Back to Authors

Sargent, Daniel J.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2684-4741

A5023299002 | I114027177

Mayo Clinic

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Citations 298

Tumor-size-based endpoints as surrogates for overall survival in the ARCAD Advanced Colorectal Cancer Database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 21, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 766-766

10.1200/jco.2017.35.4_suppl.766

766 Background: Tumor-size-based endpoints such as depth of response have recently become a focus of investigations related to search for early on-treatment predictive markers for patients with colorectal cancer (Piessevaux et al. 2013; Cremolini et al., 2015; Heinemann et al., 2015). We evaluate the use of time-to-nadir (TTN) and depth-of-nadir (DoN) as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). Methods: We have used the data from trials included in the ARCAD Advanced Colorectal Cancer Database. We have considered three sets of treatment comparisons: comparisons involving only chemotherapy agents (CT); involving anti-angiogenesic agents (ANG); and involving anti-EGFR agents (EGFR). For each of the sets separately, we applied a two-stage modelling approach (Renard et al. 2002) to jointly analyze the relative change of tumor size versus baseline (RCTS) and OS. In particular, in the first stage, a joint model for the repeated measurements of RCTS and OS was fitted to the data. Based on the model, treatment effects on OS and RCTS were estimated. Treatment effects on OS were expressed as log-hazard-ratios, while the effects on RCTS were expressed in terms of differences in the time-to-nadir (TTN) and in the depth of nadir (DoN). In the second stage, a linear regression was fitted through the estimated treatment effects on TTN/DoN and OS. The coefficient of determination (R2), computed by using the comparison-specific sample-size as weights, was used to quantify the strength of association between the treatment effects on TTN/DoN and OS. In particular, values of R2 larger than 0.75 were considered as indicating a good surrogate. Results: The CT set included 18 comparisons with 5726 pts. in total. For the treatment effects on TTN and OS, the value of R2 was estimated to be equal to 0.31, while for DoN and OS, it was equal to 0.01. For the ANG set (11 comparisons, 3964 pts.) the values of R2 were equal to 0.26 and 0.21, respectively, while for the EGFR set (16 comparisons, 4687 pts.) they were equal to 0.10 and 0.45, respectively. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that TTN and DoN are not good surrogates for OS in advanced colorectal cancer. More detailed analyses are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting.
Outcomes in the second line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Findings from 6,462 patients (pts) in the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 21, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 757-757

10.1200/jco.2017.35.4_suppl.757

757 Background: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) appear to differ across trials, even when pts receive the same regimen (REG). This analysis aimed to benchmark the clinical outcomes in the 2nd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Individual patient (pt) data was available on 6,462 pts with mCRC enrolled in 7 2ndline clinical trials (8 REGs) in the ARCAD database. Regimens used in at least two trials included FOLFIRI +/- an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), FOLFOX +/- a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi), and irinotecan (IRI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe pt demographics. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences (DIFFs) in PFS and OS, while p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant (SS). Results: 500-1400 pts received each REG (see Table). Median OS and PFS differed by 0.2 to 4.6 months (mo) and 0.8 to 2.5 mo across trials within the same REG. These DIFFs were SS except for PFS in REGs containing FOLFIRI +/- EGFRi. After multivariable adjustment, all DIFFs in OS were attenuated and non-significant. DIFFs in PFS attenuated for most REGs but remained SS for FOLFOX and IRI. Conclusions: After multivariable adjustment, there were no SS DIFFs in outcomes across trials within the same REG, with the exception of PFS in FOLFOX and IRI. The initial observed DIFFs in outcomes could be due to confounding factors and the remaining SS DIFFs in PFS in FOLFOX and IRI may be due to variation in definition of progression across trials. Therefore, caution is warranted when using historical data to design future trials.[Table: see text]
Rectal versus left-sided colon cancers: Clinicopathological differences observed in a pooled analysis of 4,182 patients enrolled to 8 clinical trials from the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 21, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 675-675

