Sargent, Daniel J.

Purpose This study was undertaken to examine five possible prognostic factors in patients with recurrent stage II and III colon cancer: time from randomization on an adjuvant therapy clinical trial to tumor recurrence (< 1 year, 1 to 2 years, 2 to 3 years, 3 to 4 years, > 4 years), initial stage (II v III), initial adjuvant treatment (fluorouracil [FU]-based v surgery alone), the era in which the patient entered an adjuvant therapy clinical trial (1978 to 1985, 1986 to 1992, 1993 to 1999), and patient age at recurrence. Methods The Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points (ACCENT) data set was analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by study. Results 5,722 (32.9%) of 17,381 patients experienced recurrence. Median survival following recurrence was 13.3 months. Time from randomization to recurrence was highly prognostic of survival following recurrence (P < .0001). Longer survival following recurrence was seen in patients with initial stage II versus III disease (P < .0001; 14.3% 6-year overall survival after recurrence in initial stage II patients), patients entered more recently onto trials (P < .0001), and patients initially treated with surgery alone versus FU adjuvant treatment (P = .0005). All relationships were maintained in multivariate models. Conclusion Time from initial treatment to recurrence and initial stage are important prognostic factors in patients with recurrent colon cancer. Survival following recurrence increased modestly from 1978 to 1999. Patients who had a recurrence following adjuvant therapy had poorer prognosis than those who progressed after surgery alone. These prognostic factors may be useful for clinical trial design and treatment decisions in patients with recurrent colon cancer.

A variety of approaches have been proposed to provide formal and informal validation of proposed surrogate markers. To achieve true clinical impact, the validation must convince both the statistical and clinical communities. In this paper, we argue that the best approach is not a single method but a multi-faceted exploration, using multiple approaches, including those that directly appeal to clinicians but with less statistical foundation and those arising from statistical considerations but more difficult to interpret clinically. We illustrate our approach using data from clinical trials in both early and advanced colorectal cancer.

Purpose In the phase III study AVF2107g, bevacizumab (BV) demonstrated a survival benefit when added to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In a parallel phase III study, Intergroup N9741, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) also demonstrated a survival benefit compared with IFL. As these two superior therapies have differing mechanisms of action, we explored whether the improved survival associated with the superior therapy was dependent on tumor response. Patients and Methods For these retrospective, exploratory analyses, patients were defined as responders or nonresponders by whether complete or partial response was achieved with first-line therapy. Results Compared with IFL alone, BV plus IFL and FOLFOX each demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) regardless of objective tumor response. BV-treated nonresponders had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (P = .0001) for PFS and 0.76 (P = .0188) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. FOLFOX-treated nonresponders had an HR of 0.75 (P = .0029) for PFS and 0.74 (P = .0030) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. Conclusion In both AVF2107g and N9741, objective response did not predict the magnitude of PFS or OS benefit from the superior therapy; nonresponders, despite a poorer prognosis than responders, achieved extended PFS and OS from BV plus IFL or FOLFOX compared with IFL. On the basis of these data, tumor response in metastatic colorectal cancer is not a necessary factor for a therapy to provide benefit to an individual patient.

Purpose The traditional end point for assessing efficacy of first-line chemotherapies for advanced cancer is overall survival (OS), but this end point requires prolonged follow-up and is potentially confounded by the effects of second-line therapies. We investigated whether progression-free survival (PFS) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS in advanced colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Individual patient data were available from 10 historical trials comparing fluouracil (FU) + leucovorin with either FU alone (1,744 patients) or with raltitrexed (1,345 patients) and from three validation trials comparing FU + leucovorin with or without irinotecan or oxaliplatin (1,263 patients). Correlation coefficients were estimated in historical trials between the end points of PFS and OS, and between the treatment effects on these end points. Treatment effects on OS were predicted in validation trials, and compared with the observed effects. Results In historical trials, 1,760 patients (57%) had progressed or died at 6 months, and 1,622 (52%) had died at 12 months. The rank correlation coefficient between PFS and OS was equal to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.83). The correlation coefficient between treatment effects on PFS and on OS ranged from 0.99 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04) when all trials were considered to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.04) after exclusion of one highly influential trial. In the validation trials, the observed OS hazard ratios were within the 95% prediction intervals. A hazard ratio of 0.77 or lower in terms of PFS would predict a benefit in terms of OS. Conclusion PFS is an acceptable surrogate for OS in advanced colorectal cancer.

