Citations

PURPOSE Several lines of treatment can be used sequentially in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated the evolution of patient/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across treatment lines to develop an overall prognostic score (OPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 48 randomized trials were analyzed. The end point was overall survival (from random assignment to death). Missing data were imputed. The complete data set was then separated into construction (80%) and validation sets (20%). The Cox's model was used to define risk groups for survival using the OPS. The discrimination capability was assessed in each treatment-line via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices. Internal validation was done in the validation set. RESULTS A total of 37,560 patients (26,974 in first-line [1L], 7,693 in second-line [2L], and 2,893 in third-line [3L]) were analyzed. Some clinical, biological, and molecular characteristics of patients/tumors included in therapeutic trials evolve over the lines. Seven independent prognostic variables were retained in the final multivariate model common to all lines: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, hemoglobin, platelet count, WBC/absolute neutrophil count ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and the number of metastatic sites. The OPS was used to define four patient subgroups with significantly different prognoses in 1L, 2L, and 3L, separately, with adequate C-indices: 0.65, 0.66, and 0.69 in the construction set and 0.65, 0.66, and 0.68 in the validation set, respectively. The OPS was not predictive, with 3L drugs ( v placebo) or subsequent line (2L/1L or 3L/2L) extending survival in all prognostic groups. CONCLUSION The same prognostic model using practical variables can be used before all treatment lines. The OPS could better stratify patients in future clinical trials and help to therapeutic decision in routine practice.

AbstractAlthough adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute–funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs.As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.

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 >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >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.

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.

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]

PURPOSEThe purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) with carboplatin for recurrent ovarian cancer during secondary cytoreductive surgery.MATERIALS AND METHODSPatients were intraoperatively randomly assigned to carboplatin HIPEC (800 mg/m2for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC, followed by five or six cycles of postoperative IV carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. Based on a binomial single-stage pick-the-winner design, an arm was considered winner if ≥ 17 of 49 patients were without disease progression at 24 months post-surgery. Secondary objectives included postoperative toxicity and HIPEC pharmacokinetics.RESULTSOf 98 patients, 49 (50%) received HIPEC. Complete gross resection was achieved in 82% of the HIPEC patients and 94% of the standard-arm patients. Bowel resection was performed in 37% of patients in the HIPEC arm compared with 65% in the standard ( P = .008). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay, or postoperative toxicity. At 24 months, eight patients (16.3%; 1-sided 90% CI, 9.7 to 100) were without progression or death in the HIPEC arm and 12 (24.5%; 1-sided 90% CI, 16.5 to 100) in the standard arm. With a medium follow-up of 39.5 months, 82 patients progressed and 37 died. The median progression-free survival in the HIPEC and standard arms were 12.3 and 15.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1 to 2.37; P = .05). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (52.5 v 59.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67; P = .31). These analyses were exploratory.CONCLUSIONHIPEC with carboplatin was well tolerated but did not result in superior clinical outcomes. This study does not support the use of HIPEC with carboplatin during secondary cytoreductive surgery for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.

6016 Background: The role of HIPEC for recurrent EOC is not well defined. The aim of this phase II study was to determine the proportion of pts without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS +/- intraoperative carboplatin HIPEC. Methods: After SCS to ≤ 0.5 cm residual visible disease pts were intraoperatively randomized to carboplatin HIPEC (800mg/m2 for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC. The HIPEC arm received 5 additional and the standard arm received 6 postoperative cycles of IV platinum-based chemotherapy without maintenance treatment. Based on an exact binomial single stage “pick the winner” design, each arm is considered “winner” if ≥ 17/49 pts are without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS. Secondary objectives include postoperative grade ≥ 3 toxicity and complications within 4 weeks post SCS, and pharmacokinetics of carboplatin HIPEC. Results: Of 98 pts, 49 (50%) were randomized to the HIPEC arm. The arms were well balanced for age, stage, histology, BRCA mutation status, prior chemotherapy, and disease-free interval. Complete gross SCS was achieved in 94% of the standard and 82% of the HIPEC arm (p = 0.12). Bowel resection was performed more frequently in the standard (65%) compared to the HIPEC arm (37%; p = 0.008). Median operative time was shorter in the standard (296 minutes) compared to the HIPEC arm (475 minutes; p < 0.001). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay or postoperative toxicity. At a median follow-up of 27.7 months (range: 8.8-81.8 months) 70 of 98 pts progressed and 26 died with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.3 months (12.1-16 months) and a median overall survival (OS) of 55.2 months (47.7-not reached). At 24 months post SCS 32 pts progressed within 24 months in the standard versus 35 in the HIPEC arm. There was no statistically significant difference in median PFS (15.4 vs 12.3 months, p = 0.173) or median OS (69.2 vs 53.1 months, p = 0.317) between arms. These are preliminary efficacy estimates as 83/98 pts have a minimum of 24 months follow-up. Conclusions: The HIPEC arm did not reach the predefined “winner” endpoint; the standard arm is still undetermined as 6 pts did not reach 24 months follow-up. No perioperative mortality, and no increased perioperative morbidity or toxicity was seen with HIPEC. SCS with carboplatin HIPEC followed by 5 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was not superior to SCS without HIPEC followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01767675.

9515 Background: CC 49907 showed superiority of standard therapy (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin [AC] or cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil [CMF]) over capecitabine[C]. Dose adjustments made for renal insufficiency (RI) for methotrexate and C; ideal body weight used. Purpose was to analyze the relationship between RF at baseline and 5 endpoints: toxicity, dose modification, therapy completion, relapse-free survival [RFS] and overall survival [OS]. Methods: Pre-treatment RF was calculated (Cockcroft-Gault). Endpoints assessed by regimen. RF was tested as a dichotomous and continuous variable of stages 1,2 vs. 3,4 kidney disease (National Kidney Foundation). Logistic regression modeled the relationship between renal stage and the first three endpoints of toxicity, dose modification and therapy completion. Toxicity divided by hematologic or not. The relationship of RFS and OS with RF was assessed with the logrank test and as a continuous variable with Wald chi square. Results: 619 patients; incidence of stage 3/4 RI(<60 ml/min) was: CMF=72%; AC=64%; C=75%. With AC the incidence of toxicity differed by renal function. 31% of patients with poorer function >grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity vs. 14% with better function(p=0.011). There was a suggestion of effect of RF on OS and RFS for C-treated patients. RF was not associated with dose modification, premature therapy termination, RFS or OS for the CMF-treated patients. Conclusions: 1) AC: declining RF was associated with increased non-hematologic toxicity. 2)Patients with RI who received dose modifications were not at increased risk for complications in comparison to those who did not have renal insufficiency and received full dose. 3)Declining RF did not affect therapy completion. 4)C: suggestion that worse RF was related to poorer RFS or OS. 5)Exclusion of patients from clinical trials with RI based on concern of excessive hematologic toxicity may not be justified with appropriate modification. 6)Results should be considered in the design of clinical trials for older patients.

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [Table: see text]