Citations

Abstract Background: Cetuximab, an EGFR inhibitor used to treat multiple cancer types, including colon cancer, causes severe skin toxicity in 5%–20% of patients, leading to decreased quality of life and treatment delays. Our understanding of which patients have an increased risk of severe toxicities is limited. We conducted a genome-wide association study to identify germline variants predictive of cetuximab-induced severe skin toxicity. Methods: Our study included 1,209 patients with stage III colon cancer randomized to receive cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin as part of the NCCTG N0147 (Alliance) clinical trial. Skin toxicity outcomes were collected using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. We performed genotyping, evaluating approximately 10 million genetic variants. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of each genetic variant and severe (grade ≥ 3) skin toxicity, adjusting for age, sex, and genetic ancestry. Genome-wide significance was defined as P < 5 × 10−8. Results: Participants were predominantly middle-aged white men; 20% (n = 243) experienced severe skin toxicity. Two genetic variants in the retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) gene were significantly associated with severe skin toxicity [OR, 3.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.47–6.25; P < 7.8 × 10−9]. Functional annotations indicate these variants are in the RARA promoter. Additional significantly associated variants were identified in chromosome 2 intergenic regions. Conclusions: Identified variants could represent a potential target for risk stratification of patients with colon cancer receiving cetuximab. Impact: Retinoids have shown promise in the treatment of cetuximab-induced skin toxicity, so follow-up work could evaluate whether individuals with the RARA variant would benefit from retinoid therapy.

Background Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the “Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade” method. Methods We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as “early” (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or “late” (i.e. after the 6 th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies (“Irinotecan” and “Oxaliplatin”) from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database ( fondationarcad.org ). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. Results Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3–4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. Conclusion We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.

Abstract Background Adjuvant chemotherapy is a standard treatment option for patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer. Sex is one of several factors responsible for the wide inter-patient variability in drug responses. Amalgamated data on the effect of sex on the toxicity of current standard adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer are missing. Methods The objective of our study was to compare incidence and severity of major toxicities of fluoropyrimidine- (5FU or capecitabine) based adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without oxaliplatin, between male and female patients after curative surgery for colon cancer. Adult patients enrolled in 27 relevant randomized trials included in the ACCENT (Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points) database, a large, multi-group, international data repository containing individual patient data, were included. Comparisons were conducted using logistic regression models (stratified by study and treatment arm) within each type of adjuvant chemotherapy (5FU, FOLFOX, capecitabine, CAPOX, and FOLFIRI). The following major toxicities were compared (grade III or IV and grade I-IV, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria [NCI-CTC] criteria, regardless of attribution): nausea, vomiting, nausea or vomiting, stomatitis, diarrhea, leukopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neuropathy (in patients treated with oxaliplatin). Results Data from 34 640 patients were analyzed. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the occurrence of grade III or IV nonhematological {especially nausea (5FU: odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90 to 2.87, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.76 to 3.11, P &lt; .001), vomiting (5FU: OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.86 to 3.04, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.66, P &lt; .001; CAPOX: OR = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.55 to 3.46, P &lt; .001), and diarrhea (5FU: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.51, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.90, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.25 to 1.97, P &lt; .001)} as well as hematological toxicities (neutropenia [5FU: OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.37 to 1.76, P &lt; .001; FOLFOX: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71 to 2.25, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.43, P &lt; .001; capecitabine: OR = 4.07, 95% CI = 1.84 to 8.99, P &lt; .001] and leukopenia [5FU: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.40 to 2.17, P &lt; .001; FOLFIRI: OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.40, P &lt; .001]) were observed, with women being consistently at increased risk. Conclusions Our analysis confirms that women with colon cancer receiving adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy are at increased risk of toxicity. Given the known sex differences in fluoropyrimidine pharmacokinetics, sex-specific dosing of fluoropyrimidines warrants further investigation.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have reshaped therapeutic strategies for cancer patients. The development of ICI for early stage colorectal cancer is accompanied by specific challenges: (i) the selection of patients who are likely to benefit from these treatments, i.e., patients with tumors harboring predictive factors of efficacy of ICI, such as microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency (MSI/dMMR), or other potential parameters (increased T cell infiltration using Immunoscore® or others, high tumor mutational burden, POLE mutation), (ii) the selection of patients at risk of disease recurrence (poor prognostic features), and (iii) the choice of an accurate clinical trial methodological framework. In this review, we will discuss the ins and outs of clinical research of ICI for early stage MSI/dMMR CC patients in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. We will then summarize data that might support the development of ICI in localized colorectal cancer beyond MSI/dMMR.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

