Citations

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

PURPOSE Early-onset (EO) colorectal cancer (CRC, age < 50 years) incidence is increasing. Decisions on optimal adjuvant therapy should consider treatment adherence, adverse events, and expected outcomes in a population with life expectancy longer than later-onset (LO) CRC (age ≥ 50 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from six trials in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy database were analyzed. Characteristics, treatment adherence, and adverse events in stage II or III EO-CRC and LO-CRC were compared. To reduce confounders of non–cancer-related deaths because of age or comorbidities, time to recurrence (3-year relapse-free rate) and cancer-specific survival (5-year cancer-specific mortality rate) were considered. RESULTS Out of 16,349 patients, 1,564 (9.6%) had EO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, EO-CRC had better performance status (86% v 80%, P < .01), similar T stage (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 v 77/23, P = .97), higher N2 disease rate (24% v 22%, P < .01), more likely to complete the planned treatment duration (83.2% v 78.2%, P < .01), and received a higher treatment dose intensity, especially with 6-month regimens. Gastrointestinal toxicity was more common in EO-CRC; hematologic toxicity was more frequent in LO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, significantly worse cancer-specific outcomes were demonstrated especially in high-risk stage III EO-CRC: lower 3-year relapse-free rate (54% v 65%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55; P value < .001) and higher 5-year cancer-specific mortality rate (24% v 20%; HR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.47; P value < .06). In this subgroup, no difference was observed with 3 or 6 months of therapy, with equally poor disease-free survival rates (57% v 56%; HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.29; P value = .85). CONCLUSION Young age is negatively prognostic in high-risk stage III CRC and associated with significantly higher relapse rate; this is despite better treatment adherence and higher administered treatment intensity, suggesting more aggressive disease biology.

Abstract Background Disease-free survival (DFS) with a 3-year median follow-up (3-year DFS) was validated as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) with a 5-year median follow-up (5-year OS) in adjuvant chemotherapy colon cancer (CC) trials. Recent data show further improvements in OS and survival after recurrence in patients who received adjuvant FOLFOX. Hence, reevaluation of the association between DFS and OS and determination of the optimal follow-up duration of OS to aid its utility in future adjuvant trials are needed. Methods Individual patient data from 9 randomized studies conducted between 1998 and 2009 were included; 3 trials tested biologics. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates of 3-year DFS with 5 to 6.5-year OS was evaluated using both linear regression (RWLS2) and Copula bivariate (RCopula2) models and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For R2, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. Results Data from a total of 18 396 patients were analyzed (median age = 59 years; 54.0% male), with 54.1% having low-risk tumors (T1-3 and N1), 31.6% KRAS mutated, 12.3% BRAF mutated, and 12.4% microsatellite instability high or deficient mismatch repair tumors. Trial-level correlation between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS remained strong (RWLS2 = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.98; RCopula2 = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.00) and increased as the median follow-up of OS extended. Analyses limited to trials that tested biologics showed consistent results. Conclusions Three-year DFS remains a validated surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in adjuvant CC trials. The correlation was likely strengthened with 6 years of follow-up for OS.

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 Colon cancer (CC) incidence in young adults (age 20-49 years), termed early-onset CC (EO-CC), is increasing. Methods Individual patient data on 35 713 subjects with stage III colon cancer from 25 randomized studies in the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoint database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarker status, and outcome data were summarized by age group. Overall survival, disease-free survival, time to recurrence, and survival after recurrence were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for sex, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness, and molecular markers. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III EO-CC had similar sex, race, performance status, risk group, tumor sidedness, and T stage compared with patients with late-onset CC (age 50 years and older). EO-CC patients were less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) and more commonly had 12 or more lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). EO-CC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%) and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher rate of Lynch syndrome in EO-CC. Patients with EO-CC had statistically significantly better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74 to 0.89; P &lt; .001), disease-free survival (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P = .01), and survival after recurrence (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.97; P = .008) in the analysis without molecular markers; however, age at onset of CC lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. Conclusion Tumor biology was found to be a more important prognostic factor than age of onset among stage III colon cancer patients in the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoint database.

