9% had clinically positive nodes. 53 of 585 pts in the intervention group (9%) received preop 5FUCRT. DFS was analyzed after 227 events and median follow-up of 58 months. Conclusions: FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT is non-inferior to 5FUCRT for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC prior to low anterior resection with TME. Patients and physicians have alternative strategies for management of LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01515787 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

4500 Background: Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). The primary objective of RTOG 1010 was to determine if trastuzumab increases disease-free survival (DFS) when combined with trimodality treatment for patients with HER2 overexpressing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods: This open label, randomized phase III trial included patients with newly diagnosed stage T1N1-2, T2-3N0-2 adenocarcinoma of the esophagus involving the mid, distal, or esophagogastric junction and up to 5cm of the stomach. All patients received chemotherapy (C) of paclitaxel, 50mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC = 2, weekly for 6 weeks, with radiation (XRT: 3D-CRT or IMRT, 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) followed by surgery. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive weekly trastuzumab 4mg/kg week 1 then 2mg/kg/weekly x 5 during CXRT then 6 mg/kg for 1 dose prior to surgery and 6mg/kg every 3 weeks for 13 treatments after surgery. HER2 status was determined by IHC and gene amplification by FISH. With a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, 162 DFS events provide 90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median DFS from 15 to 25 months. DFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. and arms were compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze treatment effect. Results: 571 patients were entered for assessment of HER2 expression, 203 HER2+ patients randomized. The median follow-up for alive patients is 5.0 years. The estimated 2, 3, and 4-year DFS (95% CI) for the CXRT +trastuzumab arm were 41.8% (31.8%, 51.7%), 34.3% (24.7%, 43.9%), and 33.1% (23.6%, 42.7%), respectively, and for the CXRT arm were 40.0% (30.0%, 49.9%), 33.4% (23.8%, 43.0%), and 30.1% (20.7%, 39.4%), respectively; log-rank p = 0.85. The median DFS time is 19.6 months (13.5-26.2) for the CXRT +trastuzumab arm compared to 14.2 months (10.5-23.0) for the CXRT arm. The hazard ratio (95% CI) comparing the DFS of CXRT+trastuzumab arm to the CXRT arm was 0.97 (0.69, 1.36). The median OS time was 38.5 months (26.2-70.4) for the CXRT+trastuzumab arm compared to 38.9 months (29.0-64.5) for the CXRT arm, hazard ratio (95% CI): 1.01 (0.69, 1.47). There was no statistically significant increase in treatment-related toxicities with the addition of trastuzumab including no increase in cardiac events. Conclusions: The addition of trastuzumab to trimodality treatment did not improve DFS for patients with HER2 overexpressing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Supported by NCI grants U10CA180868, UG1CA189867, U10CA180822 and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT01196390 .

Background More than half of the 40,000 incident rectal cancer patients in the United States each year are diagnosed at clinical stage II and III (locally advanced stage). For this group, high rates of cure can be achieved with the combination of pelvic radiation and sensitizing 5-fluorouracil (chemoradiation), surgery and chemotherapy, but treatment is long, arduous and toxicities are substantial. The PROSPECT trial (N1048, NCT01515787) was designed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) could be used as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation without compromising treatment outcomes and to spare these patients excess toxicity. The statistical design balanced the twin co-primary goals of achieving low local and distant recurrence rates. Study design features contended with the need for stringent safeguards given limited phase II data, the need for straightforward criteria to facilitate both accrual and protocol fidelity and the importance of patients’ perspectives on symptom burden and treatment toxicity. Methods PROSPECT is an ongoing multi-site two-group seamless phase II/III randomized trial comparing standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy with selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Challenges addressed in the design and conduct of PROSPECT have included the following: (1) setting safety thresholds given limited single-center phase II data, (2) establishing workable eligibility criteria, (3) balancing competing time to local and distant recurrence as co-primary endpoints and (4) obtaining reliable and complete data for patients’ symptom burden. The design and implementation challenges, choices, modifications and their implications for the design of future national cooperative group clinical trials are presented. Results PROSPECT incorporated stringent thresholds for both complete surgical resection (R0) and the time to local recurrence as early stopping rules. When predetermined stopping criteria were not met after evaluation of the first 366 participants in the randomized phase II, the study transitioned seamlessly to phase III with cumulative accrual of over 1000 participants. Eligibility criteria stipulating rectal tumor location based on distance from the anal verge were unworkable, and the protocol was amended to a more pragmatic approach that assigned surgeons with primary responsibility for determining eligibility. Central radiology review was feasible and in some cases prompted discontinuation of protocol treatment. Participation in toxicity reporting using the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was uniformly high and was well accepted by participants from over 200 sites in the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Conclusion The strategies used to overcome these obstacles may inform the design of other studies that involve multi-modality treatment interventions, particularly trials where implementation of consistent criteria for eligibility and outcomes across hundreds of practice settings is necessary.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.