Citations

3575 Background: Pts with mCRC frequently receive ≥1 sequential treatment TL. Approximately 50%-60% of pts receive second-line (L2) and 20%-30% third-line (L3) regimens in routine practice. We investigated the pts clinical/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across TL. Methods: Data from 37,560 pts enrolled in 48 randomized trials (34 in first (L1), 9 in L2, and 5 in L3) were analyzed. Candidate variables (VAR) measured at enrollment were sex, age, body mass index, performance status (PS), bilirubin, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (Pl), derived white blood cells-to-absolute neutrophil counts ratio (WBC/ANC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), primary tumor location, and number and location of metastatic sites (MS). Missing data were imputed. VAR with significant value at all TL were selected to construct a prognostic score of overall survival (OS) in training set (TS, n=30,050; 80%). For each TL, the score was calculated as the sum on the estimations of the VAR’ coefficients from the common multivariate model; Cox’s model was used to define risk groups. The discrimination capability was assessed using the Harrell’s C-index. External validation was done in the validation set (VS, n=7,510; 20%). Results: A total of 26,974 pts in L1, 7,693 pts in L2 and 2,893 pts in L3 were analyzed. The following characteristics increased continuously over TL: ≥2 MS (57%, 72%, 82%), lung metastases (50%, 74%, 91%), lymph nodes metastases (51%, 61%, 80%), KRAS mutation (37%, 47%, 51%) and elevated ALP (46%, 52%, 61%). BRAF mutation decreased (9%, 7%, 5%). In L1 vs L3 trials, 70% vs 89% of patients had primary tumor resection, 10% vs 80% had at least one metastasectomy and 31% vs 78% had a late metachronous (>12 months) metastasis. 7 independent VAR were retained in the prognostic score (PS, Hb, Pl, WBC/ANC, LDH, ALP, and the number of MS); four pt groups with significantly different prognoses were defined (table). This score remained valid when excluding pts with PS 2. Third-line oral drugs (vs placebo) and subsequent line (L2/L1 or L3/L2) were effective in all prognostic groups. Conclusions: Clinical/tumor pt characteristics significantly varied over subsequent TL in patients included in randomized trials. The same prognostic model using practical clinical and biological variables can be used in all TL.[Table: see text]

3517 Background: Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, age < 50) is steadily increasing. Decisions on adjuvant treatment (adjTx) regimen and duration should consider tx adherence, toxicity (tox) and expected outcomes in a population with life-expectancy longer than late onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual patient data from stage II/III patients (pts) from 6 randomised trials in the IDEA database were used to compare characteristics, tx adherence, and adverse events of eoCRC to loCRC. To reduce the confounder of non-cancer-related deaths due to age/co-morbidities, time-to-recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared by stratified Gay k-sample test. 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate were estimated by adjusted cumulative incidence function. 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were compared by stratified and adjusted COX models. Results: Out of 16,349 pts included, 1564 (9.6%) were eoCRC. Compared to loCRC, eoCRC had lower percent of male pts (51% vs 57%, p < 0.01) better performance status (PS0 86% vs 80%, p < 0.01), similar T stage distribution (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 vs 77/23, p = 0.97), higher rate of N2 disease (24% vs 22%, p < 0.01), more likely to complete pre-planned duration of adjTx (83.2% vs 78.2%, p < 0.01) and received a higher tx intensity especially with 6 month tx (mean oxaliplatin dose intensity 75% vs 72%, p < 0.01; capecitabine 85% vs 78%, p < 0.01; 5FU 85% vs 82% p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tox was more common in eoCRC (any grade nausea 58% vs 45%, p < 0.01; any grade vomiting 22% vs 16%, p < 0.01); haematological tox was more frequent in loCRC (62% vs, 69%, p = < 0.01); any grade neuropathy rate was similar (75%). Significant interaction was found between age and T stage for TTR (p = 0.04). Clinical outcome estimates and comparisons are shown in Table. Notably, high risk stage III (T4/N2) eoCRC had significantly lower 3-y RFS rate (54% vs 64%, HRadj 0.74, p < 0.01). Conclusions: eoCRC have better tx adherence than loCRC, as expected. While in high risk stage II and low risk stage III, cancer-specific outcomes are not different, in high risk stage III young age is negatively prognostic and associated with significantly higher relapse rate and risk of CRC death; this is despite a higher administered adjTx-intensity, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. Clinical trial information: NCT00749450 (SCOT); NCT00646607 (TOSCA); NCT01150045 (CALGB/SWOG 80702); NCT00958737 (IDEA France) [Table: see text]

