Chang, George J.

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .

656 Background: Despite multiple trials of new agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), long term outcomes remain poor. This study explores the changing trends in the design, interpretation and outcomes of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mCRC over time. Methods: Phase III RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC with enrollment between 1986 and 2016 were identified through 4 electronic databases and grouped into 3 time periods (1986-1996 – T1; 1997-2006 – T2 & 2007-2016 – T3). Study selection, quality appraisal and data collection were performed by 2 independent investigators. Study characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, and authors’ interpretation of results and conclusions were analyzed. Improvement in overall survival (OS) was the difference between experimental and control arms. A study was deemed positive if it met its end point, was recommended for further study or for adoption for clinical use (p ≤ 0.05 significant for all analyses). Results: One hundred fifty trials (T1=36, T2=62, T3=52) with 77494 patients (T1=12406, T2=39158, T3=25930) were included. Although 1st line therapy trials continued to be the most common across all T, the percentage (%) of trials evaluating 3rd line and beyond (T1=0, T2=3, T3=27) have increased significantly over time as have trials with targeted agents (T1=11, T2=34, T3=79). Although OS remains the most common primary end point, more trials in T2 & T3 have used progression-free survival instead (14 vs 47 & 44). The % of trials with negative results but interpreted as positive increased over time (T1=18; T2=42; T3=35). Across all T, the median improvement in OS (months, m) of these trials was significantly lower compared to the trials that met primary end point across all T (T1 = 0 vs 1.8 m, T2 = -0.1 vs 3.25, T3 = -0.25 vs 2.55). Conclusions: A significant shift has occurred over the past three decades in the design and interpretation of phase III trials in advanced CRC. Any interpretations of potential survival benefits from trials that have not met primary end point must be made with significant caution.

Abstract Background This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS ® protocol. Methods A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta‐analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results All recommendations on ERAS ® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good‐quality trials; meta‐analyses of good‐quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. Conclusions The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS ® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

6520 Background: Breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of signs/symptoms. However, data supporting this recommendation predates the current era of improved imaging and targeted therapies based on molecular subtype. The objective was to assess the relationship between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of Stage II-III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-7 was selected from NCDB records from 1,217 CoC-accredited facilities (10/hospital n = 10,853). Women were categorized by subtype: 1) ER or PR+/HER2-; 2) ER and PR-/Her2- (triple negative); 3) HER2+. Medical records abstracted for 5-years post-surgery supplemented NCDB data and assessed distant recurrence and mode of detection (prompted by signs/symptoms or surveillance imaging), imaging (chest CT, abdomen/pelvis CT/MRI, head CT/MRI, bone scan, PET/CT), death date. The relationship between mode of recurrence detection and days from initial cancer diagnosis to death was assessed using propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by subtype. Propensity weights, based on receipt of surveillance systemic imaging, accounted for sociodemographic and tumor/treatment factors. Results: 5-year distant recurrence was 22.3% for triple negative, 14.8% HER2+, and 11.2% for ER or PR+/ HER2- patients. Asymptomatic imaging detected recurrence in 22.9% and signs/symptoms in 77.1%. Patients with asymptomatic as compared to sign/symptom detected recurrences had reduced risk of death in 5 years if triple negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or HER2+ (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.65) with no significant association for ER or PR+/HER2- (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88-1.51). This translated to a between-group difference in weighted median survival of 5 months for triple negative and 13 months for HER2+ patients. Conclusions: This is the first nationally representative study to show a survival advantage with asymptomatic detection of distant metastases for patients, with the benefit limited to triple negative and HER2+ disease. Further research to confirm observational findings is warranted.

Objective: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. Background: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. Methods: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. Results: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4–84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3–88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN. Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21–2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85–3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40–3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30–3.77). Conclusion: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Purpose Fluorouracil/leucovorin as the sole therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) provides an overall survival of 8 to 12 months. With an increase in surgical resections of metastatic disease and development of new chemotherapies, indirect evidence suggests that outcomes for patients are improving in the general population, although the incremental gain has not yet been quantified. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic CRC treated at two academic centers from 1990 through 2006. Landmark analysis evaluated the association of diagnosis year and liver resection with overall survival. Additional survival analysis of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database evaluated a similar population from 1990 through 2005. Results Two thousand four hundred seventy patients with metastatic CRC at diagnosis received their primary treatment at the two institutions during this time period. Median overall survival for those patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1997 was 14.2 months, which increased to 18.0, 18.6, and 29.3 months for patients diagnosed in 1998 to 2000, 2001 to 2003, and 2004 to 2006, respectively. Likewise, 5-year overall survival increased from 9.1% in the earliest time period to 19.2% in 2001 to 2003. Improved outcomes from 1998 to 2004 were a result of an increase in hepatic resection, which was performed in 20% of the patients. Improvements from 2004 to 2006 were temporally associated with increased utilization of new chemotherapeutics. In the SEER registry, overall survival for the 49,459 identified patients also increased in the most recent time period. Conclusion Profound improvements in outcome in metastatic CRC seem to be associated with the sequential increase in the use of hepatic resection in selected patients (1998 to 2006) and advancements in medical therapy (2004 to 2006).