Grothey, Axel

9563 Background: Fatigue is a prevalent and debilitating symptom reported by cancer patients (pts) which compromises a pt's quality of life (QOL). This study examined the relationship between PR fatigue and QOL as well as cancer-related symptoms (CRS) in 43 North Central Cancer Treatment Group and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center clinical trials. Methods: 3,915 pts from 43 oncology clinical trials provided baseline fatigue data on a single-item 0–100 point scale. Pts' QOL assessment included a single-item overall QOL and associated QOL domains measured by numerical analogues, the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and PR symptom assessment measures. Associations between fatigue and QOL domains were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficients. Wilcoxon rank sum test compared QOL scores between pts with clinically deficient fatigue(CDF, score ≤50) vs. no clinically deficient fatigue (nCDF, score>50). Changes from baseline in fatigue and QOL were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test with a 20-point change defined as clinically meaningful. Results: 38% of pts reported CDF at baseline and 45% of pts reported CDF at last assessment. Fatigue was only moderately correlated at best with overall QOL, pain, POMS, social and physical function (Spearman rho's of .27,.40, .56, .38 and .38 respectively). Pts with CDF averaged over 10 points lower overall QOL, pain, POMS, social, and physical function (see table below, all p<.0001) as well as worsening CRS including sleepiness, nausea, headache, abnormal sweating, trouble sleeping, dry mouth, and sexual dysfunction (all p<.001). Pts with 20+ points worsening in fatigue declined in overall QOL, physical function, pain and POMS (all p<.0001). Conclusions: Patients with CDF suffer greater deficits in QOL and CRS. Patients report fatigue as distinctly different from overall QOL, pain, physical, social, mood status and CRS. Fatigue appears with a broad spectrum of CRS clusters. Routine measurement and management of fatigue could impact QOL and treatment-related symptoms. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4054 Background: In treatment trials of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), KRAS mutation status of tumor samples has been retrospectively demonstrated to be predictive of treatment benefit. Historically, clinical trials have not required tissue samples to be tested for KRAS mutation status as a condition of enrollment. Therefore, KRAS analyses have been based on available tissue samples representing only a portion of patients retrospectively analyzed for KRAS status and correlated with treatment end- points. Methods: A weighted analysis of pooled data was performed using six recently presented or published clinical trials of targeted therapy in mCRC which tested for the association of KRAS status with Progression Free Survival (PFS). The goal of the analysis was to determine whether there is a significant difference in PFS between the intention to treat (ITT) population and KRAS population in both the treatment and control arms. Results: The total ITT population of the pooled studies is 3864, and for the total KRAS population, 2295; a 59.4% retrieval rate (range 28–92%) for tissue samples available for KRAS analysis. The weighted Δ PFS across all arms between the ITT population and the KRAS population was 0.2 months with a range of 0–0.7 months. Of the 12 subgroups (6 control and 6 treatment arms), five had no difference in PFS between ITT and KRAS evaluable populations at all, and two additional subgroups demonstrated a difference PFS of only 0.1 months. The two studies with the lowest tissue retrieval rates (28% and 45%) had the largest Δ PFS. Conclusions: There is no meaningful difference in the PFS between the ITT and KRAS populations based on our analysis of pooled data. The difference in PFS was greatest in the two studies with the lowest rate of retrieval of tissue samples for KRAS testing. As such, subgroup analysis is better able to estimate and reflect the ITT population if a higher percentage of samples is able to be obtained. Further, our results suggest that there is not an inherent systemic bias influencing any potentially observed differences in PFS. Tissue samples should be required for all patients entering a clinical trial to avoid this issue and to make retrospective analysis more valid. [Table: see text]

