Duration of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS: We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS: After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.).

Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 12 Trials.

PURPOSE: A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Prognostic Impact of Early Treatment and Oxaliplatin Discontinuation in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 11 Adjuvant Trials.

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) for 6 months remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Data are lacking as to whether early discontinuation of all treatment (ETD) or early discontinuation of oxaliplatin (EOD) could worsen the prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC from the ACCENT/IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment and EOD as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only before patients had received a maximum of 75% of planned cycles. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by Cox models adjusted for established prognostic factors. RESULTS: Analysis of ETD and EOD included 10,447 (20.9% with ETD) and 7,243 (18.8% with EOD) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and for ETD, older with a lower body mass index. In multivariable analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in disease-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61, P < .001 and HR, 1.73, P < .001), which was not the case for EOD (HR, 1.07, P = .3 and HR, 1.13, P = .1). However, patients who received < 50% of the planned cycles of oxaliplatin had poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with poorer oncologic outcomes. However, this was not the case for EOD. These data favor discontinuing oxaliplatin while continuing fluoropyrimidine in individuals with significant neurotoxicity having received > 50% of the planned 6-month chemotherapy.

Prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers in advanced colorectal cancer.

The revolution of precision medicine has produced unprecedented seismic shifts in the treatment paradigm of advanced cancers. Among the major killers, colorectal cancer (CRC) is far behind the others. In fact, the great successes obtained in breast, NSCLC, melanoma, and genitourinary tract tumors have been observed only in fewer than 5 % metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): those with the mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), a well-known predictive factor for to the outstanding efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). The treatment of the remaining vast majority mCRC patients is still based upon only two molecular determinants: the RAS and BRAF mutational status. New promising biomarkers include HER2, tumor mutational burden (TMB) for its possible implications on CPI efficacy, and the extremely rare NTRK fusions. The Consensus Molecular Subtypes classification (CMS) is a good example of the efforts to combine different molecular features of this disease, although its relevance in clinical practice is still under investigation. In this Review, we focus on all these prognostic and predictive biomarkers, analyzing data from the most important clinical trials of the last years. We also try to rank them according to their prognostic and predictive power.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical Trials.

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.

Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.

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.

Duration of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy (3 or 6 months) in Patients With High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer.

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 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.

Effect of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients treated in RECOURSE by prognostic factors at baseline: an exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: The choice of treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is generally influenced by tumour and patient characteristics, treatment efficacy and tolerability, and quality of life. Better patient selection might lead to improved outcomes. METHODS: This post hoc exploratory analysis examined the effect of prognostic factors on outcomes in the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 Study of trifluridine tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) versus Placebo plus BSC in Patients with mCRC Refractory to Standard Chemotherapies (RECOURSE) trial. Patients were redivided by prognosis into two subgroups: those with <3 metastatic sites at randomisation (low tumour burden) and ≥18 months from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomisation (indolent disease) were included in the good prognostic characteristics (GPC) subgroup; the remaining patients were considered to have poor prognostic characteristics (PPC). RESULTS: GPC patients (n=386) had improved outcome versus PPC patients (n=414) in both the trifluridine/tipiracil and placebo arms. GPC patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (n=261) had an improved median overall survival (9.3 vs 5.3 months; HR (95% CI) 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57), p<0.0001) and progression-free survival (3.3 vs 1.9 months; HR (95% CI) 0.56 (0.46 to 0.67), p<0.0001) than PPC patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (n=273). Improvements in survival were irrespective of age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), KRAS mutational status, and site of metastases at randomisation. In the trifluridine/tipiracil arm, time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 and proportion of patients with PS=0-1 discontinuing treatment were longer for GPC than for PPC patients (7.8 vs 4.2 months and 89.1% vs 78.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Low tumour burden and indolent disease were factors of good prognosis in late-line mCRC, with patients experiencing longer progression-free survival and greater overall survival.

A new prognostic and predictive tool for shared decision making in stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with stage III colon cancer varies widely according to T-N sub-stages. Estimating the benefit of each therapeutic option in each T-N subgroup may provide more accurate information helping doctors and patients in the complex shared decision-making process surrounding adjuvant therapy. METHODS: The outcomes data of 12,834 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the IDEA trial served as our database. Patients were categorised in 16 sub-stages, based on T-N categories. We created a meta-regression model to predict the expected 5-year DFS within each T-N sub-stage. 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 pertinent trial publications as a conversion factor. RESULTS: Large differences in 5-year DFS rate were observed among the subgroups, ranging from 89% (T1N1a) to 31% (T4N2b) in the overall population. The contribution to the 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 79.6% with surgery alone. Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine alone results in 5.6% absolute DFS gain; an additional 2.3% and 0.8% gain is seen with oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with T4N2b cancers show a 13.9% 5-year DFS with surgery alone, and an 11.2%, 6.4%, 2.5% increase with the aforementioned adjuvant options, respectively. CONCLUSION: 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, although caution must be exercised in using this model due to the significant variance of the estimates.

