Citations

Purpose In the phase III study AVF2107g, bevacizumab (BV) demonstrated a survival benefit when added to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In a parallel phase III study, Intergroup N9741, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) also demonstrated a survival benefit compared with IFL. As these two superior therapies have differing mechanisms of action, we explored whether the improved survival associated with the superior therapy was dependent on tumor response. Patients and Methods For these retrospective, exploratory analyses, patients were defined as responders or nonresponders by whether complete or partial response was achieved with first-line therapy. Results Compared with IFL alone, BV plus IFL and FOLFOX each demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) regardless of objective tumor response. BV-treated nonresponders had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (P = .0001) for PFS and 0.76 (P = .0188) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. FOLFOX-treated nonresponders had an HR of 0.75 (P = .0029) for PFS and 0.74 (P = .0030) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. Conclusion In both AVF2107g and N9741, objective response did not predict the magnitude of PFS or OS benefit from the superior therapy; nonresponders, despite a poorer prognosis than responders, achieved extended PFS and OS from BV plus IFL or FOLFOX compared with IFL. On the basis of these data, tumor response in metastatic colorectal cancer is not a necessary factor for a therapy to provide benefit to an individual patient.

Abstract The 2007 Santa Monica Conference on Assessing and Treating Early-Stage Colon and Rectal Cancer, a multidisciplinary meeting of leaders in surgery, medical and radiation oncology, and pathology, was convened on January 12 to 13, 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to assess current data and issues in the field and to develop recommendations for advancing patient care and clinical research. Topics included pathologic assessment and staging, transanal versus laparoscopic versus open resection, adjuvant therapy, genetic testing and counseling, cooperative group strategies, and the use of biological therapies and novel agents. A review of the key issues discussed, as well as conclusions and recommendations considered significant to the field, is summarized below and presented at greater length in the individual manuscripts and accompanying discussion that comprise the full conference proceedings. Although the management of early-stage colon and rectal cancers remains a challenge for all of us, the development and use of new technologies and methods of assessment and treatment over the past several decades is yielding encouraging results. A variety of opportunities to further improve outcomes were addressed in this forum, including recommendations that specific protocols be adopted regarding surgical and pathologic dissection and reporting, particularly for stage II disease; the corollary need to increase active multidisciplinary collaboration; and the development of comprehensive consensus guidelines and recommendations to standardize care in early-stage colorectal cancer.

Abstract For nearly two decades, adjuvant chemotherapy has been the standard of care in patients with early-stage colon cancer at high risk of recurrence. Until now, treatment has been based on the use of cytotoxic drugs that have well-demonstrated efficacy in advanced colorectal cancer. Most recently, targeted biological agents [i.e., antibodies against the epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor] have become essential components of the palliative medical treatment of colorectal cancer. Proof of efficacy of these agents in advanced disease has led to the initiation of several trials testing epidermal growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies in the adjuvant setting. Although definitive results of ongoing adjuvant studies will not be available for 2 to 3 years, some oncologists might already inappropriately consider the use of these targeted agents as a component of adjuvant therapy in selected patients. Whether the results obtained in advanced colorectal cancer can be readily translated into a projected efficacy in early-stage colon cancer, however, is unclear. In addition, the long-term safety of biological agents in potentially surgically cured patients has not yet been established. This review discusses the potential caveats and concerns associated with the uncritical use of targeted agents as adjuvant therapy before their safety and efficacy in this setting has been indisputably established in definitive phase III trials.

Purpose The traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS). We previously validated disease-free survival (DFS) after 3-year follow-up as an excellent predictor of 5-year OS results. Here we explore shorter term DFS and OS end points, as well as stage dependency. Methods Individual patient data from 18 phase III trials including 43 arms and 20,898 patients were pooled. Association measures included correlation of event rates within arms, correlation of hazard ratios (HRs) between arms, trial level significance comparisons (via log-rank testing), and a formal surrogacy model. Results DFS at earlier times was less accurate in predicting OS than 3-year DFS, but 2-year DFS remained a strong predictor. DFS with 1-year minimum follow-up demonstrated perfect negative predicted value; all trials negative at 1 year for DFS were negative for 5-year OS. OS with 3-year minimum follow-up was also an excellent predictor for 5-year OS; OS at earlier time points provided inaccurate prediction. The association between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was greater for stage III patients; correlation of HR within trials was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.95) for stage III patients and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80) for stage II patients. Conclusion DFS outcomes after 2- or 3-year median follow-up are excellent predictors of 5-year OS. DFS outcomes are appropriate for trials in which the majority of patients are stage III. DFS after 2- or 3-year median follow-up should be considered as the primary end point in future colon adjuvant trials.

Purpose To compare the use of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) with infusional fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FUFOX) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 474 patients with MCRC received either CAPOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid, days 1 to 14 plus oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, repeated every 22 days) ) or FUFOX (oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 followed by leucovorin 500 mg/m2 plus FU 2,000 mg/m2 as a 22-hour infusion days 1, 8, 15, and 22, repeated every 36 days). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and toxicity. The study was designed to determine noninferiority for the CAPOX regimen. Results Median PFS was 7.1 months in the CAPOX arm and 8.0 months in the FUFOX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.43; P = .117). Median OS was 16.8 months (CAPOX) and 18.8 months (FUFOX; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = .26). Overall RRs were 48% for CAPOX (95% CI, 41% to 54%) and 54% for FUFOX (95% CI, 47% to 60%). Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although there was a significantly higher incidence of grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in the CAPOX arm (P = .028). Conclusion CAPOX resulted in a slightly inferior efficacy than FUFOX. With respect to PFS, the best estimate of the HR of 1.17 was within the prespecified equivalence range. However, a relevant inferiority cannot be excluded. Both regimens were generally well tolerated but there was a significantly higher rate of grade 2/3 HFS in the CAPOX arm.