Citations

9543 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death in the United States in all racial groups. However, the overall death rate from lung cancer is different among white, black and Asian. Although differences in socioeconomic status and treatments received might be the contributing factors, the biology, particularly genomic alteration of cancer might also have an important impact. To date, the differences of genomic alterations among all racial patients are poorly understood. Methods: The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange (GENIE, version 7.0) database was analyzed. A total of 8908 patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) were identified. Among them, 5652 patients who had comprehensive sequencing results (gene panel ≥ 275) were selected for further analysis. Patients with unknown race, undefined and Pacific Island (only 3 patients) were excluded. Finally, 5360 patients were included in the study. The prevalence and distribution of genomic alteration cross all racial groups were analyzed. Results: Overall 5951 samples from 5360 patients were collected (85.7% white, 7.9% Asian, 4.7% black, 0.2% Native American and 1.4% other). Most patients have only one sample. The median mutation counts in white, black, Asian, Native American and others are 7, 6, 5, 5, 7 respectively (Kruskal–Wallis test, P< 0.001). Asian have significantly higher rates of insertion and deletions than other races (14.8% of Asian versus 9.8% of white, 10.7% of black, 10.4% of Native American, 11.1% of other; Pearson’s chi-square test, < 0.001). TP53, EGFR, KRAS and STK11 are the most frequent alterations in white, black and other. EGFR, TP53, KRAS and APC are the most frequent alterations in Asian. STK11 mutations are rare in both Asian and Native American. Native Americans have more alterations of LRP1B, ARID2 and ATM, although the patients’ number remains small. ATM and KEAP1 mutations are also common in white and black. EGFR is the highest discrepancy gene in racial distribution. 78.9% Asian, 47.7% black, 36.4% of native American had EGFR alteration in comparison to 29.6% in white (Fisher's exact test, P < 0.001). KRAS is the second highest discrepancy gene in racial distribution. 11.6% Asian, 26.3% black, 27.3% of Native American had KRAS alteration in comparison to 36.1% in white (Fisher's exact test, P< 0.001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated the potential diversity of genomic alterations across all racial groups with potential impact on therapeutic decisions.

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]

e16076 Background: Median overall survival (mOS) of patients (pt) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved steadily over the past two decades. However, epidemiological data suggest that cancer outcomes for rural compared to urban dwelling pts are worse. In this study, we retrospectively compared progression free survival (PFS) and OS among mCRC pts residing in urban versus rural areas enrolled in N9741 (1997-2004) and CALGB 80405 (2005-2012) clinical trials. Methods: Zip code data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were used to classify pts into rural or urban dwellers. Chi-square and Kruskal Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, compared by stratified log rank and cox proportional hazards models. Results: In N9741 and 80405 respectively, 217 (35%) and 521 (21%) pts resided in rural areas. Median age of mCRC pts at diagnosis was 60.5 yrs. (rural) compared to 58.6 yrs. (urban) in 80405 (P < 0.01) and 59.6 yrs. to 60.2 yrs. in N9741 (P = 0.4). In 80405, pts in rural areas were less likely to be female (35% vs 43%, P < 0.01) black (6.6% vs 15.1%, P < 0.01), unmarried (51% vs 62%, P < 0.01), and to have private insurance (PI) (45% vs 50%, P = 0.03) when compared to pts in urban areas. In N9741, gender (P = 0.8) and PI (P = 0.3) distribution was similar; pts in rural areas were less likely to be black (1.4% vs 9.1%, P < 0.01). Rural vs urban pt PFS was no different in either trial. MOS was worse in pts in rural areas when compared to urban dwellers in 80405 (Table). OS outcomes stratified based on the use of cetuximab based regimen in 80405 showed worse outcomes for pts in rural compared to urban dwellers (21.9 vs 26.3 mo. HR: 1.22 (1.03-1.44), P = 0.02). Conclusions: MCRC pts from rural areas had a significantly worse mOS when compared to pts in urban areas in 80405. Furthermore, mOS with cetuximab based regimens was 4.4 months shorter in rural pts. The observed rural vs urban dweller mOS disparities in 80405 pts justifies additional research searching for causal factors and the necessity to identify actionable approaches in order to improve pt outcomes in rural areas. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA180830; Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Genentech, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003594, NCT00265850. [Table: see text]

