Meropol, Neal J.

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.

AbstractBackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colon cancer. E5204 was designed to test whether the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6, following neoadjuvant chemoradiation and definitive surgery, could improve overall survival (OS) in patients with stage II/III adenocarcinoma of the rectum.Subjects, Materials, and MethodsPatients with stage II/III rectal cancer who had completed neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiation and had undergone complete resection were enrolled. Patients were randomized to mFOLFOX6 (Arm A) or mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab (Arm B) administered every 2 weeks for 12 cycles.ResultsE5204 registered only 355 patients (17% of planned accrual goal) as it was terminated prematurely owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. The rate of treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was 68.8% on Arm A and 70.7% on Arm B. Arm B had a higher proportion of patients who discontinued therapy early as a result of AEs and patient withdrawal than did Arm A (32.4% vs. 21.5%, p = .029).The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia, leukopenia, neuropathy, diarrhea (without prior colostomy), and fatigue.ConclusionAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 did not meet its primary endpoint. The addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX6 in the adjuvant setting did not significantly improve OS in patients with stage II/III rectal cancer.Implications for PracticeAt 17% of its planned accrual, E5204 was terminated early owing to poor accrual. At a median follow-up of 72 months, there was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival (88.3% vs. 83.7%) or in 5-year disease-free survival (71.2% vs. 76.5%) between the two arms. Despite significant advances in the treatment of rectal cancer, especially in improving local control rates, the risk of distant metastases and the need to further improve quality of life remain a challenge. Strategies combining novel agents with chemoradiation to improve both distant and local control are needed.

Abstract Systemic therapy has led to a median survival time for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) almost fourfold longer than that expected with best supportive care, an outcome achieved through combining chemotherapeutic and targeted biologic agents. Although the latter can include anti–epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, we now have strong evidence that patients whose tumors harbor mutated KRAS will not benefit from this class of agent. Acceptance of the reliability and importance of the KRAS data took several years to evolve, however, for a variety of reasons. The timeline from the presentation and publication of small, retrospective phase II studies to widespread acceptance of the KRAS predictive value and changes in behavior—specifically, modifications of ongoing national trials in advanced/metastatic CRC, changes in national guidelines and practice patterns, and adjustments to the labeled indications for the monoclonal antibodies—was lengthy. In this commentary, we discuss whether or not the process of data disclosure regarding KRAS status and treatment of advanced CRC patients was effective in permitting timely decisions regarding ongoing publicly funded clinical trials and whether or not such decisions were rational and ethical. The overall goals are to highlight lessons learned regarding early disclosure of clinical trial results, as well as vetting and adoption of new scientific data, and to propose modifications for handling similar situations in the future.