Citations

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland ( p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3–4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

Abstract Background Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the impact of PTS on outcomes of mCRC patients. Methods PTS data of 9277 mCRC patients from 12 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status, prior radiation/chemotherapy, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (cetuximab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone). All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Compared with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 2421, 26.1%), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 6856, 73.9%) had better OS (median = 21.6 vs 15.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 0.76; P &lt; .001) and PFS (median = 8.6 vs 7.5 months; HRadj = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84; P &lt; .001). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was statistically significant (Pinteraction &lt; .001); left-sidedness was associated with better prognosis among KRAS wild-type (WT) (OS HRadj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.66; PFS HRadj =0.68, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.75) but not among KRAS mutated tumors. Among KRAS-WT tumors, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was confirmed for left-sidedness (OS HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97; P = .01; PFS HRadj = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88; P &lt; .001) but not for right-sidedness. Conclusions The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS-WT population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a statistically significant improvement of survival for left-sidedness mCRC patients. These results suggest treatment choice in mCRC should be based on both PTS and KRAS status.

3533 Background: PFS has previously been established as a surrogate for OS based on IPD from first-line mCRC trials conducted before 1999. As mCRC treatment (trt) has advanced in the last decade and OS has increased from 1 to 2 years, this surrogacy required re-examination. Methods: IPD from 16,762 pts, median age 62, 62% male, 53% ECOG PS 0 were available from 22 1st line mCRC studies conducted from 1997-2006; 12 tested targeted (anti-angiogenic and/or anti-EGFR) regimens. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated at patient-, trt-arm-, and trial-levels using correlation (corr.) coefficients and R2 (closer to 1 the better) from weighted least square (WLS) regression of arm-specific survival rates and trial-specific hazard ratios (HRs), estimated using Cox and Copula bivariate models. The concordance of significance (CoS) of the treatment effects (TEs) on both endpoints was calculated. Results: 44% pts received a targeted regimen. Median PFS was 8 and OS was18 months. The corr. between PFS and OS was modest at all three levels with low CoS in TE comparisons (see Table). Analyses limited to trials testing targeted trts, non-strategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy. Conclusions: In modern mCRC trials, where survival post-first progression exceeds time to first progression, PFS TEs do not reliably predict TEs on OS. Nonetheless, until alternative endpoints of clinical benefit can be validated, PFS remains a relevant primary endpoint for 1st line mCRC trials, as our data demonstrate that the ability for any agent to produce an OS benefit from a single line of therapy is challenging. [Table: see text]

3520 Background: EOTR has been suggested as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mCRC and allows early assessment of treatment efficacy, facilitating adaptive trial design. We assessed at the individual patient level, the correlation between EOTR (complete or partial response) at 6, 8 and 12 weeks (wk), OS and progression free survival (PFS) in pts with mCRC treated with 1stline chemotherapy with or without a targeted agent as a first step in a surrogacy demonstration. Methods: IPD from 13,949 pts enrolled on 15 randomized Phase III trials in 1st line mCRC were used; 8 trials included targeted (anti-angiogenic and anti-EGFR) agents. EOTR prognostic value was assessed by landmark analyses using Cox models stratified by treatment assignment. P-values <0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of 13,949 pts, 11,987 had sufficient response data to be included in the analysis. Median OS was 21.7 months (mo) in pts with an EOTR vs. 16.5 mo without EOTR at 6 wk (p<.0001, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.70, c statistic [c] 0.55). HRs were similar whether pts were treated with targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80, x 0.54) or non-targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.69, x 0.55). Median PFS was 8.4 mo in pts with EOTR at 6 wk vs. 7.0 mo in pts without EOTR (p<.0001, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). EOTR at 8 and 12 wks were also significantly associated with longer OS and PFS. The prognostic value of EOTR at 6, 8 and 12 wks remained significant (p<0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, performance statusand location of metastatic disease (lung or liver). Overall tumor response (to 26 wk) however provided superior OS prediction (p<.0001, HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.47-0.56, CS 0.61) vs. EOTR. Conclusions: Early response measured at 6, 8 or 12 wk after starting 1st line treatment was a strong and independent predictor of both OS and PFS in patient with mCRC and warrants further consideration as a potential endpoint for future trials, particularly randomized phase II trials.

188 Background: Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the prognostic and predictive impact of PTS on outcomes. Methods: PTS data of 7,828 mCRC patients (pts) from 10 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. PTS was defined as right-sided (RS) or left-sided (LS) if tumor arose from the cecum to the hepatic flexure or from the splenic flexure to the rectum, respectively; transverse colon cancers were not included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status (PS), prior radiation/chemo, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone). Results: Compared to RS pts (2407, 31%), LS pts (5421, 69%) had better OS (median: 21.6 v 16.8 mos; HRadj: 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.78, P < .001) and PFS (median 8.4 v 7.2 mos; HRadj: 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.86, P < .001). Results were consistent among subgroups defined by age, sex, PS, metastatic sites and chemo backbone (irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was significant (Pinteraction< .001): LS is associated with better prognosis only among KRAS wild-type (wt) (HRadj: OS 0.62, 95% CI, 0.55-0.70; PFS 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.80), but not among KRAS mutated pts. Among KRAS wt pts, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was observed for LS, but not for RS (table). Conclusions: The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS wt population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a significant improvement of survival for LS mCRC pts. These results suggest treatment stratification in mCRC studies by both PTS and KRAS status. [Table: see text]

617 Background: There is limited, often conflicting evidence about AE timing, severity or associations with outcomes with the use of cytotoxic agents in cancer treatment. We investigated the impact on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of selected common AEs (neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, neuropathy) occurring in patients receiving first line oxaliplatin (Oxa)- and/or irinotecan(Iri)-based regimens for mCRC. Methods: The CTCAE grading scores of at least one AE of interest were available on 9812 pts treated with chemotherapy alone (median age 63; 62.4% male, 50.1% ECOG PS 0) from 17 1st-line randomized trials. Patients who also received biologics were excluded in the primary analyses. AEs occurring during the first 6 weeks of treatment and entire treatment were analyzed by stratified multivariable Cox models in relationship to OS/PFS. 55.7% pts received Oxa- regimens, 35.7% Iri-regimens, and 8.6% combined Oxa- and Iri-regimens. Results: Within the first 6 weeks of treatment, G3+ neutropenia (HRadj= 1.3, 95% CI, 1.06-1.59, padj 0.01), diarrhea (HRadj= 1.48, 95% CI, 1.23-1.79, padj < .0001), nausea (HRadj= 1.53, 95% CI, 1.17-1.99, padj 0.002) and vomiting (HRadj= 1.56, 95% CI, 1.18-2.07, padj 0.002) were associated with significantly worse OS for Iri-regimens, but only G3+ nausea predicted for worse OS for Oxa- regimens (HRadj= 1.61, 95% CI, 1.18-2.21, padj 0.003). For AEs experienced at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy were significantly associated with longer PFS and OS for Oxa-regimens, while G3+ vomiting and nausea were associated with worse OS for both Oxa- and Iri-based regimens. Sensitivity analysis showed largely concordant results by including pts who also received biologics. Conclusions: The association between more severe selected AEs and outcome varies between AEs and is influenced by timing of the occurrence. More severe selected AEs occurring early in treatment are associated with worse outcomes. In contrast, for AEs occurring at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy predicted for longer PFS and/or OS in Oxa-treated pts.