4099 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality has decreased since the 1970s but the incidence is increasing in young adults (age 20-49). The incidence of early onset CRC (eoCRC) will keep increasing significantly based on the trends of the SEER CRC registry data. There is limited data suggesting eoCRC may have different behaviors compared to traditional CRC (tCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual pt data of 47184 stage II/III CRC pts from 25 randomized studies in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarker status, and treatment-related 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 stage, performance status (PS), BMI and grade. Results: Using 5% difference between age groups as clinically meaningful cutoff, eoCRC had similar gender, race, ethnicity, PS, risk group, disease sidedness and T stage as tCRC. eoCRC were less likely overweight (30 vs 36%) and more pts had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (63 vs 51%). eoCRC had more frequent dMMR status (18 vs 12%), less BRAF mutations (5 vs 13%), and more dMMR/BRAF wild type (WT) status (17 vs 7%). Overall, eoCRC had better OS, DFS, and SAR, with the most significant differences between the < 30 and > = 70 age groups. Similar results were observed within pMMR pts. eoCRC experienced less hematological side effects, diarrhea, and stomatitis, but had more nausea and/or vomiting. Conclusions: eoCRC have unique characteristics; although statistically significant, the clinical differences in outcomes between eoCRC and tCRC are potentially due to the difference seen in extremely young and old pts. eoCRC have a different adverse events panel compared to tCRC. [Table: see text]

4090 Background: EGFR mAbs have become incorporated into clinical practice for the management of mCRC over the last decade. KRAS and NRAS mutations are used as predictive biomarkers and BRAF V600E mutations are associated with an adverse prognosis. The observed TE within biomarker subpopulations has varied between studies. Methods: IPD from randomized trials with head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or BSC) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy (first, second and later), were pooled. Biomarker subpopulations are defined in the table. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups by Cox model, stratified by studies and adjusted by age, gender, and performance status. TEs were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Within each biomarker subgroup, EGFR mAb efficacy was explored according to multiple exploratory factors, including line of therapy, type of backbone chemo, gender, sidedness and site of metastasis. Interaction tests were performed. P-values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: 5729 pts from 8 studies with data available for ≥ 1 biomarker were analysed. PFS benefits (median 9.2 mos in EGFR mAbs, 8.0 mos in no EGFR mAbs) were confirmed in triple-WT pts, but not for OS (refer to table). No OS/PFS benefits were observed for pts with any of the MT tumors. Exploratory analyses showed a potential detrimental TE of EGFR mAbs in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastasis (OS: HRadj 1.22, p = .003, pinteraction .0056; PFS: HRadj 1.24, p = .0009, pinteraction .0008). These results were confirmed within the subgroup of pts with all 3 biomarkers available. Conclusions: This is the largest IPD analysis to explore the predictive value of RAS/BRAF biomarkers in mCRC. Our findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of efficacy of EGFR mAbs in KRAS, BRAF and/or NRAS MT mCRC. EGFR mAbs might have a detrimental effect in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastases. [Table: see text]

4065 Background: Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and tumor budding (linked to epithelial mesenchymal transition) may influence metastatic potential and patient prognosis. We analyzed these features and their relative contribution to survival among low (T1-3 N1) and high (T4 and/or N2) risk groups, defined by the IDEA study, used to inform the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer. Methods: Among 1,532 patients (low risk n=804; high risk n=728) treated in a phase III adjuvant trial of FOLFOX + cetuximab (x 6 months), intraepithelial TIL densities and tumor budding were quantified at microscopy in routine histologic sections. Optimal cutpoints were determined in association with 5-yr disease-free survival (DFS). Relative contribution of variables to DFS was calculated using χ2 from Harrell’s rms R package based on multivariable Cox regression models. Results: In the overall cohort, the tumor budding/TILs combined variable was more robust for predition of DFS than either alone. Budding/TILs was significantly associated with DFS in both low (HRadj, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.48; p=.0273) and high (HRadj, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.72-4.63; p<.0001) risk patients. We then determined its relative contribution (%) to DFS (Table). Among low risk, budding/TILs ranked second (24.4%) behind KRAS status (45.5%) and ahead of treatment arm (7.2%) and mismatch repair (MMR) status (6.1%). Among high risk, budding/TILs contributed the most to DFS (45.4%) followed by primary tumor sidedness (13.0%), performance status (12.0%), and MMR (10.4%). Conclusions: Tumor budding/TILs provides robust prognostic stratification by risk group to improve anatomic tumor staging. The relative contribution of budding/TILs to DFS was second only to KRAS status in low risk patients, and was the most important predictor of DFS in high risk patients. Evaluation in patients treated with 3 vs 6 mos of adjuvant chemotherapy is warranted. [Table: see text]

