Citations

Abstract Background: Limited data exist to describe the clinical features and outcomes for elderly pts with FL. The FLASH group performed a prospectively planned pooled analysis of IPD from first-line RCTs and examined associations between age (<= 70 vs. > 70 years), clinical characteristics and FL outcomes. Methods: We identified 18 randomized controlled multicenter clinical trials in the FLASH database which enrolled elderly pts (> 70 yrs). From these 18 studies, 5922 previously untreated FL pts were included for this analysis. Complete response (CR) at 24 and 30 months were defined as whether the pt achieved and remains in CR at 24 months and 30 months after initiation of induction treatment. PFS24 is defined as proportion of pts progression-free and alive at 24 months post-randomization. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from randomization to the date of progression (censoring for death without progression) and date of death due to any cause, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to the date of progression or death, due to any cause, whichever comes first. Non-lymphoma death was defined as death without prior progression. Early disease outcomes, i.e. CR24, CR30, and PFS24 were primary outcomes; secondary outcomes were TTP, OS, and PFS. For time-to-event outcomes, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for univariate estimation and comparison; stratified Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence methods were used to model PFS while treating disease progression as the primary event of interest and non-lymphoma death as a competing risk. For binary outcomes, multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between age groups and outcomes. Variable adjusted in the regression models are FLIPI score without the age component, ECOG performance status (>= 2 vs < 2), and rituximab use. Results: Among 5922 previously untreated FL pts from 18 RCTs, 63% (n = 3728) were <= 60, 28% (n = 1652) 61-70, and 9% (n = 542) > 70 yrs. Pts age > 70 (vs. <= 70) more commonly had elevated LDH (42% vs 36%, p = 0.02), hemoglobin < 12 g/dL (27% vs 19%, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS >= 2 (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0004), and elevated β2-microglobulin (68% vs 49%, p < 0.001), less often had > 4 lymph nodes involved (54% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and had similar FLIPI scores without age component (p = 0.17). There were no significant differences between groups in: Ann Arbor stage (94% vs 95% stage III/IV) or rituximab use (62% vs 58%). Median survival follow-up was 5.6 yrs. Pts > 70 yrs did not differ from pts <= 70 in rates of CR24 (27% vs 30%, p=0.32), CR30 (29% vs 31%, p=0.55) or PFS24 (63% vs. 67%, p=0.10). Median TTP was 3.8 and 4.0 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.23, p=0.20). With a median OS of 14.6 years for all pts, median OS was 7.4 and 15.7 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=2.35, 95% CI=2.03-2.73, p<0.001). PFS was statistically significantly different but clinically similar at median 3.1 and 3.8 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.26, 95% CI =1.12-1.41, p<0.001). Further investigation showed the difference in PFS was due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death in pts > 70 with no difference in disease progression (Figure). In regression models, adjusting for rituximab use, ECOG PS >= 2, and FLIPI score without the age component, age > 70 was a significant predictor of OS and PFS (due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death), but not PFS24, CR24 or CR30 (Table). Conclusions: FL pts > 70 yrs treated on trials have similar early disease outcomes to younger patients. There is no disease-specific outcome difference between age groups. Age alone should not disqualify patients from standard treatments or RCTs. Disclosures Flowers: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Shi:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Hochster:Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Consultancy fees for advisory boards for GI cancer and bevacizumab with amounts within Yale University de minims guidelines. Brice:Roche: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Hiddemann:Roche: Other: Grants; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Other: Grants. Marcus:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jansen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Baxalta: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria. Herold:Gilead: Other: Personal fees from member advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Other: Grants; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Grants. De Bedout:Celgene: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Morschhauser:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Rummel:Mundipharma GmbH: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures. Salles:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Previous studies have suggested that higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels are associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk and improved survival. However, the influence of vitamin D status on disease progression and patient survival remains largely unknown for patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: We prospectively collected blood samples in 1,041 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer participating in a randomized phase III clinical trial of first-line chemotherapy plus biologic therapy. We examined the association of baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for prognostic factors and confounders. Results: At study entry, 63% of patients were vitamin D deficient (&lt;20 ng/mL) and 31% were vitamin D insufficient (20–&lt;30 ng/mL). Higher 25(OH)D levels were associated with an improvement in OS and PFS (Ptrend = 0.0009 and 0.03, respectively). Compared with patients in the bottom quintile of 25(OH)D (≤10.8 ng/mL), those in the top quintile (≥24.1 ng/mL) had a multivariable-adjusted HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53–0.83) for OS and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–1.00) for PFS. The improved survival associated with higher 25(OH)D levels was consistent across patient subgroups of prognostic patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, higher plasma 25(OH)D levels were associated with improved OS and PFS. Clinical trials assessing the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer are warranted.