PURPOSE: As oxaliplatin results in cumulative neurotoxicity, reducing treatment duration without loss of efficacy would benefit patients and healthcare providers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four of the six studies in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration included patients with high-risk stage II colon and rectal cancers. Patients were treated (clinician and/or patient choice) with either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and randomly assigned to receive 3- or 6-month treatment. The primary end point is disease-free survival (DFS), and noninferiority of 3-month treatment was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of < 1.2- v 6-month arm. To detect this with 80% power at a one-sided type one error rate of 0.10, a total of 542 DFS events were required. RESULTS: 3,273 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 3- or 6-month treatment with 62% receiving CAPOX and 38% FOLFOX. There were 553 DFS events. Five-year DFS was 80.7% and 83.9% for 3-month and 6-month treatment, respectively (HR, 1.17; 80% CI, 1.05 to 1.31; P [for noninferiority] .39). This crossed the noninferiority limit of 1.2. As in the IDEA stage III analysis, the duration effect appeared dependent on the chemotherapy regimen although a test of interaction was negative. HR for CAPOX was 1.02 (80% CI, 0.88 to 1.17), and HR for FOLFOX was 1.41 (80% CI, 1.18 to 1.68). CONCLUSION: Although noninferiority has not been demonstrated in the overall population, the convenience, reduced toxicity, and cost of 3-month adjuvant CAPOX suggest it as a potential option for high-risk stage II colon cancer if oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is suitable. The relative contribution of the factors used to define high-risk stage II disease needs better understanding.

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]

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]

4010 Background: Survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer varies widely according to T-N sub-stages. The ability to estimate the benefit of each therapeutic option (surgery alone, fluoropyrimidines alone, oxaliplatin-based doublet for either 3 or 6 months) in each T-N subgroup within stage III, may provide more accurate information helping doctors and patients in the complex shared decision-making process surrounding adjuvant therapy. Methods: Theoutcomedata of 12,834 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the IDEA trial served as our database. Patients were categorized in 16 sub-stages, based on the T-N categories. We created a meta-regression model to predict the expected 3-year DFS within each T-N sub-stage and hence the 5-year DFS rates were projected. We then evaluated the efficacy of each therapeutic option in every sub-stage, working backward by subtraction, using an average of the HRs reported in the pertinent trials publication as conversion factor. Results: Large differences in 3-year DFS rate were observed among the subgroups, ranging from 95% (T1N1a) to 29% (T4N2b) in the overall population. The contribution to outcome of each therapeutic option in this setting varied widely across sub-stages. According to our model, patients with T1N1a cancers have a projected 5-year DFS of 85% with surgery alone. Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine alone results in 4.2% absolute DFS gain; an additional 1.7% and 0.6% gain is seen with oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with T4N2b cancers show a 4.7% 5-year DFS with surgery alone, and a 7.1%, 5.0%, 2.1% increase with the aforementioned adjuvant options, respectively. Conclusions: The resulting overlay bar graph gives patients and doctors the projected relative benefit of each treatment option and may substantially help the shared decision-making process.

4004 Background: In overall population, IDEA pooled analysis did not demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) regarding 3y DFS in pts with stage III CC receiving 3m vs. 6m of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX. However, in pts treated with CAPOX (especially in low-risk pts), 3m of therapy was as effective as 6m. Results of OS and 5y DFS are reported. Methods: OS was defined as time from enrollment to death due to all causes. OS NI margin was conservatively set to be Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.11, which is equivalent to: the maximum acceptable loss of OS efficacy, by shortening treatment to 3m, was half of the OS efficacy gained in MOSAIC trial (i.e., 2.26% absolute reduction in 5y OS rate). Pre-planned sub-group analyses included by regimen and risk group for both OS and 5y DFS. NI was to be declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRa) NI p-value < 0.025. Results: With an overall median survival follow-up of 72 m (range per study, 62 to 84 m), 2584 deaths and 3777 DFS events among 12,835 pts from six trials were observed. Across 6 studies, 39.5% of pts received CAPOX (rate by study, 0% to 75.1%). Overall, the 5y OS rate was 82.4% (3m) and 82.8% (6m), with estimated OS HR of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.11; FDRa NI p, 0.058) and absolute 5-y OS rate difference of -0.4% (95% CI, -2.1 to 1.3%). Overall, the 5y DFS rate was 69.1% (3m) and 70.8% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.08 (95%CI, 1.01-1.15, FDRa NI p, 0.22). HRs (95% CI) within subgroups see table. Conclusions: 5y OS rate reported in IDEA trials was higher than historical rates, regardless of duration of therapy. While overall survival in IDEA did not meet prior statistical assumptions for NI in overall population, the 0.4% difference in 5y OS should be placed in clinical context. OS and 5y DFS results continue to support the use of 3m adjuvant CAPOX for the vast majority of stage III colon cancer pts. This conclusion is strengthened by the substantial reduction of toxicities, inconveniencies and cost associated with shorter treatment duration. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045; 2009-010384-16; NCT00749450; ISRCTN59757862; 2007-003957-10; UMIN000008543; 2007-000354 . [Table: see text]