Maximising clinical benefit with adequate patient management beyond the second line in mCRC.

New therapeutic options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and regorafenib. However, the optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use of each agent beyond the second line for patients with mCRC remains unclear and various factors may influence treatment decision. Available efficacy data suggest treatment with either trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib may be appropriate as both can extend patient survival. Thus, the safety profiles of each agent, along with patient performance status, are likely to determine treatment choice. The safety profiles of trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib are markedly different: higher levels of non-haematological adverse events such as fatigue, diarrhoea, hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction are reported with regorafenib, while haematological events such as neutropaenia are more common with trifluridine/tipiracil. In general, neutropaenia is a manageable treatment-related toxicity, while hand-foot skin reaction can be troublesome for patients, affecting their ability to carry out everyday activities and get on with their lives, while also affecting treatment adherence. Thus, the occurrence of any potential adverse effects and patient adherence should be closely monitored at each clinic visit. As quality of life is an important issue for patients with mCRC, it is important to balance extended survival and the likely quality of this extended life. Likewise, discussing possible side effects along with treatment expectations with patients can greatly facilitate adherence to therapy, and ultimately improve patients' quality of life and eventual clinical outcomes.

Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer: Supported by the ARCAD Group.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. METHODS: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. RESULTS: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Radiological imaging markers predicting clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma treated with regorafenib: post hoc analysis of the CORRECT phase III trial (RadioCORRECT study).

OBJECTIVE: To identify imaging markers predicting clinical outcomes to regorafenib in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). METHODS: The RadioCORRECT study is a post hoc analysis of a cohort of patients with mCRC treated within the phase III placebo-controlled CORRECT trial of regorafenib. Baseline and week 8 contrast-enhanced CT were used to assess response by RECIST 1.1, changes in the sum of target lesion diameters (ΔSTL), lung metastases cavitation and liver metastases density. Primary and secondary objectives were to develop ex novo univariable and multivariable models to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. RESULTS: 202 patients were enrolled, 134 (66.3%) treated with regorafenib and 68 (33.7%) with placebo. In the univariate analysis, PFS predictors were lung metastases cavitation at baseline (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92, p=0.03) and at week 8 (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93, p=0.02). Baseline cavitation (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.66, p=0.007), RECIST 1.1 (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4, p <0.0001) and ΔSTL (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27, p=0.002) predicted OS. We found an increase of 9% of diameter as the best threshold for discriminating OS (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.34, p <0.001). In the multivariate analysis, baseline and week 8 cavitation remained significant PFS predictors. Baseline cavitation, RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL remained predictors of OS in exploratory multivariable models. Assessment of liver metastases density did not predict clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL predict favourable outcome to regorafenib. In contrast to liver metastases density that failed to be a predictor, lung metastases cavitation represents a novel radiological marker of favourable outcome that deserves consideration.

Capecitabine/oxaliplatin, a safe and active first-line regimen for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of a large phase II study.

PURPOSE: The tumor-activated fluoropyrimidine capecitabine achieves response rates superior to those of bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), with favorable safety and fewer hospitalizations. Capecitabine is also at least as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant setting, again with a favorable safety profile. Improved outcomes with capecitabine versus bolus 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant setting have been shown in overall trial populations and in patients aged >or= 70 years. Capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XelOx) is a safe and active combination for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a large phase II trial compared data from older and younger patients treated with first-line XelOx: oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 followed by oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The median age of the overall population (N = 96) was 64 years (range, 34-79 years), including 52 younger patients (< 65 years of age) and 44 older patients (>or= 65 years of age). Both age groups received a median of 8 cycles (range, 1-26 cycles) of XelOx. The XelOx regimen had similar high activity in both groups, with response rates of 58% (95% CI, 43%-71%) and 52% (95% CI, 37%-68%) in younger and older patients, respectively. In addition, time to disease progression and overall survival were similar in both groups (P > 0.5 for both outcomes). The XelOx regimen also had a favorable safety profile, with no clinically relevant differences between older and younger patients. The overall incidence of adverse events (including grade 3/4), dose reductions, and withdrawals because of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In the context of an aging population, XelOx provides a highly effective and tolerable first-line treatment for patients with metastatic CRC.

Raising the bar for antineoplastic agents: how to choose threshold values for superiority trials in advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To establish the concept of minimum clinically meaningful outcome (mCMO) of treatment in advanced solid tumors, to establish its threshold and evaluate how many superiority trials of new antineoplastic agents pass this threshold. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We chose overall survival as the primary indicator of patient benefit. Four conceptually different types of treatment effect can be identified in OS curves: HR, gains in median OS, proportional, and absolute increases at long-term OS. We postulated threshold levels for these four parameters defining the mCMO and set the bar at three different levels of required benefit: high, medium, and low. The postulated values were then studied by comparing our thresholds with the actual results of the pivotal superiority phase III trials on new drugs reporting on mature OS data. RESULTS: Forty-three trials on 35,419 patients in 12 cancer types on 23 novel agents met these criteria. Only two trials reached the postulated "high" thresholds for HR and median OS. The number of "positive trials" increased to eight and 15 when the bar was lowered to the "medium" and "low" levels, respectively. The same analysis was done for proportional and absolute increases in long-term OS. No trial satisfied the criteria for long-term benefit, whereas only two and nine trials satisfied both parameters for the "medium and low" required benefit levels, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All four OS-related parameters contribute to define the mCMO. If the bar for the mCMO is raised too much, positive trials are exceptional.

