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.

TPS1127 Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 mos; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with LAS monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (1). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that LAS plus abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (2). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 mos for LAS/Abema and 7 mos for fulv/Abema (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 mos at approximately 125 global sites. 1. Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1141-1151. 2. Damodaran S, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1131-1140. Clinical trial information: NCT05696626 .

Abstract Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene, an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, had potent activity in mBC xenograft models expressing ESR1 mutations, either as a single agent or combined with a CDK4/6i. Subsequently, two phase 2 studies evaluated lasofoxifene in women with ER+/HER2- metastatic BC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 months; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with lasofoxifene monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant, with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S1387). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 months, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:suppl 16; abstr 1057). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib versus fulvestrant plus abemaciclib. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 years; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or metastatic BC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/metastatic BC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive lasofoxifene 5 mg/day plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID, or fulvestrant 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then 4 weekly plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit for genomic analyses. Outcomes with lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and fulvestrant/abemaciclib will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 months for lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and 7 months for fulvestrant/abemaciclib (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 months at 125 global sites. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Seth Wander, Thomas Bachelot, Gerald Batist, Javier Cortés, Massimo Cristofanilli, Giuseppe Curigliano, Alexandre de Nonneville, Einav Nili-Gal Yam, Komal Jhaveri, Cynthia Ma, Heather Parsons, Hope Rugo, Sarah Sammons, Daniel Stover, Chris Twelves, Aditya Bardia, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman, Senthil Damodaran. Trial in progress: Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating locally advanced or ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-18-12.

Abstract Improving the chances of curing patients with cancer who have had surgery to remove metastatic sites of disease is a priority area for cancer research. Pexa-Vec (Pexastimogene Devacirepvec; JX-594, TG6006) is a principally immunotherapeutic oncolytic virus that has reached late-phase clinical trials. We report the results of a single-center, nonrandomized biological end point study (trial registration: EudraCT number 2012-000704-15), which builds on the success of the presurgical intravenous delivery of oncolytic viruses to tumors. Nine patients with either colorectal cancer liver metastases or metastatic melanoma were treated with a single intravenous infusion of Pexa-Vec ahead of planned surgical resection of the metastases. Grade 3 and 4 Pexa-Vec–associated side effects were lymphopaenia and neutropaenia. Pexa-Vec was peripherally carried in plasma and was not associated with peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Upon surgical resection, Pexa-Vec was found in the majority of analyzed tumors. Pexa-Vec therapy associated with IFNα secretion, chemokine induction, and resulted in transient innate and long-lived adaptive anticancer immunity. In the 2 patients with significant and complete tumor necrosis, a reduction in the peripheral T-cell receptor diversity was observed at the time of surgery. These results support the development of presurgical oncolytic vaccinia virus-based therapies to stimulate anticancer immunity and increase the chances to cure patients with cancer.

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 < .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]

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]

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]