Shi, Qian

Summary Exploratory analysis of a phase III trial in esophageal cancer found that the patients who most contributed to an overall survival benefit from PD-1 blockade were not responders, but non-responders. The analysis has limitations but may have implications for investigating the optimal timing of immunotherapy relative to other treatments. See related article by Okada et al., p. 3277

3606 Background: Standard adjuvant CT for stage III CC are FOLFOX and CAPOX. Recently, IDEA study separated stage III patients (pts) into low risk (T1 to 3, N1) and high risk (T4 or N2). We recently confirmed benefit of OX in both risk groups. However, we observed a difference in the two high-risk subgroups, with benefit in N2 but not in T4 (Margalit O et al; Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021). This prompted us to compare outcomes (OS/TTR) between treatment with OX vs. without OX within sub-stage III CC groups defined by T and N. Methods: We pooled 4941 stage III CC pts from the three studies evaluating 6 months of CT with fluoropyrimidine (FP) ± OX: MOSAIC, C-07 and XELOXA. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2 and t-test. OS was compared between OX and no OX in T and N subgroups. Kaplan-Meier analyses, adjusted and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study were used. Sub-groups classification was done according to OX benefit and verified by interaction test (Int) considered as significant with a P<0.1. We considered for recommendation of using OX-based adjuvant CT, 1) significant benefit in OS, 2) significant Int between substage and adjuvant therapy, and 3) the three individual trials showing similar results (benefit or non-benefit of OX). Results: In stage III population, T3 pts were 74.9%, T1-2 12.4%, T4 13.1%, while N stage was N1 64.7% and N2 35.3%. Population was well balanced according to treatment allocation in most subgroups. A significant benefit of OX was only observed in T3N1 and T3N2 (OS HR 0.76). Whatever N stage, there was no significant benefit of OX in the T1-2 and T4 subgroups. The effect of OX+FP vs FP alone in OS of the three studies differed between T3 and T1-2 subgroups (P = 0.047). Interaction was borderline between T3 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.10) but there was no interaction between T1-2 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.429). A benefit of OX in TTR remained in the T4 population. Discrepancy between advantage in time to relapse (TTR) and no advantage in OS was not explained by survival post relapse. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that pts with T1-2N1-2 and T4N1-2 disease had no OS benefit of addition of OX to FP. The good survival achieved with FP alone in T1-2N1-2 pts (5-yr OS 89%) question the addition of OX. In the T4 population our results suggested that benefit of OX was limited and that further studies should assess this issue or at least stratify pts on T stage in the future adjuvant trials in CC. [Table: see text]

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

3525 Background: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are significantly associated with clinical outcomes in patients with colon cancer. However, the potential for a differential effect of TILs on prognosis based on primary tumor sidedness has not been studied. We determined the interaction between TILs and tumor sidedness in relationship to disease-free survival (DFS). Methods: We analyzed data on TIL densities by primary tumor sidedness in 1532 stage III colon carcinomas from participants in a phase III trial of FOLFOX-based adjuvant chemotherapy (NCCTG N0147). TIL densities were dichotomized as low or high (≤3 /HPF) based on an optimized cutoff previously identified for DFS in this cohort. Right-sided tumors were defined as proximal to the splenic flexure. Analysis of TILs and sidedness with DFS were examined using Kaplan-Meier methodology and multivariable Cox regression. Results: Overall, tumors with high vs low TILs had the best DFS [HRadj: 0.58 (95%CI: 0.45-0.74); Padj <0.0001]. The association of TIL densities with 5-yr DFS differed significantly by primary tumor sidedness ( Pinteraction (adj) = 0.045). Among right-sided tumors, high vs low TILs were significantly associated with improved DFS ( Padj <0.0001)[Table]. Among left-sided tumors, however, DFS did not differ significantly for high vs low TILs ( Padj =0.173)[Table]. Similar results for TILs and DFS by sidedness were found for pMMR cancers. We then analyzed our data in low risk (T1-3, N1) and high risk (T4 and/or N2) tumors. Among low risk tumors, high vs low TILs was significantly associated with improved 5-yr DFS only in right-sided tumors ( Padj =0.006) [Table]. Among high risk tumors, high vs low TILs were significantly associated with better DFS in both right-sided ( Padj<0.001) and left-sided ( Padj =0.024) tumors. Conclusions: Overall, tumors with high TIL densities had significantly better DFS in right-sided but not left-sided cancers. Among low risk patients, the association of high TILs with better DFS was limited to right-sided tumors. These findings suggest that TILs should be interpreted by sidedness for prognostication. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274 . [Table: see text]

