Seymour, Michel

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

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.

656 Background: Patients (pts) with peritoneal metastases from CRC (pmCRC) have reduced OS compared to mCRC pts without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the impact of number and location of metastases among pts receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. Methods: Individual patient data were available on 9,265 pts (median age 64; 63% male; 93% ECOG PS 0-1; 68% colon primary tumor; brain metastases excluded) enrolled onto 12 first-line randomized trials (4 tested targeted regimens). Stratified multivariable Cox models were used to assess the associations with overall survival (OS); adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals are reported (CI). Results: There were 7,963 (86%) pts with non-pmCRC (3,904 with one disease site; 4,059 with ≥2 disease sites), 191 (2%) pts with isolated pmCRC, and 1,111 (12%) non-isolated pmCRC. These groups were similar in age, race, and use of targeted chemotherapy. Compared to non-pmCRC, pts with pmCRC were more likely to be female (41% vs. 36%, p<.001), have colon primary tumors (85% vs. 67%, p<.0001), and have PS2 (10% vs. 6%, p<.0001). Compared to isolated pmCRC, pts with solitary non-peritoneal sites (both M1a) had significantly better OS (HRadj=0.78; CI, 0.64-0.94, p=.009) while pts with ≥2 non-peritoneal sites had similar OS (HRadj=1.06; CI 0.88-1.28, p=.535). OS of pts with pmCRC with a single other disease site (n=446) was similar to isolated pmCRC (HRadj=1.13; CI 0.91-1.40, p=.28), but those with pmCRC + ≥2 additional disease sites (n=665) had shortest survival (HRadj=1.44; CI 1.17-1.77, p<.001). A combination of peritoneal and liver metastases (n=821; HRadj=1.37, CI 1.12-1.67, p=.002) was associated with poorer survival compared with isolated pmCRC; but combination with extrahepatic sites (n=290; HRadj=1.15, CI 0.91-1.45, p=.25) was not. Conclusions: pmCRC pts have significantly worse survival than those with other solitary site mCRC. Among those with multiple disease sites, poorer survival is a function of increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement, which indicates prognostic heterogeneities among M1b pts.

659 Background: Prospective survival prediction of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is difficult. Prognosis estimation based on readily available clinicopathologic factors has the potential to inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for OS and PFS in mCRC using the multi-trial ARCAD database. Methods: Data from 19,678 mCRC pts accrued to 24 first line randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models for PFS and OS, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included age, gender, BMI, performance status, colon vs. rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, sites of metastases (liver, lung, lymph nodes), and baseline bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (dNLR). Missing data (<11%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions considered if p<0.001. Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices, and externally validated using a 10% holdout sample from each trial. Results: Nomograms for OS and PFS including remaining variables were well calibrated with C-indices of 0.66 and 0.60, respectively. Evaluation of external validity revealed good concordance; 71% and 67% respectively between predicted (> vs. <50% probability) and actual (yes/no) 1-year OS and 6-month PFS, and median 1-year OS and 6-month PFS predictions fell within the actual 95% Kaplan-Meier intervals. Gender, liver and lung metastases, and dNLR were not prognostic for OS; prior chemo, colon vs. rectum, dNLR, liver and lymph node metastases, and gender did not predict for PFS. No clinically relevant pairwise interactions were identified. Conclusions: The proposed nomograms are well calibrated and internally and externally valid. These tools have the potential to aid prognostication and patient/physician communication, and balance risk in randomized trials in mCRC.

Purpose In recent retrospective analyses of early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), low and high body mass index (BMI) scores were associated with worsened outcomes. Whether BMI is a prognostic or predictive factor in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unclear. Patients and Methods Individual data from 21,149 patients enrolled onto 25 first-line mCRC trials during 1997 to 2012 were pooled. We assessed both prognostic and predictive effects of BMI on overall survival and progression-free survival, and we accounted for patient and tumor characteristics and therapy type (targeted v nontargeted). Results BMI was prognostic for overall survival (P < .001) and progression-free survival (P < .001), with an L-shaped pattern. That is, risk of progression and/or death was greatest for low BMI; risk decreased as BMI increased to approximately 28 kg/m 2 , and then it plateaued. Relative to obese patients, patients with a BMI of 18.5 kg/m 2 had a 27% increased risk of having a PFS event (95% CI, 20% to 34%) and a 50% increased risk of death (95% CI, 43% to 56%). Low BMI was associated with poorer survival for men than women (interaction P < .001). BMI was not predictive of treatment effect. Conclusion Low BMI is associated with an increased risk of progression and death among the patients enrolled on the mCRC trials, with no increased risk for elevated BMI, in contrast to the adjuvant setting. Possible explanations include negative effects related to cancer cachexia in patients with low BMI, increased drug delivery or selection bias in patients with high BMI, and potential for an interaction between BMI and molecular signaling pathways.