PURPOSERegular physical activity is associated with reduced risk of recurrence and mortality in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Its influence on patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been largely unexplored.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe conducted a prospective cohort study nested in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850 ), a National Cancer Institute–sponsored phase III trial of systemic therapy for mCRC. Within 1 month after therapy initiation, patients were invited to complete a validated questionnaire that reported average physical activity over the previous 2 months. On the basis of responses, we calculated metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours per week to quantify physical activity. The primary end point of the clinical trial and this companion study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and first grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events. To minimize confounding by poor and declining health, we excluded patients who experienced progression or died within 60 days of activity assessment and used Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to adjust for known prognostic factors, comorbidities, and weight loss.RESULTSThe final cohort included 1,218 patients. Compared with patients engaged in less than 3 MET hours per week of physical activity, patients engaged in 18 or more MET hours per week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.02; PTrend= .06) and for PFS of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99; PTrend= .01). Compared with patients engaging in less than 9 MET hours per week, patients engaging in 9 or more MET hours per week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.86; PTrend< .001).CONCLUSIONAmong patients with mCRC in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405, association of physical activity with OS was not statistically significant. Greater physical activity was associated with longer PFS and lower adjusted risk for first grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events.

Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States, and additional treatment strategies are needed for patients with advanced disease. Prospective therapeutic studies based on tissue-detected genomic targets such as ERBB2 (HER2), BRAF V600E, gene rearrangements/fusions, and microsatellite instability (MSI) have demonstrated clinical benefit for mCRC patients. Although correlative studies and/or retrospective case series utilizing circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next generation sequencing (NGS) have shown that plasma detection of these genomic targets shows promise in mCRC, prospective studies are lacking. We hypothesize that comprehensive genomic profiling of cfDNA will identify actionable targets and improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. Methods: COLOMATE (Colorectal Cancer and Liquid Biopsy Screening Protocol for Molecularly Assigned Therapy; NCT03765736) is a phase II umbrella screening protocol sponsored by the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) consortium. This study utilizes Guardant360™ (Guardant Health, Redwood City, CA) - a blood-based targeted NGS panel - to identify actionable genomic alterations in mCRC patients and to assess the impact of molecularly assigned therapy accordingly under its individual companion studies. Eligible mCRC patients must have progressed on, been intolerant to, or have a contraindication to treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs if RAS wild-type. Companion studies are dynamic and currently include those for patients whose tumors are either RAS/BRAF wild-type, HER2 amplified, FGFR altered, RAS mutated, or without any known actionable alteration. Additional companion studies are under active development. The primary objectives of this study are to perform blood-based genomic profiling on patients with treatment refractory mCRC to facilitate accrual to molecularly assigned therapies, and to obtain patient-matched tumor tissue and cell free DNA from peripheral blood to facilitate clinically annotated genomic analyses. Secondary correlative objectives are to explore mechanisms of acquired resistance to molecularly assigned therapy and to explore the correlation between cfDNA mutational burden (allele frequency, copy number) and clinical outcomes such as objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Citation Format: Kristen K. Ciombor, Fang-Shu Ou, Andrew Dodge, Tyler Zemla, Christina Wu, Kimmie Ng, Katrina Pedersen, Shumei Kato, Pashtoon M. Kasi, Daniel Ahn, Rebecca Nagy, Richard Lanman, Scott Kopetz, John H. Strickler, Tanios Bekaii-Saab. COLOMATE: Colorectal cancer and liquid biopsy screening protocol for molecularly assigned therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-235.

Abstract Background: In non-metastatic colorectal cancer, a body mass index (BMI) paradox is observed where overweight and early obese patients experience improved outcomes compared to patients with normal, low, or morbidly obese BMI. The influence of obesity on patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is relatively unexplored. Methods: We conducted a prospective BMI companion study in CALGB (now Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology)/SWOG 80405, a phase III mCRC treatment trial. BMI was measured at trial registration. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall and progression-free survival, respectively. To minimize confounding by poor and rapidly declining health, we used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for known prognostic factors, comorbidities, physical activity, and weight loss, and excluded individuals with low BMI &lt;21 from statistical tests for trend. We also examined self-reported weight loss over the six months prior to trial enrollment as an independent predictor of patient outcome. Results: In this sub-study of a phase III mCRC trial, BMI was recorded for all 2,323 patients enrolled. Following adjustment for confounders, there were no significant associations between BMI and overall or progression-free survival (excluding BMI &lt;21, Ptrend with increasing BMI = 0.12 and 0.42, respectively). Conversely, weight loss prior to treatment was associated with shorter overall and progression-free survival; compared to individuals with weight change &lt;5%, individuals with weight loss &gt;20% experienced an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.46 for all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.85, Ptrend &lt;.0001) and of 1.27 for disease progression or death (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.56, Ptrend = .009). Conclusion: In this prospective study of patients with mCRC, BMI at time of first-line chemotherapy initiation was not associated with patient outcome. Weight loss prior to study entry was associated with increased risk of patient mortality and disease progression. Citation Format: Brendan Guercio, Sui Zhang, Alan P. Venook, Fang-Shu Ou, Donna Niedzwiecki, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Federico Innocenti, Hanna Sanoff, Michelle R. Mahoney, Bert H. O'Neil, James E. Shaw, Blase N. Polite, Howard S. Hochster, James N. Atkins, Richard M. Goldberg, Robert J. Mayer, Charles D. Blanke, Charles S. Fuchs, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Body mass index, weight loss, and progression and mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3285.