4045 Background: Our group previously reported on patient (Pt) recollections of adjuvant therapy (AT) for colon cancer and their grading of medical oncologists (MO) regarding various aspects of care. Overall, MO were highly rated, but grades for presenting information were lower, and patient expectations about side effects often did not match experiences. To further examine the Pt experience with AT, a prospective study was launched in Feb 2008. Methods: Pts with Stage II/III colon cancer about to begin or within 4 months of starting AT were recruited for a 4-part survey regarding sources and quality of treatment information and their experiences with AT. The survey also asked Pts to provide a grade (A-F) for their MO in 8 areas. Results: 85 Pts (71% female, 79% Stage III, median age 52 years) completed Part 1 of the survey. 93% stated that their MO explained the risks and benefits of AT. Of those, 92% stated they understood this information completely or almost completely (3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale) and 79% received numerical estimates of recurrence risk with and without treatment. When questioned about the potential absolute benefit of AT, 26% of Pts who received numerical estimates “had no idea” and other answers ranged from 3% to 100% for recurrence risk. Pt grade point averages for their MO ranged from 3.0 to 3.6 ( Table 1 ). As in the prior survey, expectations about side effects frequently did not accurately reflect experiences. For example, 54% of Pts expected alopecia but only 5% experienced it to a significant degree. 84% of Pts also sought information from websites, and 87% rated this as helpful and valuable (3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale). Conclusions: Pts are generally satisfied with their MO but less so with the presentation of treatment-related information and thus frequently consult additional resources, such as cancer information websites. This suggests an opportunity for improved information delivery within oncology offices and via the Internet. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

e15031 Background: Two web based prognostic calculators, Adjuvant! and Numeracy (JCO 22:1797–1806, 2004) are widely used to provide individual patient outcome predictions to aid decisions regarding adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. The comparability of these tools has not been studied yet. The aim of this project was to assess whether the Numeracy and Adjuvant! Colon cancer prognostic tools produced similar results for patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer based on a set of hypothetical patients. Methods: All possible hypothetical scenarios were formulated for the Numeracy calculator based on all potential combinations of age, lymph nodes status, tumor stage, and grade of tumor. These were applied to three post- surgical therapy choices: observation, 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), or FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin). Predictions for these hypothetical scenarios (N= 192 for males and 192 for females) were also entered into the Adjuvant! Program. Predicted relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using both calculators. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the numerical predictions between the calculators for each outcome. Results: In the majority of the 384 hypothetical patient scenarios, predictions for RFS and OS from Adjuvant! were statistically significantly higher than from Numeracy (p value < 0.05), except for age≥70 for FOLFOX, and the number of positive nodes of 0 and 1–4 using FOLFOX, among males. The net estimate of benefit for RFS and OS for 5-FU over surgery, obtained from Adjuvant! and Numeracy, were similar (for both males and females), but the benefit in RFS and OS for FOLFOX over 5-FU obtained from Adjuvant! was significantly lower than the estimate obtained from Numeracy (p value < 0.05). Conclusions: Based on a hypothetical set of patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer, the estimated benefit in RFS and OS of FOLFOX over 5-FU based chemotherapy is lower in Adjuvant! than in the Numeracy tool (but benefit for 5-FU over surgery alone is similar). Further studies are needed to clarify the discrepancy and to assess which of these tools most accurately reflects actual patient outcome. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

TPS3634 Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) regulate angiogenesis and are overexpressed in CRC. RAM is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that inhibits binding of VEGF ligands to VEGFR-2 and inhibits VEGFR-2 activation and signaling. In a preclinical study, antiangiogenic and antitumor effects were observed when DC101, an antibody that targets murine VEGFR-2, was administered to mice bearing human colon cancer xenografts. Antitumor activity for RAM has been demonstrated in a Ph I study in pts with solid tumors over a wide range of RAM dose levels and in a Ph II study with RAM + mFOLFOX-6 as 1st-line therapy in pts with mCRC. Methods: This ongoing, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Ph III study includes mCRC pts with measurable or nonmeasurable disease and ECOG performance status of 0-1 who have experienced disease progression during or within 6 months following 1st-line therapy with BEV, OXALI, and any FP. Randomization is stratified by geographic region, KRAS status, and time to progression after initiation of 1st-line therapy. Pts are randomized 1:1 to either RAM 8 mg/kg or PL every 14 days. Pts in both arms receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan: 180 mg/m2, folinic acid: 400 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil: 400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46-48 hours). The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). The sample-size estimate assumes 85% power to detect at least a 2.5-month median OS difference (HR = 0.8) between treatment arms with a 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, tumor response, safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and correlations between biomarkers and clinical outcome. CRC tissue and blood collection is mandatory for biomarker analyses. As of 05 January 2012, 238 of 1050 planned pts have been enrolled from 100 sites in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

