Citations

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

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 Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.

3610 Background: Chronic lower grade adverse events (AE) can negatively affect a patient’s quality of life but it is difficult to capture using a traditional toxicity reporting approach. A novel AE reporting method was recently developed to describe, summarize, and present longitudinal AE profiles(Lopes et al, 2021). We leveraged this method to describe and compare the AE profiles of doublet chemotherapy (DC) + Cetuximab and DC alone in mCRC patients. Methods: This AE reporting method utilizes two additional AE metrics to complement the maximum (max) toxicity grade usually reported in clinical trials. Onset time indicates the time period in which max grade for an AE occurred for the first time, defined here as “early” (i.e. within first 42 days) and “late” (i.e. after the 42nd day). AE Load (AEL) indicates the overall severity of an AE in the entire treatment. AEL varies from 0 to 1. Higher AEL indicates a worse overall severity of that AE over time. AEL is the key metric for describing chronic AE. We included patients receiving DC + cetuximab (n = 738) and DC alone (n = 564 [ref group]) from two randomized first-line trials in the ARCAD database. Diarrhea, rash, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis were examined and adjusted for backbone (FOLFOX vs. FOLFIRI), ECOG PS, sex, site location, dose reduction, and treatment length. Results: For rash, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (21% vs. 0.5%; odds ratio {OR} [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 50 [16,157], p < 0.001), increased overall severity over the entire treatment (AEL = 0.257 vs. 0.069; Adjusted difference in means–Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.21,0.23], p < 0.001), and increased risk of early onset (67% vs. 33%; OR [95% CI] = 4.3 [2.7,6.7], p < 0.001). DC + cetuximab also had higher AEL for rash across max grades (p < 0.001 within G1, G2, and G3+). For HFS, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (OR [95% CI] = 6.0 [2.5,14], p < 0.001), increased overall severity (AEL = 0.139 vs. 0.087; Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.03 [0.03,0.04], p < 0.001), and slightly earlier onset (12.4 vs. 13.9 weeks; Mdiff, weeks [95% CI] = -4.9 [-0.80,-9.0], p = 0.021). Within each max grade, DC + cetuximab did not have higher AEL of HFS. No associations were found for diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, or mucositis. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab is associated with higher grade, more persistent, and more immediate rash. The higher severity in HFS with the addition of cetuximab appears to be related to higher grade but not chronic HFS. This method may be useful to describe different strategies, e.g. intermittent cetuximab. It provided a comprehensive view of acute and chronic toxicity profiles supporting its potential interest as new metrics in clinical trials. Lopes GS, Tournigand C, Olswold CL, et al. Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2021;18(1):51-60

3575 Background: Pts with mCRC frequently receive ≥1 sequential treatment TL. Approximately 50%-60% of pts receive second-line (L2) and 20%-30% third-line (L3) regimens in routine practice. We investigated the pts clinical/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across TL. Methods: Data from 37,560 pts enrolled in 48 randomized trials (34 in first (L1), 9 in L2, and 5 in L3) were analyzed. Candidate variables (VAR) measured at enrollment were sex, age, body mass index, performance status (PS), bilirubin, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (Pl), derived white blood cells-to-absolute neutrophil counts ratio (WBC/ANC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), primary tumor location, and number and location of metastatic sites (MS). Missing data were imputed. VAR with significant value at all TL were selected to construct a prognostic score of overall survival (OS) in training set (TS, n=30,050; 80%). For each TL, the score was calculated as the sum on the estimations of the VAR’ coefficients from the common multivariate model; Cox’s model was used to define risk groups. The discrimination capability was assessed using the Harrell’s C-index. External validation was done in the validation set (VS, n=7,510; 20%). Results: A total of 26,974 pts in L1, 7,693 pts in L2 and 2,893 pts in L3 were analyzed. The following characteristics increased continuously over TL: ≥2 MS (57%, 72%, 82%), lung metastases (50%, 74%, 91%), lymph nodes metastases (51%, 61%, 80%), KRAS mutation (37%, 47%, 51%) and elevated ALP (46%, 52%, 61%). BRAF mutation decreased (9%, 7%, 5%). In L1 vs L3 trials, 70% vs 89% of patients had primary tumor resection, 10% vs 80% had at least one metastasectomy and 31% vs 78% had a late metachronous (>12 months) metastasis. 7 independent VAR were retained in the prognostic score (PS, Hb, Pl, WBC/ANC, LDH, ALP, and the number of MS); four pt groups with significantly different prognoses were defined (table). This score remained valid when excluding pts with PS 2. Third-line oral drugs (vs placebo) and subsequent line (L2/L1 or L3/L2) were effective in all prognostic groups. Conclusions: Clinical/tumor pt characteristics significantly varied over subsequent TL in patients included in randomized trials. The same prognostic model using practical clinical and biological variables can be used in all TL.[Table: see text]

