Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer.

Cell-free DNA in the blood provides a non-invasive diagnostic avenue for patients with cancer1. However, characteristics of the origins and molecular features of cell-free DNA are poorly understood. Here we developed an approach to evaluate fragmentation patterns of cell-free DNA across the genome, and found that profiles of healthy individuals reflected nucleosomal patterns of white blood cells, whereas patients with cancer had altered fragmentation profiles. We used this method to analyse the fragmentation profiles of 236 patients with breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, gastric or bile duct cancer and 245 healthy individuals. A machine learning model that incorporated genome-wide fragmentation features had sensitivities of detection ranging from 57% to more than 99% among the seven cancer types at 98% specificity, with an overall area under the curve value of 0.94. Fragmentation profiles could be used to identify the tissue of origin of the cancers to a limited number of sites in 75% of cases. Combining our approach with mutation-based cell-free DNA analyses detected 91% of patients with cancer. The results of these analyses highlight important properties of cell-free DNA and provide a proof-of-principle approach for the screening, early detection and monitoring of human cancer.

Efficacy-effectiveness analysis on survival in a population-based real-world study of BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib-cetuximab has been approved for pretreated BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients based on efficacy demonstrated in the randomized phase III BEACON trial. The aim of this real-world effectiveness study is to improve knowledge on the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: This population-based real-world study includes all mCRC patients in the Netherlands treated with encorafenib-cetuximab since approval. Individual patient data and pathology reports were collected. Overall survival (OS) was compared to BEACON and subgroup analyses were conducted for patients who would have been eligible and ineligible for BEACON. RESULTS: 166 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 14.5 months. Median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI:6.0-8.3) and differed from BEACON (9.3 months; 95% CI:8.0-11.3, p-value 0.002). Thirty-six percent of real-world patients would have been ineligible for the BEACON trial. Trial ineligible subgroups with symptomatic brain metastases and WHO performance status ≥2 had the poorest median OS of 5.0 months (95% CI:4.0-NR) and 3.9 months (95% CI:2.4-NR). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort of mCRC patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab showed a clinically relevant efficacy-effectiveness gap for OS. The chance of survival benefit from encorafenib-cetuximab in patients with brain metastases and/or WHO performance status ≥2 is negligible as neither efficacy nor effectiveness has been demonstrated.

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. METHODS: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. RESULTS: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Time-varying prognostic value of primary tumor sidedness in metastatic colorectal cancer: A population-based study and meta-analysis.

We studied the prognostic value of primary tumor sidedness in metastatic colorectal cancer over time and across treatment lines. Population data on synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer patients were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and SEER database. Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched for prospective studies on metastatic colorectal cancer to conduct a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria consisted of metastatic disease, systemic treatment with palliative intent and specification of primary tumor location. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. For the population-based data, multivariable Cox models were constructed. The Grambsch-Therneau test was conducted to evaluate the potential time-varying nature of sidedness. Meta-regression incorporating treatment-line as variable was conducted to test the pre-specified hypothesis that the prognostic value of sidedness varies over time. Analysis of 12 885 and 16 160 synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer patients registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and SEER database, respectively, indicated a time-varying prognostic value of sidedness (P < .01). Thirty-one studies were selected for the meta-analysis (9558 patients for overall survival analysis). Pooled univariable hazard ratioleft-sided/right-sided for overall survival was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65-0.76) in 1st-line, 0.76 (0.54-1.06) in 2nd-line and 1.01 (0.86-1.19) in 3rd-line studies. Hazard ratios were significantly influenced by treatment line (P = .035). The prognostic value of sidedness of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with palliative systemic therapy decreases over time since diagnosis, suggesting that sidedness may not be a useful stratification factor in late-line trials. This decrease in prognostic value should be taken into account when providing prognostic information to patients.