PurposeProgression-free survival (PFS) has previously been established as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because mCRC treatment has advanced in the last decade with extended OS, this surrogacy requires re-examination.MethodsIndividual patient data from 16,762 patients were available from 22 first-line mCRC studies conducted from 1997 to 2006; 12 of those studies tested antiangiogenic and/or anti–epidermal growth factor receptor agents. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated by using R2statistics (the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the correlation) from weighted least squares regression of trial-specific hazard ratios estimated by using Cox and Copula models.ResultsForty-four percent of patients received a regimen that included biologic agents. Median first-line PFS was 8.3 months, and median OS was 18.2 months. The correlation between PFS and OS was modest (R2, 0.45 to 0.69). Analyses limited to trials that tested treatments with biologic agents, nonstrategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy.ConclusionIn modern mCRC trials, in which survival after the first progression exceeds time to first progression, a positive but modest correlation was observed between OS and PFS at both the patient and trial levels. This finding demonstrates the substantial variability in OS introduced by the number of lines of therapy and types of effective subsequent treatments and the associated challenge to the use of OS as an end point to assess the benefit attributable to a single line of therapy. PFS remains an appropriate primary end point for first-line mCRC trials to detect the direct treatment effect of new agents.

Purpose This study addressed whether age is prognostic for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods A total of 20,023 patients from 24 first-line clinical trials in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Primary age effects and interactions with age, sex, performance status (PS), and metastatic site were modeled using Cox proportional hazards stratified by treatment arm within study. Results Of total patients, 3,051 (15%) were age ≤ 50 years. Age was prognostic for both OS (P < .001) and PFS (P < .001), with U-shaped risk (ie, highest risk was evident in youngest and oldest patients). Relative to patients of middle age, the youngest patients experienced 19% (95% CI, 7% to 33%) increased risk of death and 22% (95% CI, 10% to 35%) increased risk of progression. The oldest patients experienced 42% (95% CI, 31% to 54%) increased risk of death and 15% (95% CI, 7% to 24%) increased risk of progression or death. This relationship was more pronounced in the first year of follow-up. Age remained marginally significant for OS (P = .08) when adjusted for PS, sex, and presence of liver, lung, or peritoneal metastases, and age was significant in an adjusted model for PFS (P = .005). The age effect did not differ by site of metastatic disease, year of enrollment, type of therapy received, or biomarker mutational status. Conclusion Younger and older age are associated with poorer OS and PFS among treated patients with mCRC. Younger and older patients may represent higher-risk populations, and additional studies are warranted.

PurposeColorectal cancer predominantly occurs in the elderly, but approximately 5% of patients are 50 years old or younger. We sought to determine whether young age is prognostic, or whether it influences efficacy/toxicity of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced disease.MethodsWe analyzed individual data on 6,284 patients from nine phase III trials of advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) that used fluorouracil-based single-agent and combination chemotherapy. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and grade 3 or worse adverse events. Stratified Cox and adjusted logistic-regression models were used to test for age effects and age-treatment interactions.ResultsA total of 793 patients (13%) were younger than 50 years old; 188 of these patients (3% of total patients) were younger than 40 years old. Grade 3 or worse nausea (10% v 7%; P = .01) was more common, and severe diarrhea (11% v 14%; P = .001) and neutropenia (23% v 26%; P < .001) were less common in young (younger than 50 years) than in older (older than 50 years) patients. Age was prognostic for PFS, with poorer outcomes occurring in those younger than 50 years (median, 6.0 v 7.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .02), but it did not affect RR or OS. In the subset of monotherapy versus combination chemotherapy trials, the relative benefits of multiagent chemotherapy were similar for young and older patients. Results were comparable when utilizing an age cut point of 40 years.ConclusionYoung age is modestly associated with poorer PFS but not OS or RR in treated patients with aCRC, and young patients have more nausea but less diarrhea and neutropenia with chemotherapy in general. Young versus older patients derive the same benefits from combination chemotherapy. Absent results of a clinical trial, standard combination chemotherapy approaches are appropriate for young patients with aCRC.

PurposePerformance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain.Patients and MethodsIndividual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade ≥ 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy.ResultsCompared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade ≥ 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients.ConclusionIn clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.