3517 Background: Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, age < 50) is steadily increasing. Decisions on adjuvant treatment (adjTx) regimen and duration should consider tx adherence, toxicity (tox) and expected outcomes in a population with life-expectancy longer than late onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual patient data from stage II/III patients (pts) from 6 randomised trials in the IDEA database were used to compare characteristics, tx adherence, and adverse events of eoCRC to loCRC. To reduce the confounder of non-cancer-related deaths due to age/co-morbidities, time-to-recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared by stratified Gay k-sample test. 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate were estimated by adjusted cumulative incidence function. 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were compared by stratified and adjusted COX models. Results: Out of 16,349 pts included, 1564 (9.6%) were eoCRC. Compared to loCRC, eoCRC had lower percent of male pts (51% vs 57%, p < 0.01) better performance status (PS0 86% vs 80%, p < 0.01), similar T stage distribution (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 vs 77/23, p = 0.97), higher rate of N2 disease (24% vs 22%, p < 0.01), more likely to complete pre-planned duration of adjTx (83.2% vs 78.2%, p < 0.01) and received a higher tx intensity especially with 6 month tx (mean oxaliplatin dose intensity 75% vs 72%, p < 0.01; capecitabine 85% vs 78%, p < 0.01; 5FU 85% vs 82% p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tox was more common in eoCRC (any grade nausea 58% vs 45%, p < 0.01; any grade vomiting 22% vs 16%, p < 0.01); haematological tox was more frequent in loCRC (62% vs, 69%, p = < 0.01); any grade neuropathy rate was similar (75%). Significant interaction was found between age and T stage for TTR (p = 0.04). Clinical outcome estimates and comparisons are shown in Table. Notably, high risk stage III (T4/N2) eoCRC had significantly lower 3-y RFS rate (54% vs 64%, HRadj 0.74, p < 0.01). Conclusions: eoCRC have better tx adherence than loCRC, as expected. While in high risk stage II and low risk stage III, cancer-specific outcomes are not different, in high risk stage III young age is negatively prognostic and associated with significantly higher relapse rate and risk of CRC death; this is despite a higher administered adjTx-intensity, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. Clinical trial information: NCT00749450 (SCOT); NCT00646607 (TOSCA); NCT01150045 (CALGB/SWOG 80702); NCT00958737 (IDEA France) [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the impact of PTS on outcomes of mCRC patients. Methods PTS data of 9277 mCRC patients from 12 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status, prior radiation/chemotherapy, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (cetuximab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone). All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Compared with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 2421, 26.1%), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 6856, 73.9%) had better OS (median = 21.6 vs 15.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 0.76; P &lt; .001) and PFS (median = 8.6 vs 7.5 months; HRadj = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84; P &lt; .001). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was statistically significant (Pinteraction &lt; .001); left-sidedness was associated with better prognosis among KRAS wild-type (WT) (OS HRadj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.66; PFS HRadj =0.68, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.75) but not among KRAS mutated tumors. Among KRAS-WT tumors, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was confirmed for left-sidedness (OS HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97; P = .01; PFS HRadj = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88; P &lt; .001) but not for right-sidedness. Conclusions The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS-WT population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a statistically significant improvement of survival for left-sidedness mCRC patients. These results suggest treatment choice in mCRC should be based on both PTS and KRAS status.

Abstract Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.