Goldberg, Richard M.

3503 Background: The association between race & toxicity or response to systemic chemotherapy is poorly understood. We correlated relevent polymorphisms with toxicity & outcome data in AA & C patients (Pts) enrolled in N9741, a large randomized MCRC trial. Methods: Toxicity, response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), & dose intensity (DI) were examined as a function of race in 1412 Pts enrolled on IFL, both full and reduced dose, FOLFOX, or IROX including 486 Pts with pharmacogenomic data. Accrual by race permitted comparison of C (n=1297) to AA (n=112). Results: C & AA were similar in disease extent, PS, gender, prior adjuvant treatment, and DI at cycles 1, 3, 6, or 12. The impact of race on RR, toxicity & the distribution of four relevent drug metabolism genotypes are in the table . AA had lower RR overall & in each treatment arm. Lower toxicity rates were seen in AA Pts, mainly due to less diarrhea, as measured by both CTC V2 & patient reported outcome data. These relationships were maintained in multivariate models adjusting for arm, age, gender, & PS. In these multivariate models, the odds ratio between RR and race was 1.72 (p=0.012) (29% AA vs 41% C) & for severe toxicity the odds ratio was 1.76 (p=0.006) (34% AA vs 48% C). Overall, race was not a significant predictor of TTP or OS (p > 0.50 for each). The hazard ratio comparing FOLFOX to IFL for C was 0.67 and for AA was 0.55. TTP for FOLFOX was superior to both IFL and IROX for both C & AA. Significant differences in pharmacogenetic variants were observed between C & AA, although the sample size for investigating the three-way combination of Rx, race, & pharmacogenomics is too small (36 AA) to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusions: It appears that AA have less toxicity & a lower RR than C when treated with standard MCRC regimens. Different frequencies of polymorphisms in genes relevent to drug metabolism may help explain these clinical differences. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

4080 Background: Waterfall plots have been used to capture the anti-tumor efficacy of both biologic agents (Ratain JCO 2006), which mainly exhibit a cytostatic effect, but also of chemotherapeutic agents. We are not aware of an application to therapeutic studies in CRC. We conducted waterfall plot analyses on the data of N9741 which compared IFL, FOLFOX4, and IROX as first-line therapy in ACRC (Goldberg JCO 2004). Methods: 634 (IFL 215, FOLFOX 215, IROX 204) of the 795 pts presented in the published analysis had measurable disease, and are included. The percentage change in tumor measurements from baseline to 12 wks was calculated, allowing for a time window of assessment from 6 to 20 wks for those without a 12 wk measurement. Pts with progression before the 12 wk assessment were assigned a 100% increase. The average reduction in tumor burden (ARTB) was calculated as difference in waterfall AUC divided by the number of pts. ARTB captures the average percentage reduction in tumor measurements at 12 wks for a patient entering the trial. Results: Waterfall plot analysis demonstrated some tumor growth at 12 wks in 23.7% (IFL), 15.8% (FOLFOX), and 26.9% (IROX) of pts. In contrast, tumor shrinkage was observed in 67.9% (IFL), 71.6% (FOLFOX), and 61.4% (IROX) of pts. Total differential AUC was -34.4 (IFL), -61.6 (FOLFOX), and -30.4 (IROX) resulting in an ARTB of 16.0% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) (23.7%, 8.2%)) for IFL, 28.7% (35.1%, 22.2%) for FOLFOX, and 14.9% (22.5%, 7.3%) for IROX. Conclusions: Waterfall plot analyses are feasible in this and likely other CRC trials using conventional chemotherapy. Our analysis confirms the published results of N9741, but suggests a larger degree of benefit for individuals based on anti-tumor activity than captured by conventional response analysis. Waterfall plots provide a potentially useful new efficacy metric, the average reduction of tumor burden per pt, which should be validated in future trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4067 Background: N9741 randomized 1691 patients (pts) to seven 5FU, Ox and Iri containing regimens for MCRC. After 20.4 months median follow-up, FOLFOX and IROX improved time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) compared to IFL. Here we update OS and TTP, and report an analysis of factors prognostic of pt outcome. Methods: 5 yr OS and TTP were calculated by Kaplan-Meier per treatment (rx) arm. Pt factors [rx arm, age, gender, prior adjuvant rx, body mass index (BMI), performance status (PS), number of disease sites (#sites), neutrophil count (ANC), hemoglobin, platelets, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase (ALK), aspartate aminotransferase (AST)] were assessed for univariate association with OS, TTP, response rate (RR), and any grade =3 toxicity. Associated factors were included in multivariate Cox and logistic regression models. Results: After a median follow-up of 4.3 yrs, FOLFOX treated pts were more likely to live 5 yrs, 9.2% versus 5.4% for IROX (p=.016) and 3.8% for IFL (p<.001). Median TTP was also significantly longer in the FOLFOX arm, 9.2 mo vs 6.5 mo for IROX (p=<.001) and 6.0 mo for IFL (p=<.001). The prognostic model found higher PS, ANC and ALK, and more disease sites were prognostic of worse OS (see table ). Age = 70 was associated with poorer survival (HR death 1.33, p=.03), but not TTP, RR, or grade =3 toxicity. FOLFOX rx was the most powerful prognostic factor for TTP and OS. The odds of grade =3 toxicity were significantly higher in FOLFOX treated pts (OR 1.65, p<.001) and lower in men (OR .63, p<.001). No significant interactions between rx arm and pt factors were present, suggesting no factor examined is predictive of rx-specific outcome. Conclusions: 9% 5 yr OS in MCRC pts treated with first-line FOLFOX sets a new benchmark. We confirmed pre-rx PS, WBC, and ALK are prognostic for OS, though FOLFOX rx was the strongest prognostic factor. No factor was associated with differential outcome or toxicity by rx arm, thus these factors cannot be used to guide rx selection. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