3637 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial, the multikinase inhibitor REG demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival and progression-free survival vs placebo (P) in patients with mCRC whose disease had progressed on other standard therapies. The most frequent grade 3 AEs were hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash. We examined when these AEs first occurred and what impact they had on REG dosing. Methods: Adults with mCRC progressing after all standard therapies were randomized to receive REG 160 mg (n=505) or P (n=255) orally once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. AEs were managed with dose modifications (reduction and interruption) according to the protocol. Results: The safety population comprised 753 pts (REG n=500, P n=253). The mean ± SD treatment duration was 12.1 ± 9.7 weeks for REG and 7.8 ± 5.2 weeks for P. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 99.6% of REG pts and 96.8% of P pts. AEs occurring in ≥10% more REG than P pts were fatigue, HFSR, anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, voice changes, hypertension, rash/desquamation, oral mucositis, fever, hyperbilirubinemia, and low platelet count. The incidence of grade ≥3 HFSR, fatigue, hypertension, and rash/desquamation typically peaked in cycle 1 and tapered to a relatively stable lower incidence over later cycles, while the incidence of diarrhea remained relatively constant throughout the study; median time to first occurrence and worst grade of these AEs is shown in the table. AEs led to dose modifications in 66.6% of REG pts and 22.5% of P pts. Conclusions: The most common AEs in the REG group typically occurred early during treatment. Close early monitoring of AEs and proper management by dose modification is recommended. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]

3514 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial, the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (REG) demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pla) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed on other standard therapies. An exploratory biomarker subanalysis was conducted to identify protein biomarkers with potential predictive or prognostic value. Methods: Fifteen proteins of interest, many of which are involved in angiogenesis, were quantified by multiplex immunoassay or ELISA in baseline plasma samples collected at study entry from 80% (611/760) of patients. Potential predictive and prognostic effects were evaluated. Results: The biomarker subpopulation was representative of the overall study population in terms of OS and PFS. Using OS as the clinical endpoint, Tie-1 was the only protein whose level demonstrated significant correlation with efficacy (low protein group: REG/Pla, HR 0.87; high protein group, HR 0.56; interaction, p=0.035). Using PFS as the clinical endpoint, von Willebrand factor (VWF) was the only protein whose level demonstrated significant correlation with efficacy (low protein group: REG/Pla, HR 0.39; high protein group, HR 0.60; interaction, p=0.02). Following correction for multiple testing, neither Tie-1 nor VWF data retained statistical significance. Baseline levels of IL-8 and placental growth factor (PlGF) were found to have prognostic value for OS (IL-8: high/low protein levels, HR 3.48, p<0.001; PIGF: HR 1.81, p=0.002). IL-8 was also prognostic for PFS (high/low protein levels: HR 1.63, p<0.001). Conclusions: None of the plasma proteins examined showed significant predictive value for REG efficacy after multiple testing correction. The association between baseline levels of Tie-1/VWF and REG efficacy may be a hypothesis to be tested in further trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.

3636 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial, the multikinase inhibitor REG demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival vs placebo (Pla) in patients (pts) with mCRC whose disease progressed on other standard therapies. The most frequent REG-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) of interest were hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash/desquamation. We explored whether the impact of REG in pts aged ≥65 years differed from that in younger patients. Methods: Pts with mCRC progressing following all other available therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive REG 160 mg once daily (n=505) or Pla (n=255) for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The dose could be modified to manage AEs. The primary endpoint was OS. We report efficacy, safety, and dosing data from REG recipients by age. Results: The REG treatment group included 309 pts <65 years (307 evaluable for safety) and 196 pts ≥65 years (193 evaluable for safety). The OS hazard ratio (REG/Pla) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.91) in pts <65 years and 0.86 (95% CI 0.61–1.19) in pts ≥65 years (interaction p-value = 0.405). Median OS was 6.7 vs 5 months for REG vs Pla in pts <65 years, and 6.0 vs 5.6 months, respectively, in pts ≥65 years. Most pts experienced drug-related AEs (<65 years: 93.8%; ≥65 years: 91.7%). The rates of grade ≥3 REG-related AEs of interest and dose modifications are shown in the Table. In pts <65 years vs ≥65 years, median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of REG was 7.6 weeks (6.6–15.4) vs 7.1 weeks (5.1–17.2), median (IQR) daily REG dose was 160.0 mg (134.6–160.0) vs 160.0 mg (137.5–160.0), and median (IQR) proportion of planned REG dose was 83.3% (65.7–100.0) vs 78.6% (66.7–100.0), respectively. Conclusions: In the CORRECT trial, REG demonstrated an OS benefit in pts <65 years and ≥65 years. Safety and tolerability of REG appeared to be similar in both age subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]