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.

e15169 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR), anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy produced high tumor response rates and extended progression-free survival compared to lack of benefit for cancers with proficient MMR. In an ongoing phase III randomized trial, we will determine if the addition of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab (Genentech), to adjuvant FOLFOX can improve patient disease-free survival (DFS) vs FOLFOX alone in patients with stage III colon cancers with dMMR. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, atezolizumab may activate T cells, thereby, restoring their ability to detect and attack tumor cells. Limited data suggest that FOLFOX may increase intratumoral cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that could serve as ‘immune priming'. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage III colon carcinomas with evidence of dMMR are randomized to modified FOLFOX6 for 6 months (12 cycles) alone (control arm) or combined with atezolizumab (840 mg IV q2 wk) with continuation of the antibody as monotherapy for an additional 6 months (total duration of 12 months) [experimental arm]. Patients will be stratified by T, N stage and tumor sidedness. Local testing for MMR proteins is allowed. Atezolizumab must begin by/with cycle 2. One cycle of FOLFOX is allowed pre-registration. The targeted accrual goal of 700 patients and 165 disease-free survival (DFS) events will provide 90% power to detect an effect size expressed as hazard ratio of 0.6 for the primary endpoint of DFS at two-sided alpha of 0.05. Interim analyses are planned at 50% and 75% of events. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, treatment tolerability, and quality of life. Results: This study is being conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, was approved by NCI CTEP and activated in 09/2017. The study is actively accruing and, as of 02/11/2019, 152 patients are enrolled. We are actively exploring an international collaboration. Conclusions: This is a current clinical trial in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559.

3035 Background: Energy balance-associated biomarkers such as insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) and IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs) have been associated with risk and prognosis of various malignancies. Their relationship to disease progression and mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires further study. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, baseline plasma IGFBP-3, IGFBP-7, C-peptide, IGF-I, and adiponectin were measured at trial registration among 1,086 patients participating in a National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trial of first-line therapy for mCRC. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for confounders and examine associations of biomarkers with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Higher plasma IGFBP-3 was associated with longer OS (adjusted Ptrend < .001) and PFS (adjusted Ptrend = .003). Compared to patients in the lowest IGFBP-3 quintile, patients in the highest quintile experienced an adjusted HR for all-cause mortality of 0.58 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.78) and for disease progression or mortality of 0.60 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.82). Higher plasma IGFBP-7 was associated with shorter OS (adjusted Ptrend < .001) and PFS (adjusted Ptrend = .02). Compared to patients in the lowest IGFBP-7 quintile, patients in the highest quintile experienced an adjusted HR for all-cause mortality of 1.52 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.88) and for disease progression or mortality of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.57). C-peptide and IGF-I were not significantly associated with patient outcomes (adjusted Ptrend = .73 and .30 for OS). Adiponectin was not associated with OS; there was a U shaped association between adiponectin and PFS, wherein low and high values were associated with shorter PFS ( Pnon-linear trend = .03). Conclusions: In patients with mCRC, high plasma IGFBP-3 and low IGFBP-7 were associated with reduced risk of disease progression and mortality. These data suggest that energy-balance associated biomarkers may offer prognostic and biologic insights into mCRC. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, BMS, Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

3501 Background: 6m of oxaliplatin-based treatment is an option as adj chemotherapy for patients with high risk stage II CC (T4, inadequate nodal harvest, poorly differentiated, obstruction, perforation or vascular/perineural invasion). The IDEA collaboration showed shorter treatment duration to be appropriate for most pts with stage III colon cancer. The results of the 4 IDEA studies with stage II pts are presented here. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of high-risk stage II patients from 4 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, ACHIEVE-2, HORG) was performed to evaluate non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX (regimen preselected, not randomized). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.2. 542 DFS events were required to provide 80% power to declare NI. NI was also examined within regimen, T4 (Yes v No) and inadequate nodal harvest (Yes v No) as pre-planned subgroups. Results: The primary analysis included 3273 randomised pts of which 1254 had FOLFOX and 2019 had CAPOX. There were 552 events and the median follow-up was 60.2 m. There was significantly less grade 3-5 toxicity with 3m treatment (p < .0001). The 5-year DFS rate was 80.7% and 84.0% for 3m and 6m treatment with an estimated DFS HR of 1.18 (80% CI:1.05-1.31, p for NI = 0.404). For CAPOX the estimated HR was 1.02 (80% CI: 0.88-1.17, p for NI = 0.087) and for FOLFOX the estimated HR was 1.42 (80% CI: 1.19-1.70, p for NI = 0.894). The test for interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant (p = .174 adjusted for multiple testing) but was stronger than that for the other subgroups examined. Conclusions: In the overall population non-inferiority for 3m adj treatment in pts with high-risk stage II CC was not shown. As with the stage III population the choice of adj regimen appears important (although this did not reach statistical significance) with a small difference in DFS between 3 and 6 m treatment if CAPOX is used. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN59757862.