4017 Background: Published reports suggest that CC pts of A descent have inferior survival compared to W pts. Whether these differences are explained by clinical factors at diagnosis, socioeconomic factors impacting access to care, or intrinsic differences in the biology of the tumors or the response to therapy is unclear. Pts in clinical trials have data collected for important baseline clinical factors and should receive comparable oncologic care regardless of socioeconomic factors. Methods: We analyzed data from 13,435 individual pts on 11 phase III adjuvant CC trials accrued from 1977 to 2002. Analysis was restricted to stage II and III pts, with race reported as black or white. Endpoints were overall survival (OS - time to death), recurrence-free survival (RFS - time to recurrence or death), and recurrence-free interval (RFI - time to recurrence censoring for death). Cox models stratified by study controlled for gender, stage, age, and treatment type (rx) to determine the effect of race. Kaplan-Meier estimates (KM) were adjusted (adj) by the Xie-Liu method for study, gender, stage, age, and rx. Results: A pts (n=1134, 8.4%) were younger than W (median 58 vs 61, p<0.001) and more likely female (55 vs 45%, p<0.001). A pts had poorer OS than W pts ( table ). OS results were consistent in subsets defined by gender, stage, and age. RFS results were attenuated compared to OS, but still favored improved RFS in W pts ( table ). RFI results were further attenuated and not significantly different by race ( table ). Conclusions: Even with identical rx for CC in controlled clinical trials, A pts have poorer OS and RFS than W pts. The OS deficit was consistent across subgroups, and neither deficit was explained by differences in gender, stage, age, or rx. RFI was similar for both races, suggesting that the OS and RFS differences may be largely due to deaths unrelated to CC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

