Citations 34

CanStem303C trial: A phase III study of napabucasin (BBI-608) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in adult patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 15_suppl | Pages: TPS3619-TPS3619

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.tps3619

TPS3619 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be fundamentally important for resistance to therapy, recurrence and metastasis. Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor in development identified by its ability to inhibit STAT3-driven gene transcription and spherogenesis of cancer stem cells (Li et al, PNAS 112(6):1839, 2015). Preclinically, napabucasin sensitizes cancer cells to chemotherapeutics, including 5-FU and irinotecan. Encouraging anticancer activity in advanced CRC was observed in a phase Ib/II (Bendell et al, GI ASCO 2017) study of 63 pts with disease control rate (DCR) of 93% (28/30) and overall response rate (ORR) of 33% (10/30) in FOLFIRI-naïve pts who have had an on-study RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753127) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI in pts with mCRC (n = 1250). Addition of bevacizumab (bev) is permissible per investigator choice. Pts must have failed 1 prior line of therapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine +/- bev for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO BID plus FOLFIRI bi-weekly, or FOLFIRI bi-weekly (bev may be added to FOLFIRI by investigator choice) and stratified by geography, time to progression on 1st-line therapy, RAS mutation status, bev as part of study treatment and primary tumor location. Treatment will continue until disease progression, or another discontinuation criterion. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (ITT) (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 12.54 to 15.68 months); secondary endpoints include OS in the biomarker positive (biomarker+) population, progression free survival (PFS) in the ITT population, PFS in biomarker+ population, ORR and DCR in the ITT and in biomarker+ populations, safety and quality of life. Also, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for PK and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02753127.
Regorafenib for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Who Progressed After Standard Therapy: Results of the Large, Single-Arm, Open-Label Phase IIIb CONSIGN Study

The Oncologist | September 6, 2018 | Volume: 24 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 185-192

10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0072 | PMID 30190299

Abstract Background In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization. Methods This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment-refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation. Results In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib-related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib-related TEAEs occurred in <1%. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related TEAEs were hypertension (15%), hand–foot skin reaction (14%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (5%), and hypophosphatemia (5%). Treatment-emergent grade 3–4 laboratory toxicities included alanine aminotransferase (6%), aspartate aminotransferase (7%), and bilirubin (13%). Ongoing monitoring identified one nonfatal case of regorafenib-related severe drug-induced liver injury per DILI Working Group criteria. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.7 months (2.6–2.7). Conclusion In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680. Implications for Practice Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT (N = 760) and CONCUR (N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events.
Personalizing Survival Predictions in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: The ARCAD Nomogram Project

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | November 13, 2017 | Volume: 110 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 638-648

10.1093/jnci/djx253 | PMID 29267900

Clinical Calculator for Early Mortality in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Patients From 28 Clinical Trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive Database

Journal of Clinical Oncology | April 17, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 17 | Pages: 1929-1937

10.1200/jco.2016.71.5771 | PMID 28414610

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.
Rectal versus left-sided colon cancers: Clinicopathological differences observed in a pooled analysis of 4,182 patients enrolled to 8 clinical trials from the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 21, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 675-675

10.1200/jco.2017.35.4_suppl.675

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.
Time course of regorafenib-associated adverse events in the phase III CORRECT study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 467-467

10.1200/jco.2013.31.4_suppl.467

467 Background: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Methods: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Results: The safety population comprised 753 patients (pts): REG n=500; placebo n=253. The mean treatment duration was 12.1 ± 9.7 weeks in the REG group and 7.8 ± 5.2 weeks in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred at any grade in 99.6% of REG pts and 96.8% of placebo pts, at grade 1/2 in 21.6% and 47.8%, respectively, at grade 3 in 56.0% and 26.5%, respectively, and at grade 4/5 in 22.0% and 22.5%, respectively. AEs occurring in ≥10% more REG than placebo pts were fatigue, hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, voice changes, hypertension, rash/desquamation, oral mucositis, fever, hyperbilirubinemia, low platelet count. The most frequent AEs deemed to be regorafenib related were HFSR, fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash/desquamation. The frequency of these AEs over time is shown in the Table. The incidence of HFSR, fatigue, hypertension, and rash/desquamation peaked in cycle 1 and tapered to a relatively stable lower incidence over later cycles. The incidence of diarrhea remained relatively constant throughout treatment. AEs led to dose modification in 66.6% of pts in the REG group and 22.5% in the placebo group. Data on dose intensity across treatment cycles will be presented. Conclusions: In the CORRECT trial, the incidences of the most common AEs in the REG group peaked early during treatment. There appeared to be no evidence for cumulative toxicity of REG. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]
Mutational analysis of biomarker samples from the CORRECT study: Correlating mutation status with clinical response to regorafenib.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 381-381

