Citations

Importance The definition of cure in stage II to III colon cancer (CC) remains unclear due to limitations in conventional end points, which include deaths and second primary tumors as events. These can complicate communication with patients regarding long-term outcomes. Objective To distinguish relapses from competing health-related events to classify long-term outcomes years after surgery and explore when the incidence of true relapses of the initial CC approaches 0% to define cure in this disease. Design, Setting, and Participants This pooled analysis of individual patient–level data from 15 phase 3 randomized clinical trials assessed time to CC-related relapse using Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods, with death and second primary tumors treated as competing risks. Cox regression models evaluated prognostic associations, stratified by sex, stage, and tumor. Patients with stage II to III CC who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy were included. All patients had undergone radical surgery for CC and received adjuvant chemotherapy with a median follow-up of at least 6 years. The Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) and the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) databases included adjuvant studies conducted between 1996 and 2015. Data were analyzed from February 2022 to June 2025. Exposures Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens varied across trials, including fluoropyrimidines alone or in combination with oxaliplatin or biologic agents. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to CC-related recurrence. The predefined threshold for cure was a recurrence risk below 0.5%. Results Of 35 213 included patients, 19 346 (54.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.2 (10.8) years. The incidence rate of recurrence peaked at 6.4% (1993 of 31 373) between month 6 and month 12 and decreased continuously until year 10 of follow-up never exceeding 0.5%. Recurrence rate appeared to increase again after year 10 and peaked at 2.0% during year 12.5 to year 13, a pattern observed exclusively in the MOSAIC trial. Competing-event analysis revealed that death and second primary tumors inflated the apparent recurrence rate, especially for older patients. The overall cumulative incidence of relapse with death as competing risk was lower among female patients (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this pooled analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials, a recurrence rate less than 0.5% occurred after 6 years from surgery, supporting a practical definition of cure. Recognizing this milestone may improve patient communication, guide follow-up duration, and reduce unnecessary long-term surveillance.

PURPOSE The adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer (CC) is chemotherapy combining fluoropyrimidine (FP) and oxaliplatin (OX). FP regimen plus OX (FPOX) may benefit in high-risk stage II CC. We performed a pooled analysis of pivotal MOSAIC and C-07 studies evaluating FPOX for the treatment of high-risk stage II CC according to prognostic factors, number of high-risk factors, and current clinicopathologic risk classification on the basis of T stage, tumor perforation, and number of lymph nodes examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS One thousand five hundred and ninety-five patients with stage II CC receiving FP or FPOX were pooled. The overall survival (OS) benefit of OX was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study. Three thousand and fifty-nine patients with stage III CC were used only for interaction tests between the allocated chemotherapy and stage. RESULTS In the pooled analysis of stage II patients, independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis were sex, age, perforation/obstruction, and tumor sidedness. There was a significant interaction in OS between stage and allocated chemotherapy with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.03 for stage II (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.29; P = .813) and 0.82 for stage III (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92; P = .001; P int = .073). There was no benefit from the addition of OX to FP for any of the prognostic factors. The number of high-risk factors tested was not predictive of OX benefit. According to the currently agreed clinicopathologic risk classification, no OS benefit of OX was observed, as HR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.18; P = .349). CONCLUSION No OS benefit of adjuvant OX was found in high-risk stage II CC, regardless of the definition used to characterize tumors as having a high risk for recurrence. Hence, our analysis suggests that OX should not be the standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II CC, even in high-risk patients.

PURPOSE A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. Results: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

3606 Background: Standard adjuvant CT for stage III CC are FOLFOX and CAPOX. Recently, IDEA study separated stage III patients (pts) into low risk (T1 to 3, N1) and high risk (T4 or N2). We recently confirmed benefit of OX in both risk groups. However, we observed a difference in the two high-risk subgroups, with benefit in N2 but not in T4 (Margalit O et al; Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021). This prompted us to compare outcomes (OS/TTR) between treatment with OX vs. without OX within sub-stage III CC groups defined by T and N. Methods: We pooled 4941 stage III CC pts from the three studies evaluating 6 months of CT with fluoropyrimidine (FP) ± OX: MOSAIC, C-07 and XELOXA. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2 and t-test. OS was compared between OX and no OX in T and N subgroups. Kaplan-Meier analyses, adjusted and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study were used. Sub-groups classification was done according to OX benefit and verified by interaction test (Int) considered as significant with a P<0.1. We considered for recommendation of using OX-based adjuvant CT, 1) significant benefit in OS, 2) significant Int between substage and adjuvant therapy, and 3) the three individual trials showing similar results (benefit or non-benefit of OX). Results: In stage III population, T3 pts were 74.9%, T1-2 12.4%, T4 13.1%, while N stage was N1 64.7% and N2 35.3%. Population was well balanced according to treatment allocation in most subgroups. A significant benefit of OX was only observed in T3N1 and T3N2 (OS HR 0.76). Whatever N stage, there was no significant benefit of OX in the T1-2 and T4 subgroups. The effect of OX+FP vs FP alone in OS of the three studies differed between T3 and T1-2 subgroups (P = 0.047). Interaction was borderline between T3 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.10) but there was no interaction between T1-2 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.429). A benefit of OX in TTR remained in the T4 population. Discrepancy between advantage in time to relapse (TTR) and no advantage in OS was not explained by survival post relapse. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that pts with T1-2N1-2 and T4N1-2 disease had no OS benefit of addition of OX to FP. The good survival achieved with FP alone in T1-2N1-2 pts (5-yr OS 89%) question the addition of OX. In the T4 population our results suggested that benefit of OX was limited and that further studies should assess this issue or at least stratify pts on T stage in the future adjuvant trials in CC. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

101 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years, named early-onset CRC, eoCRC) has been increasing. eoCRC patients with metastatic disease are treated with the same standard regimens as late-onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50 years) although detailed response data for eoCRC are largely missing. Methods: Individual patient data on 7,604 subjects with metastatic eoCRC from 11 first line randomized bevacizumab studies between 2000 and 2012 in the ARCAD advanced colorectal cancer database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables. Results: Female eoCRC are more commonly seen compared to loCRC (46.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.0001). Patients with eoCRC (n=1,289) were significantly more likely to have had prior metastasectomy (17.5% vs. 13.5%, p=0.043) and lung metastatic disease (67% vs. 59.8%, p<0.001), but less likely to have distant lymph node metastatic disease (58.8 vs. 62.9%, p=0.036) or KRAS mutation (29.2% vs. 34.4%, p=0.042) compared to those with loCRC (n=6,315). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distributions according to PS, primary tumor sidedness, prior primary tumor resection, liver involvement, peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites, NRAS and BRAF. Age of disease onset was not a statistically significant prognostic factor for PFS in univariate and multivariate analysis (seen in table). Bevacizumab in addition to chemo improved PFS in eoCRC population (9.9 vs. 6.8 months, HR = 0.66, p<0.001), which was similar to the findings in loCRC population (9.4 vs. 7.3 months, HR= 0.73, p<0.001, interaction p=0.54). By multivariate analysis, a greater improvement in PFS was noted for the addition of bevacizumab in eoCRC relative to LoCRC patients (HR = 0.62 vs. HR = 0.82). Conclusions: Treatment naive eoCRC patients with metastatic disease derive similar benefit from bevacizumab relative to their average age counterparts.[Table: see text]

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.