Grothey, Axel

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

Background: Bevacizumab (BEV), a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), is a standard component of medical therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Activation of alternative angiogenesis pathways has been implicated in resistance to BEV. This phase II study examines the activity of combined vertical blockade of VEGF signaling with sorafenib and BEV as salvage therapy in patients with progressive disease (PD) on all standard therapy in mCRC. Methods: mCRC patients with documented PD on standard therapy, received sorafenib (200 mg orally twice daily, days 1–5 and 8–12) and BEV (5 mg/kg intravenously, day 1) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was 3-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), safety, and feasibility. Results: Of the 83 patients enrolled, 79 were evaluable. Of these, 42 (53%) were progression-free at 3 months. Median PFS was 3.5 months and median OS was 8.3 months. One patient had a partial response and 50 patients (63.3%) had at least one stable tumor assessment. Of 79 evaluable patients, 54 (68%) experienced grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) at least possibly related to treatment. Most frequent grade 3/4 AEs were: fatigue (24.1%), hypertension (16.5%), elevated lipase (8.9%), hand-foot skin reaction (8.9%), diarrhea (7.6%), and proteinuria (7.6%). Reasons for treatment discontinuation were PD (72%), AEs (18%), patient refusal (8%), physician decision (1%), and death (1%). Conclusions: The combination of BEV and sorafenib as salvage therapy in heavily pretreated mCRC patients is tolerable and manageable, with evidence of promising activity. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00826540, URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00826540

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

e18367 Background: Regorafenib at 160mg daily 21/28 days is a standard therapeutic option in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the cost of treatment and management of its side-effects is more than the cost-effectiveness threshold for oncology drugs in US and many countries around the world. ReDOS (Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study), is a randomized phase II trial in refractory mCRC and established that weekly dose escalation of regorafenib over the conventional dosing is superior in the composite endpoint of safety and efficacy. We explored the impact of the new dosing strategy on CE of regorafenib. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib (standard), regorafenib (ReDOS), and best supportive care (BSC). Model inputs for clinical efficacy and safety were from the CORRECT trial for regorafenib (standard) and BSC, and the ReDOS study for regorafenib (ReDOS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The model used a US payer’s perspective with 5% annual discount rate, and all costs were measured in 2018 US dollars. Results: Regorafenib (ReDOS) dominated regorafenib (standard), producing higher quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost. When compared to BSC, regorafenib (ReDOS) resulted in the ICER of $112,705 while regorafenib (standard) resulted in the ICER of $384,687. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters under univariate sensitivity analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, regorafenib (ReDOS) was more cost-effective than regorafenib (standard) and BSC in 70% of repetition at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $120,000 per QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) and 98% at a WTP threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes demonstrated in the ReDOS study, the dose optimization strategy of regorafenib results in favorable cost-effectiveness under a typical US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

3525 Background: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to be of poor prognosis. The interaction between MSI and BRAFV600E mutation complicates the picture. Methods: Patients with resected stage III CC from 7 studies with disease recurrence and data available for MSI and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary endpoint was survival after recurrence (SAR) to assess the prognostic roles of MSI and BRAFV600E, respectively. Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for clinicopathologic features (data collected 12/1998 to 11/2009). Results: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI tumors (n = 220) had significantly better SAR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98; P = .029) than patients with microsatellite stable /proficient MMR (MSS) tumors (n = 1766). This was also observed when looking at patients treated by the standard FOLFOX adjuvant regimen only (aHR, 0.76; 0.58-1.00; P = .048). Same trends were observed when looking at MSI/dMMR patients outcome in BRAFV600E wild-type (aHR, 0.84; P = .10) and mutant (aHR, 0.88; P = .43) subgroups separately, without reaching statistical significance. As previously described poor SAR was observed in BRAFV600E mutants vs wild type patients (n = 244; aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < .0001) and this was also true in BRAFV600E mutants MSI/dMMR patients (n = 77, aHR, 2.65 ; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; p < .0001). Other factors associated with a poor SAR were : olderage, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence (by 1y increase). Conclusions: In stage III colon cancer patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy and before the era of immuno-oncologic agents, MSI/dMMR was associated with a better survival compared to MSS. BRAFV600E mutation seems to be a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients.

3502 Background: DFS with 3 years median follow-up (3yDFS) was validated as a surrogate for OS with 5 years median follow-up (5yOS) in adjuvant chemotherapy CC trials prior. Recent data showed improved survival after recurrence and OS, over time, in pts who received adjuvant FOLFOX. Hence, re-evaluation of the association between DFS and OS, as well as the optimal follow-up of OS to aid its utility in future adjuvant trials is needed. Methods: Individual patient data from 8 randomized adjuvant studies conducted from 1998-2009 were included; 3 trials tested anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR agents. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates (i.e. hazard ratios) of 3yDFS and 5y to 8yOS was evaluated using both linear regression (R2WLS) and Copula bivariate (R2Copula) models. For the R2, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. Prespecified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥ 0.80 and neither < 0.7, with lower-bound 95% Confidence Interval (CI) > 0.60. The rank correlation coefficient (ρ) quantified the individual-level surrogacy. Results: Total of 18,886 pts were analyzed, with median age 60, 54% male, 83% stage III, 59% > 12 nodes examined. Median follow-up for survival ranged from 5 to 10 years across trials. Trial level correlation between 3yDFS and OS remained strong (R2WLS ≥0.74; R2Copula ≥ 0.89) and increased as the median follow-up of OS extended longer (see table). Analyses limited to stage III pts and/or trials tested biologics showed consistent results. Conclusions: 3yDFS remains a validated surrogate endpoint for 5yOS in adjuvant trials in CC pts per prespecified criteria. The correlation was strengthened with more than 6 years of follow-up for OS. [Table: see text]