3636 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial, the multikinase inhibitor REG demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival vs placebo (Pla) in patients (pts) with mCRC whose disease progressed on other standard therapies. The most frequent REG-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) of interest were hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash/desquamation. We explored whether the impact of REG in pts aged ≥65 years differed from that in younger patients. Methods: Pts with mCRC progressing following all other available therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive REG 160 mg once daily (n=505) or Pla (n=255) for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The dose could be modified to manage AEs. The primary endpoint was OS. We report efficacy, safety, and dosing data from REG recipients by age. Results: The REG treatment group included 309 pts <65 years (307 evaluable for safety) and 196 pts ≥65 years (193 evaluable for safety). The OS hazard ratio (REG/Pla) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.91) in pts <65 years and 0.86 (95% CI 0.61–1.19) in pts ≥65 years (interaction p-value = 0.405). Median OS was 6.7 vs 5 months for REG vs Pla in pts <65 years, and 6.0 vs 5.6 months, respectively, in pts ≥65 years. Most pts experienced drug-related AEs (<65 years: 93.8%; ≥65 years: 91.7%). The rates of grade ≥3 REG-related AEs of interest and dose modifications are shown in the Table. In pts <65 years vs ≥65 years, median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of REG was 7.6 weeks (6.6–15.4) vs 7.1 weeks (5.1–17.2), median (IQR) daily REG dose was 160.0 mg (134.6–160.0) vs 160.0 mg (137.5–160.0), and median (IQR) proportion of planned REG dose was 83.3% (65.7–100.0) vs 78.6% (66.7–100.0), respectively. Conclusions: In the CORRECT trial, REG demonstrated an OS benefit in pts <65 years and ≥65 years. Safety and tolerability of REG appeared to be similar in both age subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]

3537 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) when added to standard chemotherapy (CT) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). BRiTE is a large, community-based observational registry of patients with mCRC receiving BV plus first-line CT. Safety and efficacy information in unselected patients with mCRC are collected. Chemotherapy regimen choice is at the physician’s discretion. Methods: 1968 patients receiving BV plus first-line CT were enrolled at 248 sites in 49 states between Feb 2004 and Jun 2005. Patients are followed for up to 3 years, with data reporting every 3 months (mo) including disease status as assessed by investigator using his/her method of choice. Patients were grouped twice by CT. Cox regression models, adjusted and unadjusted for treatment assignment, were used to identify baseline characteristics (BC) and differential chemotherapy effects on PFS. Results: Cohort demographics were consistent with the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for mCRC. Median study follow-up was 10 months by Nov 4, 2005. CT regimens included FOLFOX (55.8%), FOLFIRI (14.1%), and IFL (9.7%). Based on observed progression events (n=800) or deaths (n=123), projected median PFS is 11.3 mo (95% CI: 10.4–11.7). Median PFS was comparable in patients treated with CT regimen based on irinotecan (11.3 mo), oxaliplatin (11.4 mo), or neither (10.2 mo) (CT Grouping 1); or 5FU infusion (11.5 mo), 5-FU bolus (9.7 mo), or capecitabine (11.6 mo) (CT Grouping 2). Significant BC in adjusted and unadjusted models are ECOG performance status (PS), primary disease site, and albumin, with no significant difference among CT regimens. Conclusions: This large, community-based registry included a patient population with demographics consistent with the SEER database for mCRC. Preliminary median PFS of 11.3 mo compares favorably to that reported in the pivotal trial. Median PFS appears to be comparable for all CTs when combined with BV. Higher baseline albumin, PS of 0, and primary disease site of rectum were associated with improved outcome. [Table: see text]

