Citations

Abstract Background Synthetic control arms (SCAs) derived from historical trial data can complement randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly in oncology where feasibility, ethical, and cost constraints may limit conventional trial designs. However, their validity for overall survival (OS) remains uncertain. We evaluated the feasibility and limitations of constructing SCAs from the ARCAD metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) database across multiple treatment lines. Methods Seven landmark RCTs representing first-, second-, and third-line settings were selected. External control arms were constructed from ARCAD individual patient-level data using propensity score matching based on key clinical and biological variables from a validated ARCAD prognostic score, with adjustment for geographic region and time era when needed. A prespecified two-step benchmarking framework assessed: (1) control-arm OS reproducibility and (2) virtual trial comparisons between matched synthetic controls and original RCT experimental arms. Agreement was evaluated using hazard ratios (HRs) and Z-tests. Results A total of 28,022 patients met the inclusion criteria. ARCAD-derived SCAs were successfully constructed for all selected RCTs and closely reproduced control-arm OS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced, with minimal differences between included and excluded patients. Virtual trials showed concordant treatment-effect estimates with the original RCTs, with a median absolute HR deviation of 0.05 and no significant differences by Z-tests (P>.05). Survival outcomes were consistently reproduced across treatment lines. Conclusion ARCAD-derived SCAs reliably reproduced control-arm OS and benchmark treatment-effect estimates from landmark RCTs in mCRC. Despite limitations related to residual confounding and missing data, this framework supports benchmarking, trial design, and exploratory analyses when conventional control arms are impractical.

Abstract Purpose Traditional adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology trials focuses on the single worst CTCAE grade, which may underrepresent chronic or recurrent toxicity burden. We applied a longitudinal toxicity framework to compare toxicity profiles of chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods We pooled two randomized first-line trials in the ARCAD database. AEs examined were diarrhea, rash, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis. Outcomes included grade ≥3 AE, time to first occurrence of maximum grade, early onset (≤6 weeks), and AEL, a normalized measure of cumulative toxicity burden over treatment. Analyses were adjusted for chemotherapy backbone, ECOG performance status, sex, primary tumor location, dose reduction, and treatment duration. Results Compared with Chemotherapy alone (n = 564), Chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n = 738) was associated with higher grade ≥3 rash (21% vs 0.5%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 49.89, 95% CI 15.8–157.4), higher rash AEL (0.257 vs 0.069; adjusted mean difference 0.22, 95% CI 0.21–0.23), and more frequent early-onset maximum rash (67% vs 34%; adjusted OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.72–6.74). Rash AEL remained higher with cetuximab within maximum-grade strata. HFS showed higher grade ≥3 risk and overall AEL with cetuximab, but no within-grade AEL difference, indicating higher overall HFS burden reflected grade distribution rather than within-grade chronicity. No consistent differences were observed for other AEs. Conclusions Incorporating onset timing and AEL distinguished persistent toxicity burden from isolated peak events. This framework may support comparative tolerability assessment when chronic toxicity burden is central to decision-making.

PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (<50 years, named early-onset CRC [eoCRC]) has been increasing. PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data on 13,365 patients with metastatic CRC enrolled between 2000 and 2012 in 17 first-line randomized trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive database were pooled. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathologic features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized and compared by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group on clinical outcomes was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables. RESULTS Overall, 2,045 patients with eoCRC (median age, 42.5) and 11,320 patients with average-onset CRC (aoCRC; median age, 63.8) were included in this analysis. Within the eoCRC population, treatment with bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy improved PFS (9.9 v 6.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.80]; P < .0001), which was similar to the findings in aoCRC population (9.4 v 7.3 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80]; P < .001; interaction P = .5415). However, epithelial growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) did not improve PFS in RAS wild-type (WT) patients with eoCRC who had left-sided primary tumors (8.3 v 8.9 months; HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.77]; P = .36), whereas EGFRi significantly improved PFS in the aoCRC population (9.9 v 8.5 months; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.86]; P < .0001; interaction P = .083). CONCLUSION Treatment-naïve patients with metastatic eoCRC appear to derive similar benefit from bevacizumab as patients with aoCRC. However, patients with eoCRC with left-sided RAS/RAF WT tumors did not appear to derive benefit from first-line EGFRi.