10.1200/jco.2017.35.4_suppl.675

675 Background: Recent retrospective analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 showed that left-sided colon cancers (LCC) respond differently to biological therapy compared with right-sided tumors. However, differences between rectal cancers (RC) and LCC remain undefined. Herein, we report our exploration of differences between these two groups. Methods: Individual patient data from 4182 patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancers, enrolled onto 8 first-line randomized trials, were pooled. Only pts with tumor locations that were clearly defined as LCC (splenic flexure to sigmoid) or RC were included in this analysis. Differences in pt characteristics and disease factors according to LCC vs. RC were identified. The prognostic effect of primary tumor location on OS and PFS was quantified via multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling stratified by treatment arm within each study and adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and prior surgery. Results: In total, 2,479 (59%) pts with LCC and 1,703 (41%) pts with RC were identified. Pts with RC, compared with LCC, were more likely to be male (68% vs. 62%, p < 0.001), have lung metastases (mets) (56% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), and have 2 or more metastatic sites (64% vs. 60%, p < 0.02), whereas pts with LCC were more likely to have liver mets (84% vs. 76%, p < 0.001). RC had a greater frequency of KRAS mutations (41% vs. 37%, p = 0.04) than LCC but there were no differences in the frequency of BRAF mutations (5% vs. 4%, p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis, no differences in OS or PFS were observed between pts with LCC vs. RC. While risk of death did not differ by primary tumor location, across all pts with LCC or RC, those with liver mets had a 17% increased risk of death compared to those with lung mets (HR = 1.17, p = 0.03) after adjusting for effects of other variables. Forthcoming prognostic analysis of LCC vs. RC within grouped backbone treatments (e.g., FOLFOX and FOLFIRI) is underway. Conclusions: Tumors arising in the rectum may carry clinical and molecular features that are distinct from LCC. Further investigations are warranted to determine whether RC should be treated with the same chemo backbone and biological therapy as LCC.
Thirty-Month Complete Response as a Surrogate End Point in First-Line Follicular Lymphoma Therapy: An Individual Patient-Level Analysis of Multiple Randomized Trials

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 552-560

10.1200/jco.2016.70.8651 | PMID 28029309

Purpose Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent cancer, with effective but rarely curative treatment options. As a standard study end point for first-line FL therapy, progression-free survival (PFS) requires extended follow-up (median PFS, > 7 years). To provide patients with earlier access to newer therapies, an earlier end point to expedite clinical trials is needed. Our objective was to formally assess the complete response rate at 30 months (CR30) after initiation of induction therapy as a potential surrogate end point for PFS in first-line FL therapy. Patients and Methods We analyzed individual patient data from 13 randomized multicenter trials of induction and maintenance regimens in first-line FL therapy published after 1990 and with sufficient data to evaluate whether CR30 could predict treatment effects on PFS. Correlation of the CR30 odds ratio with the PFS hazard ratio was evaluated by both linear regression (R2WLS) and bivariate copula (R2Copula) models. Prespecified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥ 0.80, with a lower-bound 95% CI > 0.60. Results Data from eight induction and five maintenance randomized trials in 3,837 evaluable patients were analyzed. The prespecified surrogacy threshold was met, with an R2WLS of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.96) and an R2Copula of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). Multiple sensitivity and supplemental analyses supported the robustness of the findings. A minimum 11% absolute improvement in CR30 from a 50% control rate predicted a significant treatment effect on PFS (hazard ratio, 0.69). Conclusion This large, prospective, pooled analysis of randomized chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy trials demonstrates that CR30 is a surrogate end point for PFS in first-line FL treatment trials. Use of this end point may expedite therapeutic development with the intent of bringing novel therapies to this patient population years before PFS results are mature.
A phase II trial design with direct assignment option for initial marker validation.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 30_suppl | Pages: 34-34

10.1200/jco.2012.30.30_suppl.34

34 Background: Phase II clinical trials aim to identify promising experimental regimens for further testing in phase III trials. Testing targeted therapies with predictive biomarkers mandates efficient trial designs. Current biomarker-based trial designs, including the enrichment, all-comers, and adaptive designs, randomize patients to receive treatment or not throughout the entire duration of the trial. Recognizing the need for randomization yet acknowledging the possibility of promising but nonconclusive results after a preplanned interim analysis (IA), we propose a two-stage phase II design that allows for the possibility of direct assignment (i.e., stop randomization and assign all patients to the experimental arm in stage II) based on IA results. Methods: Using simulations, we compared properties of the direct assignment option design to a 1:1 randomized phase II design and assessed the impact of the timing of IA (after 33%, 50%, or 67% of accrual) and number of IA (one versus two with option for direct assignment at the first and second) over a range of response rate ratios (between 1.0 and 3.0). Results: Between 12% and 30% of the trials (out of 6,000 simulated trials) adopt direct assignment in stage II, with direct adoption depending on the treatment effect size and specified type I error rate (TIER). The direct assignment option design has minimal loss in power (<1.8%) and minimal increase in T1ER (<2.1%) compared to a 1:1 randomized design. The maximum loss in power across possible timings of IA was <1.2%. For the direct assignment option design, there was a 20%-50% increase in the number of patients treated on the experimental (vs. control) arm for the 1 IA case, and 40%-100% increase for the 2 IA case. Conclusions: Testing predictive biomarkers in clinical trials requires new design strategies. In the spectrum of phase II designs from adaptive to balanced randomized all-comers or enrichment designs, the direct assignment design provides a middle ground with desirable statistical properties that may appeal to both clinicians and patients.
Time course of regorafenib-associated adverse events in the phase III CORRECT study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 467-467

