Saltz, Leonard B.

Abstract Background Disease-free survival (DFS) with a 3-year median follow-up (3-year DFS) was validated as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) with a 5-year median follow-up (5-year OS) in adjuvant chemotherapy colon cancer (CC) trials. Recent data show further improvements in OS and survival after recurrence in patients who received adjuvant FOLFOX. Hence, reevaluation of the association between DFS and OS and determination of the optimal follow-up duration of OS to aid its utility in future adjuvant trials are needed. Methods Individual patient data from 9 randomized studies conducted between 1998 and 2009 were included; 3 trials tested biologics. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates of 3-year DFS with 5 to 6.5-year OS was evaluated using both linear regression (RWLS2) and Copula bivariate (RCopula2) models and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For R2, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. Results Data from a total of 18 396 patients were analyzed (median age = 59 years; 54.0% male), with 54.1% having low-risk tumors (T1-3 and N1), 31.6% KRAS mutated, 12.3% BRAF mutated, and 12.4% microsatellite instability high or deficient mismatch repair tumors. Trial-level correlation between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS remained strong (RWLS2 = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.98; RCopula2 = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.00) and increased as the median follow-up of OS extended. Analyses limited to trials that tested biologics showed consistent results. Conclusions Three-year DFS remains a validated surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in adjuvant CC trials. The correlation was likely strengthened with 6 years of follow-up for OS.

Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland ( p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3–4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

Abstract Background Colon cancer (CC) incidence in young adults (age 20-49 years), termed early-onset CC (EO-CC), is increasing. Methods Individual patient data on 35 713 subjects with stage III colon cancer from 25 randomized studies in the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoint database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarker status, and outcome data were summarized by age group. Overall survival, disease-free survival, time to recurrence, and survival after recurrence were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for sex, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness, and molecular markers. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III EO-CC had similar sex, race, performance status, risk group, tumor sidedness, and T stage compared with patients with late-onset CC (age 50 years and older). EO-CC patients were less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) and more commonly had 12 or more lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). EO-CC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%) and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher rate of Lynch syndrome in EO-CC. Patients with EO-CC had statistically significantly better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.89; P &lt; .001), disease-free survival (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = .01), and survival after recurrence (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.97; P = .008) in the analysis without molecular markers; however, age at onset of CC lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. Conclusion Tumor biology was found to be a more important prognostic factor than age of onset among stage III colon cancer patients in the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoint database.

3597 Background: Colon cancer (CC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years) is increasing. There are limited data suggesting that, as a group, patients with early onset CRC (eoCC) may have different phenotypic characteristics compared to those with late onset CRC (loCC, age ≥ 50 years). Methods: Individual patient data on 35,713 subjects with stage III CC from 25 randomized studies (recruiting between 1987 and 2009) in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized by age group. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence free rate (RFR), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for gender, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness and molecular markers. Results: Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III eoCC (n = 6246) had similar distributions according to gender, race, PS, risk group, tumor sidedness and T/N stage compared to those with loCC (n = 29467). Patients with eoCC were significantly less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) but more commonly had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). The eoCC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%), and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher frequency of Lynch syndrome in eoCC. In univariate analysis, patients with stage III eoCC had significantly better OS, DFS, and SAR; the difference between 3-year DFS and RFR strongly suggests the OS/DFS difference between these the eoCC and loCC may be due to increased competing risks and comorbidities in patients with loCC. In multivariate analysis, age at onset lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. The clear relation between age of onset and KRAS/BRAF status was confirmed in the interaction analysis. Conclusions: Tumor biology was an important determinant of prognosis regardless of patient age. In multivariate analysis age of onset was not a statistically significant determinant of outcome.[Table: see text]