4080 Background: Waterfall plots have been used to capture the anti-tumor efficacy of both biologic agents (Ratain JCO 2006), which mainly exhibit a cytostatic effect, but also of chemotherapeutic agents. We are not aware of an application to therapeutic studies in CRC. We conducted waterfall plot analyses on the data of N9741 which compared IFL, FOLFOX4, and IROX as first-line therapy in ACRC (Goldberg JCO 2004). Methods: 634 (IFL 215, FOLFOX 215, IROX 204) of the 795 pts presented in the published analysis had measurable disease, and are included. The percentage change in tumor measurements from baseline to 12 wks was calculated, allowing for a time window of assessment from 6 to 20 wks for those without a 12 wk measurement. Pts with progression before the 12 wk assessment were assigned a 100% increase. The average reduction in tumor burden (ARTB) was calculated as difference in waterfall AUC divided by the number of pts. ARTB captures the average percentage reduction in tumor measurements at 12 wks for a patient entering the trial. Results: Waterfall plot analysis demonstrated some tumor growth at 12 wks in 23.7% (IFL), 15.8% (FOLFOX), and 26.9% (IROX) of pts. In contrast, tumor shrinkage was observed in 67.9% (IFL), 71.6% (FOLFOX), and 61.4% (IROX) of pts. Total differential AUC was -34.4 (IFL), -61.6 (FOLFOX), and -30.4 (IROX) resulting in an ARTB of 16.0% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) (23.7%, 8.2%)) for IFL, 28.7% (35.1%, 22.2%) for FOLFOX, and 14.9% (22.5%, 7.3%) for IROX. Conclusions: Waterfall plot analyses are feasible in this and likely other CRC trials using conventional chemotherapy. Our analysis confirms the published results of N9741, but suggests a larger degree of benefit for individuals based on anti-tumor activity than captured by conventional response analysis. Waterfall plots provide a potentially useful new efficacy metric, the average reduction of tumor burden per pt, which should be validated in future trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4020 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) presents a substantial patient education challenge to medical oncologists (MOs). Findings from our 2005 pilot survey suggest that a significant fraction of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are willing to undergo AC for modest treatment benefits, but their understanding of risks and benefits may be suboptimal. This project attempted to validate these findings by surveying patients with CRC (Pts) who previously received AC. Methods: 150 Pts who received AC for CRC in the last 5 years were recruited to listen to an audio program on AC featuring interviews with clinical investigators (CIs) and Pts who received AC. Based on this input, Pts were asked whether they would undergo the same AC again for varying absolute treatment benefits. A corresponding survey asked 24 CRC CIs and 150 MOs to predict how patients would respond. The survey also queried Pts about their expectations of and experiences with AC side effects. Results: About 1/3 of Pts would be treated again with AC for a 1% absolute reduction in recurrence risk (ARRR), and about 2/3 believed a 5% ARRR would justify treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between responses of males and females or between Pts receiving oxaliplatin (OX) and those receiving other regimens. ( Table 1 ) The corresponding estimates of CIs and MOs were lower. Additionally, AC side effects were different than expected: 57% and 66% of Pts experienced less GI toxicity and alopecia, respectively, while 38% and 46% of Pts receiving OX experienced greater cold intolerance and numbness. Conclusions: Many potential obstacles exist in communicating with Pts about AC including heterogeneity in Pts’ attitudes towards risk/benefit trade-offs and preconceptions about treatment side effects. The next step in this initiative will be to examine these issues prospectively by evaluating the impact of an audio/web education supplement on the decision-making process. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.