Purpose The traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS). We previously validated disease-free survival (DFS) after 3-year follow-up as an excellent predictor of 5-year OS results. Here we explore shorter term DFS and OS end points, as well as stage dependency. Methods Individual patient data from 18 phase III trials including 43 arms and 20,898 patients were pooled. Association measures included correlation of event rates within arms, correlation of hazard ratios (HRs) between arms, trial level significance comparisons (via log-rank testing), and a formal surrogacy model. Results DFS at earlier times was less accurate in predicting OS than 3-year DFS, but 2-year DFS remained a strong predictor. DFS with 1-year minimum follow-up demonstrated perfect negative predicted value; all trials negative at 1 year for DFS were negative for 5-year OS. OS with 3-year minimum follow-up was also an excellent predictor for 5-year OS; OS at earlier time points provided inaccurate prediction. The association between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was greater for stage III patients; correlation of HR within trials was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.95) for stage III patients and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 0.80) for stage II patients. Conclusion DFS outcomes after 2- or 3-year median follow-up are excellent predictors of 5-year OS. DFS outcomes are appropriate for trials in which the majority of patients are stage III. DFS after 2- or 3-year median follow-up should be considered as the primary end point in future colon adjuvant trials.

Purpose To evaluate clinical characteristics and survival outcomes among patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who achieve a complete response (CR) to systemic treatment either alone or with multimodality approach. Patients and Methods Data were collected retrospectively from CRC patients enrolled onto the phase III trial N9741, a National Cancer Institute–funded and Gastrointestinal Cancer Intergroup–sponsored study coordinated by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Patients were randomly assigned to combinations of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) and irinotecan. The three treatment arms consist of IFL (irinotecan + FU/LV), FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin + FU/LV), and IROX (irinotecan + oxaliplatin). Median follow-up was 42.6 months. Results Sixty-two (4%) of 1,508 patients had a CR to chemotherapy alone, and an additional 32 (2%) had a CR after multimodality treatment. Factors associated with achieving CR with systemic chemotherapy alone included FOLFOX4 treatment, patients with assessable disease, or a single site of metastasis. Continuing protocol treatment beyond two cycles after documentation of CR was not associated with improved survival. The rate of curative intent resection was significantly higher for patients treated with oxaliplatin-containing regimens (P = .02). Median survival was similar between patients with CR after chemotherapy alone (44.3 months) or after multimodality approach (47.4 months; P = .81). Conclusion FOLFOX4 was more likely to produce a CR than were IFL or IROX. Oxaliplatin regimens were more likely to result in successful surgical resections. Patients who have CR to systemic chemotherapy alone can achieve impressive survival outcomes similar to those seen among patients who attained a CR status after multimodality treatment.

Emerging technologies have greatly expanded our ability to detect, characterize, and treat colorectal cancer. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a multidisciplinary panel, the Scientific Leadership Council in GI cancer, to discuss and advise on the priorities and opportunities to advance current and future approaches into the clinical arena to impact most rapidly the morbidity and mortality from this disease. The Council's recommendations for research priorities are the result of engagement of community and academic oncologists, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and governmental agencies. We detail some key prospects for investigation in the areas of colon cancer detection, prevention, and surgical and medical management. Many are in early or definitive clinical trials, and a focus on rapid accrual is urged. The implementation of biology-directed laboratory investigations, both in association with ongoing clinical trials and as a separate developmental strategy for targeted therapies, is supported as the route to individualized therapy.