10.1200/jco.2013.31.4_suppl.467

467 Background: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Methods: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Results: The safety population comprised 753 patients (pts): REG n=500; placebo n=253. The mean treatment duration was 12.1 ± 9.7 weeks in the REG group and 7.8 ± 5.2 weeks in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred at any grade in 99.6% of REG pts and 96.8% of placebo pts, at grade 1/2 in 21.6% and 47.8%, respectively, at grade 3 in 56.0% and 26.5%, respectively, and at grade 4/5 in 22.0% and 22.5%, respectively. AEs occurring in ≥10% more REG than placebo pts were fatigue, hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, voice changes, hypertension, rash/desquamation, oral mucositis, fever, hyperbilirubinemia, low platelet count. The most frequent AEs deemed to be regorafenib related were HFSR, fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash/desquamation. The frequency of these AEs over time is shown in the Table. The incidence of HFSR, fatigue, hypertension, and rash/desquamation peaked in cycle 1 and tapered to a relatively stable lower incidence over later cycles. The incidence of diarrhea remained relatively constant throughout treatment. AEs led to dose modification in 66.6% of pts in the REG group and 22.5% in the placebo group. Data on dose intensity across treatment cycles will be presented. Conclusions: In the CORRECT trial, the incidences of the most common AEs in the REG group peaked early during treatment. There appeared to be no evidence for cumulative toxicity of REG. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]
Mutational analysis of biomarker samples from the CORRECT study: Correlating mutation status with clinical response to regorafenib.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 381-381

10.1200/jco.2013.31.4_suppl.381

381 Background: In the CORRECT Ph3 trial, regorafenib demonstrated significant improvement in OS and PFS vs. placebo in subjects with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed on standard therapies. An exploratory biomarker substudy was conducted on samples collected from subjects enrolled in CORRECT. Methods: DNA was isolated from archival tumor tissue and fresh baseline plasma samples that were available from 239 (31%) and 503 (66%) subjects enrolled in CORRECT, respectively. Mutations in KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF were evaluated via BEAMing technology. Results: Mutations were readily detected in DNA isolated from both tumor and plasma samples: KRAS: 59/69%; PIK3CA: 12/17% and BRAF: 1.5/3.4%. The frequency of KRAS mutation detected in tumor samples via BEAMing (59%) was identical to the frequency determined from pre-existing “historical” KRAS mutation data that was available from 96% of the subjects enrolled in the study. Concordance among the mutations detected via BEAMing in tumor vs. plasma was 76% (KRAS), 88% (PIK3CA), and 97% (BRAF). A subset of CRC which was found to be KRAS-wildtype in DNA from archival tumor, but KRAS-mutant in DNA from fresh plasma was identified and may represent subjects whose KRAS mutational status had changed during prior therapy. Correlative subgroup analyses demonstrated that regorafenib mediated a trend for clinical benefit vs. placebo in both KRAS wildtype and mutant subgroups identified by plasma BEAMing (OS: KRAS WT, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41–1.08; KRAS mutant, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61–1.09; interaction p=0.561). Similar results were noted for PIK3CA WT/mutant subgroups (OS: WT, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.99; mutant, HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47–1.50; interaction p=0.723). BRAF was not analysed due to the small number of BRAF-mutant samples. Conclusions: The mutational analysis of DNA isolated from fresh plasma is feasible and robust using the BEAMing platform and may better represent the mutational status of the tumor(s) that a mCRC patient harbors at the time of enrollment than does the mutational analysis of archival primary tumor tissue. Regorafenib was associated with clinical benefit (vs. placebo) in all mutational subgroups evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.
Trial-level association between response-based endpoints (RBEs) and progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) in first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 3_suppl | Pages: 666-666

