Sargent, Daniel J

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.

Abstract Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Explain the difference in survival prediction between response criteria (WHO) when used as a two-level variable (CR/PR vs. other) and as a three-level variable (CR/PR vs. SD vs. PD).Describe the limited benefit of using actual tumor measurements over traditional criteria (as a three-level variable) in predicting survival in colorectal cancer. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com Purpose. We explored the prognostic value of actual tumor measurements (TM) versus World Health Organization (WHO) criteria as three-level (responder, stable, and progression) and two-level (responder and non-responder) variables at 12 and 24 weeks as predictors of survival in Intergroup Trial N9741, a phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods. All patients with measurable disease (N = 1,188) were included. The percentage changes in TM from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks were calculated. The prognostic values of TM versus WHO criteria (as three- and two-level variables) at 12 and 24 weeks were compared, using Cox models for overall survival (OS) in a landmark analysis, adjusting for baseline tumor size, performance status, and treatment arm. Results. Tumor status at 12 weeks by WHO criteria (three or two levels) or actual TM were all strongly associated with OS. Actual TM provided no meaningful additional benefit compared with the three-level WHO criteria. Tumor status at 24 weeks was also strongly associated with survival, but added no additional prognostic value compared with the 12-week assessment. At 12 weeks, actual TM improved prognostic characterization of patients with WHO status of response, but provided no additional value in patients with stable disease or progression. Conclusions. In N9741, the use of actual TM, or following tumor status beyond 12 weeks, did not improve survival prediction compared with a single three-level response assessment at 12 weeks, suggesting that 12-week tumor status could be an appropriate phase II trial endpoint in metastatic CRC.

The majority of patients with gastrointestinal cancers are over the age of 65. This age group comprises the minority of the patients enrolled in clinical trials, and it is unknown whether older patients achieve similar results as younger patients in terms of survival benefit and tolerability. In addition, there are few studies specifically designed for patients over 65 years. Subset analyses of individual trials and studies using pooled patient data from multiple trials provide some understanding on outcomes in older patients with gastrointestinal cancers. This article reviews the evidence on chemotherapeutic regimens in the elderly with colorectal, pancreatic, and gastroesophageal cancers, and discusses a practical approach to provide the best outcomes for older patients.

Purpose Previous studies have suggested that higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D] levels are associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk and improved survival, but the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in advanced colorectal cancer and its influence on outcomes are unknown. Patients and Methods We prospectively measured plasma 25(OH)D levels in 515 patients with stage IV colorectal cancer participating in a randomized trial of chemotherapy. Vitamin D deficiency was defined as 25(OH)D lower than 20 ng/mL, insufficiency as 20 to 29 ng/mL, and sufficiency as ≥ 30 ng/mL. We examined the association between baseline 25(OH)D level and selected patient characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for death, disease progression, and tumor response, adjusted for prognostic factors. Results Among 515 eligible patients, 50% of the study population was vitamin D deficient, and 82% were vitamin D insufficient. Plasma 25(OH)D levels were lower in black patients compared to white patients and patients of other race (median, 10.7 v 21.1 v 19.3 ng/mL, respectively; P < .001), and females compared to males (median, 18.3 v 21.7 ng/mL, respectively; P = .0005). Baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels were not associated with patient outcome, although given the distribution of plasma levels in this cohort, statistical power for survival analyses were limited. Conclusion Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent among patients with stage IV colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy, particularly in black and female patients.

Background A major challenge for randomized phase III oncology trials is the frequent low rates of patient enrollment, resulting in high rates of premature closure due to insufficient accrual. Purpose We conducted a pilot study to determine the extent of trial closure due to poor accrual, feasibility of identifying trial factors associated with sufficient accrual, impact of redesign strategies on trial accrual, and accrual benchmarks designating high failure risk in the clinical trials cooperative group (CTCG) setting. Methods A subset of phase III trials opened by five CTCGs between August 1991 and March 2004 was evaluated. Design elements, experimental agents, redesign strategies, and pretrial accrual assessment supporting accrual predictions were abstracted from CTCG documents. Percent actual/predicted accrual rate averaged per month was calculated. Trials were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient accrual based on reason for trial termination. Analyses included univariate and bivariate summaries to identify potential trial factors associated with accrual sufficiency. Results Among 40 trials from one CTCG, 21 (52.5%) trials closed due to insufficient accrual. In 82 trials from five CTCGs, therapeutic trials accrued sufficiently more often than nontherapeutic trials (59% vs 27%, p = 0.05). Trials including pretrial accrual assessment more often achieved sufficient accrual than those without (67% vs 47%, p = 0.08). Fewer exclusion criteria, shorter consent forms, other CTCG participation, and trial design simplicity were not associated with achieving sufficient accrual. Trials accruing at a rate much lower than predicted (<35% actual/predicted accrual rate) were consistently closed due to insufficient accrual. Limitations This trial subset under-represents certain experimental modalities. Data sources do not allow accounting for all factors potentially related to accrual success. Conclusion Trial closure due to insufficient accrual is common. Certain trial design factors appear associated with attaining sufficient accrual. Defining accrual benchmarks for early trial termination or redesign is feasible, but better accrual prediction methods are critically needed. Future studies should focus on identifying trial factors that allow more accurate accrual predictions and strategies that can salvage open trials experiencing slow accrual. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 312—321. http://ctj.sagepub.com