Abstract Background Disparities in colon cancer outcomes have been reported across race and socioeconomic status, which may reflect, in part, access to care. We sought to assess the influences of race and median household income (MHI) on outcomes among colon cancer patients with similar access to care. Methods We conducted a prospective, observational study of 1206 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in the CALGB 89803 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial. Race was self-reported by 1116 White and 90 Black patients at study enrollment; MHI was determined by matching 973 patients’ home zip codes with publicly available US Census 2000 data. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for baseline sociodemographic, clinical, dietary, and lifestyle factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Over a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the adjusted hazard ratios for Blacks (compared with Whites) were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.35, P = .75) for disease-free survival, 0.91 (95% CI = 0.62 to 1.35, P = .65) for recurrence-free survival, and 1.07 (95% CI = 0.73 to 1.57, P = .73) for overall survival. Relative to patients in the highest MHI quartile, the adjusted hazard ratios for patients in the lowest quartile were 0.90 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.19, Ptrend = .18) for disease-free survival, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.66 to 1.22, Ptrend = .14) for recurrence-free survival, and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.19, Ptrend = .23) for overall survival. Conclusions In this study of patients with similar health-care access, no statistically significant differences in outcomes were found by race or MHI. The substantial gaps in outcomes previously observed by race and MHI may not be rooted in differences in tumor biology but rather in access to quality care.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Background Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the “Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade” method. Methods We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as “early” (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or “late” (i.e. after the 6 th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies (“Irinotecan” and “Oxaliplatin”) from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database ( fondationarcad.org ). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. Results Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3–4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. Conclusion We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.

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]

4011 Background: The ACCENT group previously validated DFS with 3 years (yr) median follow-up (f-up) based on 20,898 pts from trials testing 5-FU based regimens (rx) (3yr DFS) as an endpoint to predict overall survival with 5 yr median f-up (5yr OS) (Sargent, JCO 2005). ACCENT further proposed (1) 2yr DFS predicts 5yr OS, (2) a stronger relationship between DFS and OS in stage III pts (Sargent JCO 2007) and (3) 6 or 7 yrs are necessary to demonstrate DFS and OS association in future trials due to extended survival following recurrence (de Gramont ASCO 2008). The relationship between endpoints in more recent trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan is unknown. Methods: Concordance between 2 and 3yr DFS, and 5 and 6yr OS was examined in 6 randomized phase III trials from 1997–2002. Individual data for 12,676 pts was analyzed; 2 trials tested oxaliplatin, 2 irinotecan, and 2 oral rx vs 5-FU/LV control. Association between DFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) via weighted least squares (WLS), and concordance between predicted and actual within-trial HRs, were calculated overall and for stage III pts. Results: Overall association between 3 yr DFS and 5 yr OS HRs was reduced compared to the prior ACCENT analysis (Table). In stage III pts, the association between DFS and OS HRs remained strong. Observed 5 and 6yr OS HRs were predicted accurately by 2yr DFS overall and in stage III pts (within 95% prediction limits in all trials). In all pts, DFS HRs were more highly associated with 6 vs 5yr OS HRs. Conclusions: In recent trials in stage III pts, DFS HRs based on 2yr median f-up are highly predictive of 5 and 6yr OS HRs. In all pts the association between DFS and OS HRs is stronger for 6yr OS, but 7yr follow-up may be required. These data support 3yr DFS as a primary endpoint for modern stage III trials, and indicate that 2yr DFS would also be an appropriate primary endpoint. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

4010 Background: Prior studies suggested that older and younger pts with colon cancer receive similar benefit from IV fluoropyrimidine (FU) adjuvant (adj) therapy (rx). Combination and/or oral FU rx are increasingly given as adj rx. We sought to determine the impact of pts age <70 v ≥70 yrs on colon cancer recurrence and mortality from adj rx with these newer options. Methods: We used data from 10,499 pts <70 yrs and 2,170 pts ≥70 yrs in 6 phase III adj rx trials comparing IV FU to combinations with irinotecan, oxaliplatin or oral FU (capecitabine and UFT/LV) in stage II/III colon cancer from the ACCENT database. Endpoints were overall survival (OS; time to death), disease-free survival (DFS; time to recurrence or death), and time to recurrence (TTR; censoring at last follow-up). Cox models were stratified by age and adjusted for gender and stage; interaction testing was used to explore the differential benefit by age. Results: Approximately 75% of pts had stage III disease (74% age<70, 77% age≥70). OS, DFS, and TTR were statistically significantly improved for those in the experimental v control arms among pts <70 but not those >70 ( table ); the interaction between age and rx was statistically significant for all endpoints (p=0.01 for OS, DFS, and TTR). These results were consistent whether experimental rx was oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based or oral FU. Deaths in first 6 month of adj rx were not statistically significantly different between experimental and control arm. Conclusions: Our results show conclusively that pts >70 do not receive the same benefit from combination and/or oral FU as those <70. Any benefit, if present, compared to IV FU/LV would not be clinically meaningful. Outcomes of experimental (combination or oral FU) vs control (IV 5-FU) by treatment and age [Table: see text] [Table: see text]