10.1200/jco.2013.31.4_suppl.381

381 Background: In the CORRECT Ph3 trial, regorafenib demonstrated significant improvement in OS and PFS vs. placebo in subjects with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed on standard therapies. An exploratory biomarker substudy was conducted on samples collected from subjects enrolled in CORRECT. Methods: DNA was isolated from archival tumor tissue and fresh baseline plasma samples that were available from 239 (31%) and 503 (66%) subjects enrolled in CORRECT, respectively. Mutations in KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF were evaluated via BEAMing technology. Results: Mutations were readily detected in DNA isolated from both tumor and plasma samples: KRAS: 59/69%; PIK3CA: 12/17% and BRAF: 1.5/3.4%. The frequency of KRAS mutation detected in tumor samples via BEAMing (59%) was identical to the frequency determined from pre-existing “historical” KRAS mutation data that was available from 96% of the subjects enrolled in the study. Concordance among the mutations detected via BEAMing in tumor vs. plasma was 76% (KRAS), 88% (PIK3CA), and 97% (BRAF). A subset of CRC which was found to be KRAS-wildtype in DNA from archival tumor, but KRAS-mutant in DNA from fresh plasma was identified and may represent subjects whose KRAS mutational status had changed during prior therapy. Correlative subgroup analyses demonstrated that regorafenib mediated a trend for clinical benefit vs. placebo in both KRAS wildtype and mutant subgroups identified by plasma BEAMing (OS: KRAS WT, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41–1.08; KRAS mutant, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61–1.09; interaction p=0.561). Similar results were noted for PIK3CA WT/mutant subgroups (OS: WT, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.99; mutant, HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47–1.50; interaction p=0.723). BRAF was not analysed due to the small number of BRAF-mutant samples. Conclusions: The mutational analysis of DNA isolated from fresh plasma is feasible and robust using the BEAMing platform and may better represent the mutational status of the tumor(s) that a mCRC patient harbors at the time of enrollment than does the mutational analysis of archival primary tumor tissue. Regorafenib was associated with clinical benefit (vs. placebo) in all mutational subgroups evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.
Subgroup analysis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with regorafenib (REG) in the CORRECT trial who had progression-free survival (PFS) longer than 4 months.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 3_suppl | Pages: 710-710

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.710

710 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial (NCT01103323), the multikinase inhibitor REG significantly improved overall survival (OS) and PFS vs placebo in patients with mCRC who had disease progression after other standard therapies (HR for OS: 0.77; 1-sided p =0.0052; Grothey 2013). A post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate patients in the REG treatment group who had a PFS longer than 4 months (long-PFS) defined as patients who progressed, died, or discontinued treatment for other reasons after 4 months. Methods: Of the505 patients randomized to REG in CORRECT, 98 (19.4%) were classified as having a long-PFS benefit. Baseline characteristics, safety, and dosing parameters were analyzed descriptively. Results: The long-PFS subpopulation was representative of the overall study population (Table). Long-PFS patients received a median of 6 cycles of REG (1-12), 92% received ≥5 cycles, and 20% had > 8 cycles. Overall 34% of patients had dose reductions and 87% had dose interruptions. The actual mean daily dose was 139 mg and the mean percent of the planned dose was 81%. Adverse events (AE) of any grade were experienced by all long-PFS patients, and the most common grade ≥3 AEs were hand-foot skin reaction (20%), hypertension (17%), diarrhea (17%), and fatigue (16%). Conclusions: A subset of 98 (19.4%) patients treated with REG in the CORRECT study had a PFS > 4 months, confirming the clinical benefit and tolerability of REG as a treatment option for patients with mCRC. Prospective validation of these findings in conjunction with biomarker analysis from real-life clinical experience is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]
Trial-level association between response-based endpoints (RBEs) and progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) in first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 3_suppl | Pages: 666-666

10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.666

666 Background: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS; ≥20% decrease from baseline) and early objective tumor response (EOTR; CR/PR by RECIST) are associated with improved PFS/OS to a similar extent than best overall response (BOR), confirmed response (ConfR) and non-progression rate (NPR; CR/PR/SD by RECIST) at the individual level in first-line mCRC (ASCO 2014, abstr 3538/3578). We assessed these RBEs at the trial level. Methods: Data were available on 12,185 pts enrolled in a total of 17 randomized trials of chemotherapy (CT) alone or with targeted agents (TAs). ETS, EOTR and NPR were assessed at 6/8/9 and 12 weeks (wks), whereas BOR and ConfR were ascertained within 26 wks from randomization. Association between treatment effects on RBEs and on PFS/OS was assessed by coefficients of determination (R2, adjusted for estimation errors) using a copula model). Results: None of the RBEs had consistently strong correlations with PFS or OS (Table). The number of trials was insufficient to obtain reliable estimates for antiangiogenics and anti-EGFR separately. Conclusions: Despite their individual-level associations with PFS and OS, RBEs do not appear to be surrogate endpoints in first-line mCRC, given their poor predictive ability. [Table: see text]
Prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Individual patient data (IPD) analysis of first-line randomized trials from the ARCAD database.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 658-658

10.1200/jco.2016.34.4_suppl.658

658 Background: In patients (pts) with mCRC with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is limited evidence regarding the indication for primary tumor resection. The primary objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous mCRC pts. Methods: In this IPD analysis, a total of 3,423 pts from 8 first-line randomized trials (RCTs) with systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Five RCTs included targeted (anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR) agents. Synchronous mCRC was defined as distant metastases occurring ≤ 6 months of the initial CRC diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared by stratified multivariate Cox models. Results: There were 710 (21%), 1,705 (50%) and 1,008 (29%) pts with non-resected and resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC, respectively. Compared to the non-resection group, pts in the synchronous resection group were associated with female gender, colon tumor, isolated liver/lung involvement, single metastatic site, and lower LDH (all p<.001). Adjusted for age, gender, performance status and prior chemotherapy, the non-resection group had a significantly worse median OS (16.4m) compared to the resection (22.2m; HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, PFS was significantly worse for the non-resection group (7.9m) compared to the resection (9.7m; HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous group (8.9m; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66). Similar trends were observed in pts treated with non-targeted vs targeted agents, and anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR therapy. In a subset analysis (n= 526), the observed associations remained after additional adjustment for primary tumor location, liver/lung involvement, number of metastatic sites, BMI and LDH. Conclusions: In this largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date, primary tumor resection is associated with better OS and PFS in synchronous mCRC pts. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Prospective RCTs on this topic are ongoing.