The restricted mean survival time measure has gained a lot of interests for designing and analyzing oncology trials with time-to-event endpoints due to its intuitive clinical interpretation and potentially high statistical power. In the non-inferiority trial literature, restricted mean survival time has been used as an alternative measure for reanalyzing a completed trial, which was originally designed and analyzed based on traditional proportional hazard model. However, the reanalysis procedure requires a conversion from the non-inferiority margin measured in hazard ratio to a non-inferiority margin measured by restricted mean survival time difference. An existing conversion method assumes a Weibull distribution for the population survival time of the historical active control group under the proportional hazard assumption using data from a single trial. In this article, we develop a methodology for non-inferiority margin conversion when data from multiple historical active control studies are available, and introduce a Kaplan-Meier estimator-based method for the non-inferiority margin conversion to relax the parametric assumption. We report extensive simulation studies to examine the performances of proposed methods under the Weibull data generative models and a piecewise-exponential data generative model that mimic the tumor recurrence and survival characteristics of advanced colon cancer. This work is motivated to achieve non-inferiority margin conversion, using historical patient-level data from a large colon cancer clinical database, to reanalyze an internationally collaborated non-inferiority study that evaluates 6-month versus 3-month duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients.

SummaryProgression‐free survival (PFS) has been the regulatory primary end‐point for recent phase III trials in first‐line follicular lymphoma (FL), but requires prolonged follow‐up. Complete response (CR) at 30 months after initiation of induction treatment was validated as surrogate end‐point for PFS. Our objective was to further evaluate surrogacy of CR measured by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging at the end of induction (EoI). Individual patient data were analysed from 1505 patients from five randomized trials. Trial‐level surrogacy examining the association between treatment effects on EoI‐PET‐CR and PFS was evaluated using linear regression () and bivariate Copula () models. Although EoI‐PET‐CR strongly predicted PFS at a prognostic level, the trial‐level assessment did not show strong correlation (, confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.88; , CI: 0.0–0.82). The high uncertainty in estimation was possibly due to the small number of trials and the population of patients with available PET data. Maintenance therapy affecting PFS beyond induction treatment, but not EoI‐PET‐CR end‐point, may have distorted the association between treatment effects. However, there will probably be a number of additional trials approaching completion with available PET response data. Refined evaluation of PET‐CR based surrogate end‐points is still warranted.

Abstract Observational studies and stand-alone trials indicate that patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who experience disease progression within 24 months of front-line chemoimmunotherapy (POD24), have poor outcomes. We performed a pooled analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials of patients with FL in the pre- and postrituximab eras to identify clinical factors that predict POD24. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between clinical factors and POD24. Cox regression evaluated the association between POD24 as a time-dependent factor and subsequent overall survival (OS). A landmark analysis evaluated the association of POD24 with OS for the subset of patients who were alive at 24 months after trial registration. Patients without progression at 24 months at baseline had favorable performance status (PS), limited-stage (I/II) disease, low-risk FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, normal baseline hemoglobin, and normal baseline β2 microglobulin (B2M) level. In a multivariable logistic regression model, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.30), PS ≥2 (OR, 1.63), B2M (≥3 mg/L; OR, 1.43), and high-risk FLIPI score (3-5; OR, 3.14) were associated with increased risk of progression before 24 months. In the time-dependent Cox model and the 24-month landmark analysis, POD24 was associated with poor subsequent OS (hazard ratio, 4.85 and 3.06, respectively). This is the largest pooled analysis of clinical trials data validating POD24 as a robust indicator of poor FL survival and identified clinical predictors of early death and progression that can aid in building comprehensive prognostic models incorporating clinical and molecular predictors of POD24.

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.