Citations

Emerging technologies have greatly expanded our ability to detect, characterize, and treat colorectal cancer. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a multidisciplinary panel, the Scientific Leadership Council in GI cancer, to discuss and advise on the priorities and opportunities to advance current and future approaches into the clinical arena to impact most rapidly the morbidity and mortality from this disease. The Council's recommendations for research priorities are the result of engagement of community and academic oncologists, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and governmental agencies. We detail some key prospects for investigation in the areas of colon cancer detection, prevention, and surgical and medical management. Many are in early or definitive clinical trials, and a focus on rapid accrual is urged. The implementation of biology-directed laboratory investigations, both in association with ongoing clinical trials and as a separate developmental strategy for targeted therapies, is supported as the route to individualized therapy.

Adjuvant chemotherapy has led to improvements in relapse-free and overall survival in patients with breast, colon, and non–small-cell lung cancer, yet many older patients are not offered these potentially life-saving treatments. Moreover, older patients have been either excluded or under-represented in most adjuvant trials, limiting the generalizability of these treatments to older populations. Limited data in elders suggest that older patients derive significant benefits from adjuvant therapies provided they have life expectancies exceeding 5 years. Making treatment decisions in elders is challenging. Many have major comorbidities that may substantially limit life expectancy and minimize or negate the benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy. In this review, we discuss the potential benefits of adjuvant treatment in older patients with solid tumors with a focus on general principles involved in the selection of adjuvant therapy for patients with breast, colon, and non–small-cell lung cancer. In addition, we discuss the role of comorbidity and how it factors in treatment decisions. Finally, we discuss future research directions and funding for elders with cancer.

Purpose Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin are commonly used to treat advanced and resected colorectal cancer. This analysis compares the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly (FOLFOX4) in patients age younger than and at least 70 years. Patients and Methods This retrospective analysis included 3,742 colorectal cancer patients (614 age ≥ 70) from four clinical trials testing FOLFOX4 in the adjuvant, first-, and second-line settings. End points included grade ≥ 3 adverse events, response rate (in advanced disease), progression or relapse-free survival, dose-intensity, and overall survival in the studies with mature survival data. Results Grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicity (neutropenia [43% v 49%; P = .04] and thrombocytopenia [2% v 5%; P = .04]) were significantly higher in older patients. Older age was not associated with increased rates of severe neurologic adverse events, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, infection, overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity (63% v 67%; P = .15), or 60-day mortality (1.1% v 2.3%; P = .20). The relative benefit of FOLFOX4 versus control did not differ by age for response rate, progression or recurrence free-survival (hazard ratio, 0.70 for FOLFOX4 v control for age < 70, 0.65 for age ≥ 70; P = .42), or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.77 age < 70, 0.82 age ≥ 70; P = .79). Dose-intensity did not differ by age at cycles 1, 3, 6, or 12. Conclusion FOLFOX4 maintains its efficacy and safety ratio in selected elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Its judicious use should be considered without regard to patient age, although scant data are available among patients older than 80 years.

Purpose Previously, we reported results of Intergroup N9741, which compared standard bolus fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin, plus irinotecan (IFL) with infused FU, leucovorin, plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) and irinotecan plus oxaliplatin in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. High rates of grade ≥ 3 toxicity on IFL (resulting in some deaths) led us to reduce the starting doses of both irinotecan and FU by 20% (rIFL). This article compares rIFL with FOLFOX4. Patients and Methods The primary comparison was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate (RR), overall survival, and toxicity. Results Three hundred five patients were randomly assigned. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group Data Safety Monitoring Committee interrupted enrollment at a planned interim analysis when outcomes crossed predetermined stopping boundaries. The results were significantly superior for FOLFOX4 compared with rIFL for time to progression (9.7 v 5.5 months, respectively; P < .0001), RR (48% v 32%, respectively; P = .006), and overall survival (19.0 v 16.3 months, respectively; P = .026). Toxicity profiles were not significantly different between regimens for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, or 60-day all-cause mortality. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were significantly more common with FOLFOX4. Approximately 75% of patients in both arms received second-line therapy; 58% of rIFL patients received oxaliplatin-based second-line therapy, and 55% of FOLFOX4 patients received irinotecan-based regimens as second-line therapy. Conclusion FOLFOX4 led to superior RR, time to progression, and overall survival compared with rIFL. The survival benefit for FOLFOX4 observed in the earlier stage of the study was preserved with equal use of either irinotecan or oxaliplatin as second-line therapy.

Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Identify the benefits and caveats of using disease-free survival as a surrogate end point for overall survival in adjuvant therapy trials.Describe the accepted criteria for validating a surrogate end point.Discuss the current applicability of DFS as an end point in adjuvant trials. Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA category 1 credit at CME.TheOncologist.com

Abstract Purpose: Colon cancer cells with high-frequency microsatellite instability (MSI-H) display resistance to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) that can be reversed by restoring DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proficiency. Given that thymidylate synthase (TS) is inhibited by 5-FU, we studied the relationship between MSI and TS expression, and the prognostic effect of these and other markers (i.e., p53 and 17p allelic imbalance). Experimental Design: Dukes' stage B2 and C colon carcinomas (n = 320) from participants in 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy trials were analyzed for MSI and 17p allelic imbalance. Expression of MMR (hMLH1, hMSH2), TS, and p53 proteins were analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Correlations between markers and associations with overall survival were determined. Results: Of 320 cancers studied, 60 (19%) were MSI-H. TS expression variables were similar in MSI-H and microsatellite stable/low-frequency MSI (MSS/MSI-L) cancers, and unrelated to MMR proteins. MSI-H tumors had lower stage (P = 0.0007), fewer metastatic lymph nodes (P = 0.004), and improved overall survival (P = 0.01). Loss of MMR proteins was also associated with better overall survival (P = 0.006). None of the TS variables were prognostic. Histologic grade (P = 0.0008) and nodal status (P = 0.0002) were associated with overall survival, in contrast to 17p allelic imbalance or p53. Only MSI status or loss of MMR proteins, histologic grade, and tumor stage were independent markers for overall survival. Conclusions: MSI-H tumors show earlier stage at presentation and better stage-adjusted survival rates. MSI status and TS expression were unrelated and TS was not prognostic, suggesting that TS levels cannot explain therapeutic resistance to 5-FU reported in MSI-H colon cancers.

Purpose Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non–life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume. Patients and Methods We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials. Results A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial. Conclusion The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.