e16076 Background: Median overall survival (mOS) of patients (pt) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved steadily over the past two decades. However, epidemiological data suggest that cancer outcomes for rural compared to urban dwelling pts are worse. In this study, we retrospectively compared progression free survival (PFS) and OS among mCRC pts residing in urban versus rural areas enrolled in N9741 (1997-2004) and CALGB 80405 (2005-2012) clinical trials. Methods: Zip code data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were used to classify pts into rural or urban dwellers. Chi-square and Kruskal Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, compared by stratified log rank and cox proportional hazards models. Results: In N9741 and 80405 respectively, 217 (35%) and 521 (21%) pts resided in rural areas. Median age of mCRC pts at diagnosis was 60.5 yrs. (rural) compared to 58.6 yrs. (urban) in 80405 (P < 0.01) and 59.6 yrs. to 60.2 yrs. in N9741 (P = 0.4). In 80405, pts in rural areas were less likely to be female (35% vs 43%, P < 0.01) black (6.6% vs 15.1%, P < 0.01), unmarried (51% vs 62%, P < 0.01), and to have private insurance (PI) (45% vs 50%, P = 0.03) when compared to pts in urban areas. In N9741, gender (P = 0.8) and PI (P = 0.3) distribution was similar; pts in rural areas were less likely to be black (1.4% vs 9.1%, P < 0.01). Rural vs urban pt PFS was no different in either trial. MOS was worse in pts in rural areas when compared to urban dwellers in 80405 (Table). OS outcomes stratified based on the use of cetuximab based regimen in 80405 showed worse outcomes for pts in rural compared to urban dwellers (21.9 vs 26.3 mo. HR: 1.22 (1.03-1.44), P = 0.02). Conclusions: MCRC pts from rural areas had a significantly worse mOS when compared to pts in urban areas in 80405. Furthermore, mOS with cetuximab based regimens was 4.4 months shorter in rural pts. The observed rural vs urban dweller mOS disparities in 80405 pts justifies additional research searching for causal factors and the necessity to identify actionable approaches in order to improve pt outcomes in rural areas. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA180830; Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Genentech, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003594, NCT00265850. [Table: see text]

4099 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality has decreased since the 1970s but the incidence is increasing in young adults (age 20-49). The incidence of early onset CRC (eoCRC) will keep increasing significantly based on the trends of the SEER CRC registry data. There is limited data suggesting eoCRC may have different behaviors compared to traditional CRC (tCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual pt data of 47184 stage II/III CRC pts from 25 randomized studies in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarker status, and treatment-related data were summarized by age group. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free rate (RFR), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for stage, performance status (PS), BMI and grade. Results: Using 5% difference between age groups as clinically meaningful cutoff, eoCRC had similar gender, race, ethnicity, PS, risk group, disease sidedness and T stage as tCRC. eoCRC were less likely overweight (30 vs 36%) and more pts had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (63 vs 51%). eoCRC had more frequent dMMR status (18 vs 12%), less BRAF mutations (5 vs 13%), and more dMMR/BRAF wild type (WT) status (17 vs 7%). Overall, eoCRC had better OS, DFS, and SAR, with the most significant differences between the < 30 and > = 70 age groups. Similar results were observed within pMMR pts. eoCRC experienced less hematological side effects, diarrhea, and stomatitis, but had more nausea and/or vomiting. Conclusions: eoCRC have unique characteristics; although statistically significant, the clinical differences in outcomes between eoCRC and tCRC are potentially due to the difference seen in extremely young and old pts. eoCRC have a different adverse events panel compared to tCRC. [Table: see text]