3610 Background: Chronic lower grade adverse events (AE) can negatively affect a patient’s quality of life but it is difficult to capture using a traditional toxicity reporting approach. A novel AE reporting method was recently developed to describe, summarize, and present longitudinal AE profiles(Lopes et al, 2021). We leveraged this method to describe and compare the AE profiles of doublet chemotherapy (DC) + Cetuximab and DC alone in mCRC patients. Methods: This AE reporting method utilizes two additional AE metrics to complement the maximum (max) toxicity grade usually reported in clinical trials. Onset time indicates the time period in which max grade for an AE occurred for the first time, defined here as “early” (i.e. within first 42 days) and “late” (i.e. after the 42nd day). AE Load (AEL) indicates the overall severity of an AE in the entire treatment. AEL varies from 0 to 1. Higher AEL indicates a worse overall severity of that AE over time. AEL is the key metric for describing chronic AE. We included patients receiving DC + cetuximab (n = 738) and DC alone (n = 564 [ref group]) from two randomized first-line trials in the ARCAD database. Diarrhea, rash, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis were examined and adjusted for backbone (FOLFOX vs. FOLFIRI), ECOG PS, sex, site location, dose reduction, and treatment length. Results: For rash, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (21% vs. 0.5%; odds ratio {OR} [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 50 [16,157], p < 0.001), increased overall severity over the entire treatment (AEL = 0.257 vs. 0.069; Adjusted difference in means–Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.21,0.23], p < 0.001), and increased risk of early onset (67% vs. 33%; OR [95% CI] = 4.3 [2.7,6.7], p < 0.001). DC + cetuximab also had higher AEL for rash across max grades (p < 0.001 within G1, G2, and G3+). For HFS, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (OR [95% CI] = 6.0 [2.5,14], p < 0.001), increased overall severity (AEL = 0.139 vs. 0.087; Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.03 [0.03,0.04], p < 0.001), and slightly earlier onset (12.4 vs. 13.9 weeks; Mdiff, weeks [95% CI] = -4.9 [-0.80,-9.0], p = 0.021). Within each max grade, DC + cetuximab did not have higher AEL of HFS. No associations were found for diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, or mucositis. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab is associated with higher grade, more persistent, and more immediate rash. The higher severity in HFS with the addition of cetuximab appears to be related to higher grade but not chronic HFS. This method may be useful to describe different strategies, e.g. intermittent cetuximab. It provided a comprehensive view of acute and chronic toxicity profiles supporting its potential interest as new metrics in clinical trials. Lopes GS, Tournigand C, Olswold CL, et al. Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2021;18(1):51-60

3597 Background: Colon cancer (CC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years) is increasing. There are limited data suggesting that, as a group, patients with early onset CRC (eoCC) may have different phenotypic characteristics compared to those with late onset CRC (loCC, age ≥ 50 years). Methods: Individual patient data on 35,713 subjects with stage III CC from 25 randomized studies (recruiting between 1987 and 2009) in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome 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 gender, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness and molecular markers. Results: Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III eoCC (n = 6246) had similar distributions according to gender, race, PS, risk group, tumor sidedness and T/N stage compared to those with loCC (n = 29467). Patients with eoCC were significantly less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) but more commonly had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). The eoCC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%), and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher frequency of Lynch syndrome in eoCC. In univariate analysis, patients with stage III eoCC had significantly better OS, DFS, and SAR; the difference between 3-year DFS and RFR strongly suggests the OS/DFS difference between these the eoCC and loCC may be due to increased competing risks and comorbidities in patients with loCC. In multivariate analysis, age at onset lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. The clear relation between age of onset and KRAS/BRAF status was confirmed in the interaction analysis. Conclusions: Tumor biology was an important determinant of prognosis regardless of patient age. In multivariate analysis age of onset was not a statistically significant determinant of outcome.[Table: see text]

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]