Survival of Patients with Deficient Mismatch Repair Versus Proficient Mismatch Repair Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Curative-Intent Local Treatment of Metastases in a Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether curative-intent local therapy of metastases is of similar benefit for the biological distinct subgroup of patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) compared with proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this nationwide study, recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in patients with dMMR versus pMMR mCRC who underwent curative-intent local treatment of metastases between 2015 and 2018. Subgroup analyses were performed for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and cytoreductive surgery ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS ± HIPEC). Multivariable regression was conducted. RESULTS: Median RFS was 11.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5-41.1 months] for patients with dMMR tumors compared with 8.9 months (95% CI 8.1-9.8 months) for pMMR tumors. Two-year RFS was higher in patients with dMMR versus pMMR (43% vs. 21%). Results were similar within subgroups of local treatment (CRLM and CRS ± HIPEC). Characteristics differed significantly between patients with dMMR and pMMR mCRC; however, multivariable analysis continued to demonstrate dMMR as independent factor for improved RFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.87]. Median OS was 33.3 months for dMMR mCRC compared with 43.5 months for pMMR mCRC, mainly due to poor survival of patients with dMMR in cases of recurrence in the preimmunotherapy era. CONCLUSION: Patients with dMMR eligible for curative-intent local treatment of metastases showed a comparable to more favorable RFS compared with patients with pMMR, with a clinically relevant proportion of patients remaining free of recurrence. This supports local treatment as a valuable treatment option in patients with dMMR mCRC and can aid in shared decision-making regarding upfront local therapy versus immunotherapy.

Predicting early extrahepatic recurrence after local treatment of colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Patients who develop early extrahepatic recurrence (EHR) may not benefit from local treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). This study aimed to develop a prediction model for early EHR after local treatment of CRLMs using a national data set. METHODS: A Cox regression prediction model for EHR was developed and validated internally using data on patients who had local treatment for CRLMs with curative intent. Performance assessment included calibration, discrimination, net benefit, and generalizability by internal-external cross-validation. The prognostic relevance of early EHR (within 6 months) was evaluated by landmark analysis. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 35 months, 557 of the 1077 patients had EHR and 249 died. Median overall survival was 19.5 (95 per cent c.i. 15.6 to 23.0) months in patients with early EHR after CRLM treatment, compared with not reached (45.3 months to not reached) in patients without an early EHR. The EHR prediction model included side and stage of the primary tumour, RAS/BRAFV600E mutational status, and number and size of CRLMs. The range of 6-month EHR predictions was 5.9-56.0 (i.q.r. 12.9-22.0) per cent. The model demonstrated good calibration and discrimination. The C-index through 6 and 12 months was 0.663 (95 per cent c.i. 0.624 to 0.702) and 0.661 (0.632 to 0.689) respectively. The observed 6-month EHR risk was 6.5 per cent for patients in the lowest quartile of predicted risk compared with 32.0 per cent in the highest quartile. CONCLUSION: Early EHR after local treatment of CRLMs can be predicted.

Towards patient-led follow-up after curative surgical resection of stage I, II and III colorectal cancer (DISTANCE-trial): a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Approximately 20-30% of stage I-III CRC patients develop a recurrent tumour or metastases after curative surgical resection. Post-operative follow-up is indicated for the first five years after curative surgical resection. As intensified follow-up after curative surgical resection has shown no effect on survival, patient organisations and policy makers have advocated for a more patient-centred approach to follow-up. The objective of this study is to successfully implement patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) in six hospitals in The Netherlands, with as ultimate aim to come to a recommendation for a patient-centred follow-up schedule for stage I-III CRC patients treated with surgical resection with curative intent. METHODS: This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (SW-CRT) in six participating centres. During the trial, three centres will implement PHFU after six months; the other three centres will implement PHFU after 12 months of inclusion in the control group. Eligible patients are those with pT2-4N0M0 or pT1-4N1-2M0 CRC, who are 18 years or older and have been free of disease for 12 months after curative surgical resection. The studied intervention is PHFU, starting 12 months after curative resection. The in-hospital, standard-of-care follow-up currently implemented in the participating centres functions as the comparator. The proportion of patients who had contact with the hospital regarding CRC follow-up between 12-24 months after curative surgical resection is the primary endpoint of this study. Quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and survival are the secondary endpoints. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence on whether nationwide implementation of PHFU for CRC in The Netherlands will be successful in reducing contact between patient and health care provider. Comparison of PROMs between in-hospital follow-up and PHFU will be provided. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of PHFU will be assessed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trail Register (NTR): NL9266 (Registered on January 1st, 2021).