Analysis of KRAS/NRAS Mutations in a Phase III Study of Panitumumab with FOLFIRI Compared with FOLFIRI Alone as Second-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the influence of RAS mutation status on the treatment effect of panitumumab in a prospective-retrospective analysis of a randomized, multicenter phase III study of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus FOLFIRI alone as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0039183). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Outcomes were from the study's primary analysis. RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 (KRAS exons 3, 4; NRAS exons 2, 3, 4; BRAF exon 15) were detected by bidirectional Sanger sequencing in wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumor specimens. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary endpoints. RESULTS: The RAS ascertainment rate was 85%; 18% of wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumors harbored other RAS mutations. For PFS and OS, the hazard ratio (HR) for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone more strongly favored panitumumab in the wild-type RAS population than in the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population [PFS HR, 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91); P = 0.007 vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90); P = 0.004; OS HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-1.03); P = 0.08 vs. 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70-1.04); P = 0.12]. Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab. Among RAS wild-type patients, the objective response rate was 41% in the panitumumab-FOLFIRI group versus 10% in the FOLFIRI group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab-FOLFIRI and the benefit-risk of panitumumab-FOLFIRI was improved in the wild-type RAS population compared with the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population. These findings support RAS testing for patients with mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5469-79. ©2015 AACR.See related commentary by Salazar and Ciardiello, p. 5415.

Sequential chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin, followed by vinorelbine, followed by gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary group study (ATOM 001).

Aim of this study was to determine the activity and toxicity of a sequential chemotherapy regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty-one previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were enrolled to receive two cycles of cisplatin plus paclitaxel (80/175 mg/m(2) every 21 days), followed by two cycles of vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days), followed by two cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). Forty-one patients (82%) completed the planned six cycles. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the major toxicity (41% of patients) and it was mainly associated with vinorelbine administration. Response rate after cisplatin plus paclitaxel was 18%; this percentage increased to 41% after vinorelbine, and it reached 43% upon completion of the entire six cycle treatment program. Median survival time was 14.4 months, 1-year survival rate was 53%, and 2-year survival rate was 18%. Median time to disease progression was 6.8 months. This sequential chemotherapy regimen is feasible and active in patients with advanced NSCLC. This pilot experience provides the basis for an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing our sequential regimen versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine.

Current opinion on optimal treatment for colorectal cancer.

The medical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved greatly in the last 10 years, involving complex combined chemotherapy protocols and, in more recent times, new biologic agents. Advances in adjuvant therapy have been limited to the addition of oxaliplatin and the substitution of oral fluoropyrimidine (e.g., capecitabine) for intravenous 5-fluorouracil with no evidence for improved outcome with biological agents. Clinical benefit from the use of the targeted monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab, in the treatment of metastatic CRC is now well established, but the optimal timing of their use requires careful consideration to derive the maximal benefit. Evidence to date suggests potentially distinct roles for bevacizumab and EGF receptor-targeted biological agents (cetuximab and panitumumab) in the treatment of metastatic CRC. This article reviews the evidence in support of modern treatments for CRC and the decision-making behind the treatment choices, their benefits and toxicities.

Axitinib or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or modified FOLFOX-6 after failure of first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: Axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, shows activity in multiple tumor types, including those refractory to previous antiangiogenic therapy. This randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label phase II trial compared axitinib with bevacizumab each in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus modified FOLFOX-6 (if previously treated with irinotecan) or FOLFIRI (if previously treated with oxaliplatin) and were stratified by performance status and prior bevacizumab therapy. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival. RESULTS: In 171 patients, progression-free survival was 7.6 months with axitinib/FOLFOX vs. 6.4 months with bevacizumab/FOLFOX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.96; 1-sided P = .55) and 5.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI vs. 6.9 months with bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.77-2.11; 1-sided P = .83). Overall survival was 17.1 vs. 14.1 months with axitinib/FOLFOX and bevacizumab/FOLFOX (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.37-1.27; 1-sided P = .12) and 12.9 vs. 15.7 months with axitinib/FOLFIRI and bevacizumab/FOLFIRI (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.82-2.24; 1-sided P = .88). More grade ≥ 3 adverse events (eg, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite) and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events occurred with axitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with bevacizumab, axitinib did not improve outcomes when added to second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. With current dosing regimens, axitinib plus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI seems to be less well tolerated than bevacizumab-based regimens.