Abstract Background Early tumor shrinkage and depth of response have emerged as potential prognostic indicators in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). However, their associations with overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and postprogression survival in patients receiving anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies or bevacizumab remain unclear. Methods We analyzed 3219 treatment-naive patients with RAS wild-type metastatic CRC from 8 randomized studies (CRYSTAL, OPUS, PRIME, CAIRO2, CALGB80405, WJOG4407G, ATOM, PARADIGM) in the Aid and Research in Digestive Cancerology database. Early tumor shrinkage was defined as a 20% or more reduction in tumor size at 8 ± 2 weeks, whereas depth of response was assessed by maximum tumor shrinkage at nadir. Cox regression models evaluated the associations of early tumor shrinkage and depth of response with overall survival, PFS, and postprogression survival, adjusting for confounders. A 2-sided test was conducted with a significance level of .05. Results Early tumor shrinkage and depth of response substantially stratified overall survival, PFS, and postprogression survival outcomes across all treatment groups. Early tumor shrinkage positivity was associated with improved overall survival, PFS, and postprogression survival in anti-EGFR and bevacizumab-based therapies, with a trend toward better outcomes in the anti-EGFR group. The depth of response analysis revealed optimal cutoff values of 0.55 for anti-EGFR–based therapy and 0.47 for bevacizumab-based therapy to achieve a median overall survival of approximately 32 months. Conclusions Early tumor shrinkage and depth of response serve as valuable prognostic markers in RAS wild-type metastatic CRC, particularly for patients treated with anti-EGFR antibodies. These findings highlight the potential role of early tumor shrinkage and depth of response in guiding treatment strategies and improving outcomes for patients with CRC.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. Results: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

3588 Background: Although anti-EGFR antibody plus doublet chemotherapy has become the standard of first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (wt), left sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal molecular-targeted therapy for RAS wt, right-sided mCRC is not clear. Methods: To evaluate the efficacy between anti-EGFR antibody vs. bevacizumab combination therapy, from 40,889 Individual patient (pt) data from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 723 pts with RAS wt, right-sided mCRC who received a first-line molecular-targeted therapy with backbone chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI when anti-EGFR antibody combination, and FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CAPOX/FOLFOXIRI when bevacizumab combination) were selected from 10 randomized studies (FIRE-3, CALGB80495, CRYSTAL, PRIME, CAIRO2, OPUS, TRIBE, TRIBE2, ATOM, and CCOG1201). Primary objective was overall survival (OS), and secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR); Hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio (OR) were adjusted for ECOG-PS, age, and gender. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) as sensitivity analysis were also performed. Secondary analyses were limited to BRAF wt pts. Results: Anti-EGFR antibody and bevacizumab were administrated in 329 and 394 pts, respectively, of whom 162 and 151 pts were BRAF wt, respectively. Baseline characteristics were as follows (anti-EGFR antibody/bevacizumab): median age, 63.0 years both; female, 47.1/46.4%; and ECOG-PS 0, 53.2/65.2%. The OS and PFS were significantly prolonged in pts receiving bevacizumab combination therapy compared to those receiving anti-EGFR antibody combination therapy (Table). These trends were more pronounced when limited to BRAF wt pts (Table). There were no significant differences in ORR for both overall and BRAF wt pts. These results were similar in the sensitivity analysis (Table). Conclusions: For patients with RAS wt or RAS/ BRAF wt, right-sided mCRC, bevacizumab combination therapy is preferred first-line treatment. [Table: see text]

3566 Background: According to the various types of clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS and DpR are suggested as the surrogates of OS. Whereas associations between ETS/DpR and OS/PPS in the era of chemotherapy (chemo) +anti-EGFR antibody (ab)/bevacizumab (bev) in 1st line therapy have not been elucidated. Methods: From 40,889 Individual patient data (IPD) from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 2,138 treatment-naïve pts with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC were selected from 7 randomized studies (PRIME, CAIRO2, CRYSTAL, OPUS, CALGB80495, WJOG4407G, ATOM) of chemo with/without anti-EGFR ab or bev. The ETS was defined as 20%≥ tumor shrinkage at 8 ± 2wks (ETS+: ≥20%, ETS-: <20%). Multivariate Cox regression models for OS/PPS were performed to investigate associations between ETS+ and ETS- by primary tumor location (overall/left-sided/right-sided), adjusting for potential confounders. DpR was defined as tumor shrinkage at nadir. OS/PPS were evaluated across quartile limits of DpR by multivariate Cox regression models. Results: In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of OS/PPS between ETS- and ETS+ for chemo +anti-EGFR ab, chemo +bev, and chemo alone showed great improvement, respectively (Table). In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, HRs of ETS for OS/PPS are higher in pts treated with chemo +anti-EGFR ab compared to those treated with chemo +bev or chemo alone. Compared to the pts with highest quartile (defined as ≥ 75th percentile (Q3)) of DpR, HRs of OS/PPS for lower quartile groups showed upward trends in pts with RAS wt & overall (Table). Conclusions: ETS/DpR in pts with RAS wt mCRC might be a potential prognostic marker of OS/PPS regardless of targeted therapy and primary tumor location. Superior prognostic values of ETS+ are expected in pts treated with anti-EGFR ab. [Table: see text]

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.