4090 Background: EGFR mAbs have become incorporated into clinical practice for the management of mCRC over the last decade. KRAS and NRAS mutations are used as predictive biomarkers and BRAF V600E mutations are associated with an adverse prognosis. The observed TE within biomarker subpopulations has varied between studies. Methods: IPD from randomized trials with head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or BSC) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy (first, second and later), were pooled. Biomarker subpopulations are defined in the table. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups by Cox model, stratified by studies and adjusted by age, gender, and performance status. TEs were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Within each biomarker subgroup, EGFR mAb efficacy was explored according to multiple exploratory factors, including line of therapy, type of backbone chemo, gender, sidedness and site of metastasis. Interaction tests were performed. P-values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: 5729 pts from 8 studies with data available for ≥ 1 biomarker were analysed. PFS benefits (median 9.2 mos in EGFR mAbs, 8.0 mos in no EGFR mAbs) were confirmed in triple-WT pts, but not for OS (refer to table). No OS/PFS benefits were observed for pts with any of the MT tumors. Exploratory analyses showed a potential detrimental TE of EGFR mAbs in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastasis (OS: HRadj 1.22, p = .003, pinteraction .0056; PFS: HRadj 1.24, p = .0009, pinteraction .0008). These results were confirmed within the subgroup of pts with all 3 biomarkers available. Conclusions: This is the largest IPD analysis to explore the predictive value of RAS/BRAF biomarkers in mCRC. Our findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of efficacy of EGFR mAbs in KRAS, BRAF and/or NRAS MT mCRC. EGFR mAbs might have a detrimental effect in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastases. [Table: see text]

4065 Background: Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and tumor budding (linked to epithelial mesenchymal transition) may influence metastatic potential and patient prognosis. We analyzed these features and their relative contribution to survival among low (T1-3 N1) and high (T4 and/or N2) risk groups, defined by the IDEA study, used to inform the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer. Methods: Among 1,532 patients (low risk n=804; high risk n=728) treated in a phase III adjuvant trial of FOLFOX + cetuximab (x 6 months), intraepithelial TIL densities and tumor budding were quantified at microscopy in routine histologic sections. Optimal cutpoints were determined in association with 5-yr disease-free survival (DFS). Relative contribution of variables to DFS was calculated using χ2 from Harrell’s rms R package based on multivariable Cox regression models. Results: In the overall cohort, the tumor budding/TILs combined variable was more robust for predition of DFS than either alone. Budding/TILs was significantly associated with DFS in both low (HRadj, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.02-2.48; p=.0273) and high (HRadj, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.72-4.63; p<.0001) risk patients. We then determined its relative contribution (%) to DFS (Table). Among low risk, budding/TILs ranked second (24.4%) behind KRAS status (45.5%) and ahead of treatment arm (7.2%) and mismatch repair (MMR) status (6.1%). Among high risk, budding/TILs contributed the most to DFS (45.4%) followed by primary tumor sidedness (13.0%), performance status (12.0%), and MMR (10.4%). Conclusions: Tumor budding/TILs provides robust prognostic stratification by risk group to improve anatomic tumor staging. The relative contribution of budding/TILs to DFS was second only to KRAS status in low risk patients, and was the most important predictor of DFS in high risk patients. Evaluation in patients treated with 3 vs 6 mos of adjuvant chemotherapy is warranted. [Table: see text]

4029 Background: The clearance of 5-FU differs significantly between men (M) and women (W). Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for CRC has a higher toxicity in W. The impact of sex on efficacy and toxicity in first-line trials of metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unknown. Methods: We analyzed patient (pt) and tumor characteristics, toxicities (nausea (AE1), vomiting (AE2), diarrhea, neutropenia (AE3)) and efficacy (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS)) according to sex in the following treatment groups: A: CT alone, B: CT + bevacizumab, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies, with subgroup analyses in the CT alone group for single-agent, doublets and triplets, as well as irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens. Pts from trials with treatments still used today and all relevant data available were eligible. OS and PFS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for primary tumor location and performance status (PS). Results: We included 28 trials with 18.399 pts (11.352 M and 7.047 W). W were younger (61 vs. 63 years), had more often a PS of 1 (49 vs 45%), BRAF mutations (10 vs. 7%), right-sided tumors (42 vs. 35%) and less often rectal tumors (26 vs. 32%). Significant differences in toxicity are reported in table. Rates of diarrhea were similar. There was no sex disparity in OS in the predefined subgroups except for pts receiving triplets where OS was better in M (HRadj=1.39 (1.05 - 1.85)). Median (interquartile range) OS in months for M and W was 16.7 (9.2-27.4) and 16.2 (8.9-27.2) in group 1, 21.9 (12.7-37.5) and 22.3 (12.9 – 39.0) in group 2, and 26.8 (14.6-45.3) and 24.8 (12.3-49.2) in group 3. HRsadj (W vs M) (95% CI), p values for OS were 1.02 (0.96-1.09), .557, 0.92 (0.83-1.03), .142, 0.99 (0.85-1.14), .866. Conclusions: M and W with mCRC differ significantly regarding patient and tumor characteristics. The significant higher toxicity in W does not translate in a higher treatment efficacy. Apart from known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of 5-FU, differences in pharmacodynamics must be postulated. [Table: see text]