4029 Background: The clearance of 5-FU differs significantly between men (M) and women (W). Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for CRC has a higher toxicity in W. The impact of sex on efficacy and toxicity in first-line trials of metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unknown. Methods: We analyzed patient (pt) and tumor characteristics, toxicities (nausea (AE1), vomiting (AE2), diarrhea, neutropenia (AE3)) and efficacy (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS)) according to sex in the following treatment groups: A: CT alone, B: CT + bevacizumab, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies, with subgroup analyses in the CT alone group for single-agent, doublets and triplets, as well as irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens. Pts from trials with treatments still used today and all relevant data available were eligible. OS and PFS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for primary tumor location and performance status (PS). Results: We included 28 trials with 18.399 pts (11.352 M and 7.047 W). W were younger (61 vs. 63 years), had more often a PS of 1 (49 vs 45%), BRAF mutations (10 vs. 7%), right-sided tumors (42 vs. 35%) and less often rectal tumors (26 vs. 32%). Significant differences in toxicity are reported in table. Rates of diarrhea were similar. There was no sex disparity in OS in the predefined subgroups except for pts receiving triplets where OS was better in M (HRadj=1.39 (1.05 - 1.85)). Median (interquartile range) OS in months for M and W was 16.7 (9.2-27.4) and 16.2 (8.9-27.2) in group 1, 21.9 (12.7-37.5) and 22.3 (12.9 – 39.0) in group 2, and 26.8 (14.6-45.3) and 24.8 (12.3-49.2) in group 3. HRsadj (W vs M) (95% CI), p values for OS were 1.02 (0.96-1.09), .557, 0.92 (0.83-1.03), .142, 0.99 (0.85-1.14), .866. Conclusions: M and W with mCRC differ significantly regarding patient and tumor characteristics. The significant higher toxicity in W does not translate in a higher treatment efficacy. Apart from known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of 5-FU, differences in pharmacodynamics must be postulated. [Table: see text]

4010 Background: Survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer varies widely according to T-N sub-stages. The ability to estimate the benefit of each therapeutic option (surgery alone, fluoropyrimidines alone, oxaliplatin-based doublet for either 3 or 6 months) in each T-N subgroup within stage III, may provide more accurate information helping doctors and patients in the complex shared decision-making process surrounding adjuvant therapy. Methods: Theoutcomedata of 12,834 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the IDEA trial served as our database. Patients were categorized in 16 sub-stages, based on the T-N categories. We created a meta-regression model to predict the expected 3-year DFS within each T-N sub-stage and hence the 5-year DFS rates were projected. We then evaluated the efficacy of each therapeutic option in every sub-stage, working backward by subtraction, using an average of the HRs reported in the pertinent trials publication as conversion factor. Results: Large differences in 3-year DFS rate were observed among the subgroups, ranging from 95% (T1N1a) to 29% (T4N2b) in the overall population. The contribution to outcome of each therapeutic option in this setting varied widely across sub-stages. According to our model, patients with T1N1a cancers have a projected 5-year DFS of 85% with surgery alone. Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine alone results in 4.2% absolute DFS gain; an additional 1.7% and 0.6% gain is seen with oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with T4N2b cancers show a 4.7% 5-year DFS with surgery alone, and a 7.1%, 5.0%, 2.1% increase with the aforementioned adjuvant options, respectively. Conclusions: The resulting overlay bar graph gives patients and doctors the projected relative benefit of each treatment option and may substantially help the shared decision-making process.