4006 Background: Lymph node (LN) metastasis is associated with decreased survival in rectal cancer. It has been suggested that at least 14 LN be evaluated for adequate staging. However, a large percentage of patients have fewer than the recommended number of LN examined. We hypothesized that LN ratio would be predictive of overall survival in rectal cancer. Methods: Data was analyzed from Intergroup 0114, a mature trial of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation in T3/4 and/or LN positive rectal cancer. Survival was the same for all arms allowing the entire group to be considered as one. The primary endpoint evaluated was overall survival. A proportional hazards model was used to determine the relative prognostic impact of LN ratio compared to number of LN examined, number of positive LN, number of negative LN and AJCC nodal stage. LN ratio was defined as the number of positive LN divided by the total number of LN examined. Four groups were analyzed based on proportion of positive LN: =0.25, >0.25–0.50, >0.50–0.75 and >0.75. Results: 1,648 patients were evaluable. There were 251 T1/2, 1,251 T3 and 146 T4 tumors. 513 patients were N0, 743 N1 and 392 N2. Median number of LN was 9. LN ratio was predictive of 5-year overall survival with rates of 0.71, 0.56, 0.50 and 0.43 respectively when analyzed by quartile (p<0.0001). LN ratio remained significant when overall survival was analyzed by number of LN examined and grouped into <10, <15 and >15 nodes evaluated (p<0.0001 for all). LN ratio also predicted overall survival in N1 (p=0.04) and N2 (p=0.0002) disease. When comparing LN ratio (χ2=79.5, p<0.0001) to number of LN examined (χ2=4.7, p=0.03), number of positive LN (χ2=38, p<0.0001), number of negative LN (χ2=32, p<0.0001) and AJCC nodal stage (χ2=55.5, p<0.0001), LN ratio appears to be the strongest predictor of overall survival. Conclusion: LN ratio predicts overall survival in patients with resected rectal cancer. Importantly, this is true in patients who have had a small number of LN evaluated, in addition to those with a large number of LN examined. LN ratio also appears to be a stronger predictor of overall survival than other described LN prognostic factors. LN ratio may be a useful variable to stratify outcome in patients with node-positive rectal cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

PURPOSE The microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually regarded as a single biologic entity, given the absence of comparative analyses regarding prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon cancers were randomly assigned to FOLFOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab in 2 large adjuvant phase III trials (N = 5,577). Among patients with MSI and KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumors, the prognostic and predictive impacts of sporadic versus familial dMMR cancers and BRAF V600E mutational status were determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment arm, adjusting for age, sex, tumor grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pT/pN stage, and primary tumor location. RESULTS Among patients with MSI status with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (n = 354), 255 (72%) had sporadic ( BRAF mutation and/or MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) had familial tumors ( BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1 or loss of MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 protein expression). A large proportion of dMMR sporadic tumors were mutated for BRAF (n = 200). In patients treated with FOLFOX, DFS did not differ statistically by dMMR mechanism, whereas in patients treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab, those with sporadic tumors had worse DFS than those with familial cancers (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.08; P = .04). Considering the predictive utility, the interaction between treatment and dMMR mechanism was significant ( P = .03). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend toward a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in patients with BRAF-mutant but not BRAF WT tumors. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to adjuvant FOLFOX was associated with shorter DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR colon cancer. Additional studies are needed to validate these results in metastatic disease.

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Diabetes is a prognostic factor for some malignancies, but its association with outcome in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is less clear. Methods This cohort study was nested within a randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab and/or cetuximab for advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients were enrolled at 508 community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network. The primary exposure was physician-documented diabetes at the time of enrollment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Tests of statistical significance were two-sided. Results Among 2326 patients, 378 (16.3%) had diabetes. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. We observed 1973 OS events and 2173 PFS events. The median time to an OS event was 22.7 months among those with diabetes and 27.1 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.44; P &lt; .001). The median time to a PFS event was 9.7 months among those with diabetes and 10.8 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; P = .02). Patients with diabetes were more likely to experience no less than grade 3 hypertension (8.1% vs 4.4%; P = .054) but were not more likely to experience other adverse events, including neuropathy. Conclusions Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality and tumor progression in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients with diabetes tolerate first-line treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies similarly to patients without diabetes.

Abstract Purpose: Previous studies have suggested that higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels are associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk and improved survival. However, the influence of vitamin D status on disease progression and patient survival remains largely unknown for patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: We prospectively collected blood samples in 1,041 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer participating in a randomized phase III clinical trial of first-line chemotherapy plus biologic therapy. We examined the association of baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for prognostic factors and confounders. Results: At study entry, 63% of patients were vitamin D deficient (&lt;20 ng/mL) and 31% were vitamin D insufficient (20–&lt;30 ng/mL). Higher 25(OH)D levels were associated with an improvement in OS and PFS (Ptrend = 0.0009 and 0.03, respectively). Compared with patients in the bottom quintile of 25(OH)D (≤10.8 ng/mL), those in the top quintile (≥24.1 ng/mL) had a multivariable-adjusted HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53–0.83) for OS and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–1.00) for PFS. The improved survival associated with higher 25(OH)D levels was consistent across patient subgroups of prognostic patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, higher plasma 25(OH)D levels were associated with improved OS and PFS. Clinical trials assessing the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer are warranted.