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.666

666 Background: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS; ≥20% decrease from baseline) and early objective tumor response (EOTR; CR/PR by RECIST) are associated with improved PFS/OS to a similar extent than best overall response (BOR), confirmed response (ConfR) and non-progression rate (NPR; CR/PR/SD by RECIST) at the individual level in first-line mCRC (ASCO 2014, abstr 3538/3578). We assessed these RBEs at the trial level. Methods: Data were available on 12,185 pts enrolled in a total of 17 randomized trials of chemotherapy (CT) alone or with targeted agents (TAs). ETS, EOTR and NPR were assessed at 6/8/9 and 12 weeks (wks), whereas BOR and ConfR were ascertained within 26 wks from randomization. Association between treatment effects on RBEs and on PFS/OS was assessed by coefficients of determination (R2, adjusted for estimation errors) using a copula model). Results: None of the RBEs had consistently strong correlations with PFS or OS (Table). The number of trials was insufficient to obtain reliable estimates for antiangiogenics and anti-EGFR separately. Conclusions: Despite their individual-level associations with PFS and OS, RBEs do not appear to be surrogate endpoints in first-line mCRC, given their poor predictive ability. [Table: see text]
HapB3 and the deep intronic variant c.1129-5923 C>G of the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene (DPYD) to predict toxicity in stage III colon cancer (CC) patients (pts) (NCCTG Alliance N0147).

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 3_suppl | Pages: 508-508

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.508

508 Background: Severe adverse events (AEs) to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) constitute a major dilemma in CC treatment. We recently demonstrated that specific deleterious DPYD variants in the coding region were highly predictive of grade >3 (G3+) AEs in stage III CC pts receiving adjuvant 5-FU based combination chemotherapy [Lee et al. JNCI. In press]. Other studies have suggested potential associations between AEs and non-coding DPYD variants: a novel haplotype (HapB3) containing three intronic variants (c.483+18 G>A, c.680+139 G>A, and c.959-51 T>C), one synonymous variant (c.1236 G>A, E412E), and a deep intronic variant (c.1129-5923 C>G) that affects pre-mRNA splicing. However, these studies included a diversity of cancer types, stages and treatments. The findings require further evaluation in a refined population. Methods: A total of 2,134 Caucasian stage III CC pts without DPYD*2A, D949V, and I560S variants from NCCTG N0147 trial who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FOLFIRI +/- cetuximab were genotyped by multiplexed single-base extension assays on the Sequenom MassARRAY. G3+ AEs were recorded (CTCAE v3) and classified as common to 5-FU treatment (5FU-AEs). Logistic regressions were used to assess the univariate and multivariate associations. Results: Analyzed pts displayed the following characteristics: 54.3% male, median age 59 [19-85], proficient MMR 87.5%, PS-0 76.5%, + irinotecan 8.5%, and + cetuximab 46.5%. Pts carrying c.1129-5923 C>G were significantly associated with higher risk of G3+ 5FU-AEs (Odds Ratio [OR]=1.539, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.001 – 2.367, p=0.049). Only marginal association was observed for one of the HapB3 variants, c.1236 G>A (p=0.058). A linearly increasing risk of G3+ 5FU-AEs was identified for HapB3, comparing pts with no, one or >1 variant present (unadjusted OR=1.539, 95% CI=1.001 – 2.367, p=0.041; adjusted OR=1.198, 95% CI=0.998-1.437, p=0.052). Conclusions: In the largest study to date, c.1129-5923 C>G and HapB3 were predictive of 5FU-AE risk in stage III CC patients without DPYD*2A, D949V, and I560S variants receiving 5-FU-based combination chemotherapy.
Prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Individual patient data (IPD) analysis of first-line randomized trials from the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 658-658

10.1200/jco.2016.34.4_suppl.658

658 Background: In patients (pts) with mCRC with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is limited evidence regarding the indication for primary tumor resection. The primary objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous mCRC pts. Methods: In this IPD analysis, a total of 3,423 pts from 8 first-line randomized trials (RCTs) with systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Five RCTs included targeted (anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR) agents. Synchronous mCRC was defined as distant metastases occurring ≤ 6 months of the initial CRC diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared by stratified multivariate Cox models. Results: There were 710 (21%), 1,705 (50%) and 1,008 (29%) pts with non-resected and resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC, respectively. Compared to the non-resection group, pts in the synchronous resection group were associated with female gender, colon tumor, isolated liver/lung involvement, single metastatic site, and lower LDH (all p<.001). Adjusted for age, gender, performance status and prior chemotherapy, the non-resection group had a significantly worse median OS (16.4m) compared to the resection (22.2m; HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, PFS was significantly worse for the non-resection group (7.9m) compared to the resection (9.7m; HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous group (8.9m; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66). Similar trends were observed in pts treated with non-targeted vs targeted agents, and anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR therapy. In a subset analysis (n= 526), the observed associations remained after additional adjustment for primary tumor location, liver/lung involvement, number of metastatic sites, BMI and LDH. Conclusions: In this largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date, primary tumor resection is associated with better OS and PFS in synchronous mCRC pts. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Prospective RCTs on this topic are ongoing.