4004 Background: In overall population, IDEA pooled analysis did not demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) regarding 3y DFS in pts with stage III CC receiving 3m vs. 6m of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX. However, in pts treated with CAPOX (especially in low-risk pts), 3m of therapy was as effective as 6m. Results of OS and 5y DFS are reported. Methods: OS was defined as time from enrollment to death due to all causes. OS NI margin was conservatively set to be Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.11, which is equivalent to: the maximum acceptable loss of OS efficacy, by shortening treatment to 3m, was half of the OS efficacy gained in MOSAIC trial (i.e., 2.26% absolute reduction in 5y OS rate). Pre-planned sub-group analyses included by regimen and risk group for both OS and 5y DFS. NI was to be declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRa) NI p-value < 0.025. Results: With an overall median survival follow-up of 72 m (range per study, 62 to 84 m), 2584 deaths and 3777 DFS events among 12,835 pts from six trials were observed. Across 6 studies, 39.5% of pts received CAPOX (rate by study, 0% to 75.1%). Overall, the 5y OS rate was 82.4% (3m) and 82.8% (6m), with estimated OS HR of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.11; FDRa NI p, 0.058) and absolute 5-y OS rate difference of -0.4% (95% CI, -2.1 to 1.3%). Overall, the 5y DFS rate was 69.1% (3m) and 70.8% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.08 (95%CI, 1.01-1.15, FDRa NI p, 0.22). HRs (95% CI) within subgroups see table. Conclusions: 5y OS rate reported in IDEA trials was higher than historical rates, regardless of duration of therapy. While overall survival in IDEA did not meet prior statistical assumptions for NI in overall population, the 0.4% difference in 5y OS should be placed in clinical context. OS and 5y DFS results continue to support the use of 3m adjuvant CAPOX for the vast majority of stage III colon cancer pts. This conclusion is strengthened by the substantial reduction of toxicities, inconveniencies and cost associated with shorter treatment duration. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045; 2009-010384-16; NCT00749450; ISRCTN59757862; 2007-003957-10; UMIN000008543; 2007-000354 . [Table: see text]

4003 Background: Aspirin and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal polyps and cancer in observational and randomized studies. CALGB/SWOG 80702 tested the effect of celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, on reducing the risk of recurrence in stage III CC. Methods: CALGB/SWOG 80702 is a 2x2 randomized controlled phase III trial of 3 v 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX (data previously reported as part of the IDEA collaboration) with concurrent celecoxib (400 mg daily) v placebo x 3 yrs for patients (pts) with resected stage III CC. The primary endpoint of the trial is disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from randomization to recurrence or death from any cause. The trial was designed to provide 91% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.79 in favor of celecoxib with 2-sided alpha = 0.05 (775 events required); due to slowing accumulation of events 4 years after complete accrual, power was lowered to 85% with same HR and alpha assumptions (696 events required). The DSMB released data on February 24, 2020 at median f/u of 5.6 yrs with 689 DFS events. Results: Between June 2010 and November 2015, 2,526 pts were consented and randomized to the trial. Treatment arms were well balanced by patient and tumor prognostic features, as well as low-dose aspirin use. Baseline characteristics included 45% female, 18% non-White, 8% Hispanic, 15% T4, 26% N2. 3-yr DFS for celecoxib was 76.3% v 73.3% for placebo (HR 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.04]; P = 0.14). 5-yr overall survival (OS) was 83.9% for celecoxib v 81.7% for placebo (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.72-1.05]; P = 0.14). When considering the 4 treatment arms separately, 3-yr DFS was 77.0% for 12 months FOLFOX + celecoxib, 74.9% for 12 months FOLFOX + placebo, 75.5% for 6 months FOLFOX + celecoxib, and 71.9% for 6 months FOLFOX + placebo (log rank P = 0.22; P interaction = 0.64). There were no significant differences in grade 3-4 toxicity with celecoxib v placebo. Compliance with protocol celecoxib treatment, defined as 3 yrs of therapy completion or recurrence/death while on treatment, was 58.1% pts on celecoxib and 60.2% pts on placebo. Conclusions: The addition of celecoxib to standard chemotherapy did not significantly improve DFS or OS. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045 .