Tournigand, Christophe

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]

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.

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]

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.

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.