Rothenberg, Mace L.

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

LBA4004 Background: Gemcitabine (GEM) is the cornerstone of treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (PANCA). FDR GEM or GEMOX are promising, but have yet to convincingly demonstrate a survival advantage over GEM alone. E6201 compares overall survival (OS) of standard GEM 1000 mg/m2/30 min wkly ×7 over 56 days then wkly ×3 q28 d (ARM A) vs. FDR GEM 1500 mg/m2/150 min wkly ×3 q28 days (ARM B) or GEM 1000 mg/m2/100-min/d1 + oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2/d2 q14d (ARM C). Secondary endpoints are the comparison of the experimental regimens, toxicity, response, patterns of failure, progression-free survival and quality-of-life. Methods: This multi-institutional trial included patients (pts) with measurable and non-measurable advanced, unresectable PAN CA, normal organ function and PS 0–2. Pts were chemonaive, although prior adjuvant radiosensitizing 5FU was permitted. Pts were stratified by PS 0–1 vs 2 and locally advanced vs metastatic disease The study was designed to detect a 33% difference in median survival (hazard ratio 1.33) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each of the two primary comparisons, assuming exponential failure and median survival of 6 mo for Arm A and 8 mo for Arm B and C (N = 750 eligible). Results: Accrual started in 3/03 and completed in 3/05. Median follow up is 5.8 mo. 833 pts (53% men; 88% PS 0–1; 88% metastatic), were randomized with 280, 277 and 276 pts in Arms A, B and C. The third interim analysis was conducted with 89.5% information on 3/2006. The predominant toxicity, available for 758 pts, was grade 3/4 myelosuppression and fatigue. Two deaths from ARDS and infection occurred. Median OS for ARMS A, B, and C are 4.96, 6.01 and 6.47 months, respectively. Hazard ratio A vs B is 1.21 with stratified log rank of 0.053 and for A vs C is 1.22 with stratified log rank of 0.045, neither statistically significant. Conclusion: E6201 final OS results will be available in June, 2006. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

3517 Background: The combination of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin is effective in many patients with colon cancer treated in either the advanced or adjuvant disease setting. To better identify the risks & benefits of this regimen for elderly patients we compared safety & efficacy data for the FOLFOX4 regimen (oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly) in patients over & under 70 years of age. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 3742 patients (614 aged ≥ 70) with colorectal cancer enrolled in four clinical trials using the same FOLFOX4 regimen as adjuvant therapy, or as first- or second-line therapy in advanced disease. Endpoints included grade ≥ 3 adverse events, response rate (RR) (in studies of advanced disease), progression (metastatic)/relapse free (adjuvant) survival (P/RFS), overall survival (OS), and dose intensity. Results: Age ≥ 70 was associated with slightly higher rates of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia but no other grade ≥ 3 adverse events (see table). There was no difference in 60-day mortality (1.1% vs 2.3%, p=0.20). We observed no significant difference in any measure of therapeutic impact of FOLFOX based on age, including P/RFS, OS, response rate, or dose intensity (see table). Conclusions: The FOLFOX4 regimen maintains its efficacy/safety ratio in elderly patients with colorectal cancer, and was administered per protocol at similar drug doses compared to the younger patients enrolled on these trials. Age alone should not be a factor limiting the use of FOLFOX4 provided patients are carefully evaluated and monitored. This analysis was supported by Sanofi-Aventis [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [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]

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]

PurposeSingle-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is standard treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fixed-dose rate (FDR) GEM and GEM plus oxaliplatin have shown promise in early clinical trials. E6201 was designed to compare overall survival (OS) of standard weekly GEM 1,000 mg/m2/30 minutes versus GEM FDR 1,500 mg/m2/150 minutes or GEM 1,000 mg/m2/100 minutes/day 1 plus oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2/day 2 every 14 days (GEMOX).MethodsThis trial included patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, normal organ function, and performance status of 0 to 2. The study was designed to detect a 33% difference in median survival (hazard ratio [HR] ≤ 0.75 for either of the experimental arms) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each of the two primary comparisons.ResultsEight hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median survival and 1-year survival were 4.9 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.6) and 16% for GEM, 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 6.9), and 21% for GEM FDR (HR, 0.83; stratified log-rank P = .04), and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.9 to 6.5) and 21% for GEMOX (HR, 0.88; stratified log-rank P = .22). Neither of these differences met the prespecified criteria for significance. Survival was 9.2 months for patients with locally advanced disease, and 5.4 months for those with metastatic disease. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were greatest with GEM FDR. GEMOX caused higher rates of nausea, vomiting, and neuropathy.ConclusionNeither GEM FDR nor GEMOX resulted in substantially improved survival or symptom benefit over standard GEM in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

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.

Learning ObjectivesAfter completing this course, the reader should be able to: Discuss recent progress in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer.Define the continuum-of-care approach and how it may differ from our current approach to the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer.Identify key factors in treatment selection for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.Explain the impact of each active drug in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer and the impact of treatment with multiple agents over the course of the disease.CME Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ at CME.TheOncologist.com