Work Ability in Patients With Stage I to IV Colon Cancer: Results of the Dutch Prospective Colorectal Cancer Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer affects a patient's ability to work. Many patients who have colon cancer are employed at the time of diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated work ability during the first 2 years after colon cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: This study is a national prospective study, the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort, including clinical data and patient-reported outcomes. SETTINGS: Data were collected in 59 medical centers in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Patients <67 years of age with stage I to IV colon cancer and who completed Work Ability Index questionnaires were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Work ability was assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The Work Ability Index (range, 0 to 49) was evaluated using linear mixed models. Outcomes were matched to population controls without cancer. RESULTS: Of 390 patients, 84% had paid employment. Work ability of patients with stage I to IV colon cancer was significantly lower at the time of diagnosis than in matched population controls (31 ± 8.2 and 41 ± 5.6). Patients with stage I to III disease receiving surgery only regained Work Ability Index scores comparable to matched population controls at 18 months. Patients receiving adjuvant systemic treatment initially demonstrated a decrease in work ability with improvements from 6 months onward and normalization at 24 months. Patients with stage IV disease did not demonstrate improvements in work ability outcomes over time. Work ability scores were negatively influenced by the administration of systemic treatment and ≥1 comorbidities. LIMITATIONS: Only patients with patient-reported outcomes and work at baseline were included in this analysis. Also, questionnaire response rates decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Work ability in patients with colon cancer is decreased for a prolonged time. Recovery depends on disease stage, type of treatment, and comorbidities. Patients with stage I to III disease treated with curative surgery alone were the first to regain work ability, followed by patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with stage IV disease did not regain work ability. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B759 . CAPACIDAD LABORAL EN PACIENTES CON CNCER DE COLON EN ESTADIO IIV RESULTADOS PROSPECTIVOS DE CNCER COLORECTAL EN UNA COHORTE HOLANDESA: ANTECEDENTES:El cáncer de colon afecta la capacidad de trabajo en un paciente. Muchos pacientes con cáncer de colon están empleados en el momento del diagnóstico.OBJETIVO:Evaluamos la capacidad laboral durante los dos primeros años posteriores al diagnóstico de cáncer de colon.DISEÑO:Es un estudio prospectivo nacional, la cohorte de cáncer colorrectal holandés, incluye datos clínicos y resultados informados por los pacientes.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se recopilaron datos de 59 centros médicos en los Países Bajos.PACIENTES:Se seleccionaron pacientes < 67 años, con cáncer de colon en estadio I-IV, que completaron los cuestionarios de índice de capacidad para el trabajo.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:La capacidad para el trabajo se evaluó al inicio, a los 3, 6, 12, 18 y 24 meses. El índice de capacidad para el trabajo (que va de 0 a 49) se evaluó mediante modelos lineales mixtos. Los resultados fueron comparados con el grupo control sin cáncer.RESULTADOS:De 390 pacientes, el 84% tenía un empleo remunerado. La capacidad de trabajo de los pacientes en estadio I-IV fue significativamente menor en el momento del diagnóstico en comparación con el grupo control (31 ± 8,2 y 41 ± 5,6, respectivamente). Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio I-III que recibieron cirugía lograron recuperar puntajes del índice de capacidad laboral comparables a los controles a los 18 meses. Los pacientes que recibieron tratamiento sistémico adyuvante inicialmente demostraron una disminución en la capacidad de trabajo con mejoras a partir de los 6 meses en adelante y una normalización a los 24 meses. Los pacientes en estadio IV no demostraron mejoras en los resultados de la capacidad laboral a lo largo del tiempo. Las puntuaciones de capacidad para el trabajo se vieron influidas negativamente por la administración del tratamiento sistémico y la existencia de ≥1 comorbilidades.LIMITACIONES:En este análisis solo se incluyeron los pacientes con resultados y trabajo desde el inicio del estudio. Además, las tasas de respuesta al cuestionario disminuyeron con el tiempo.CONCLUSIONES:La capacidad de trabajo en pacientes con cáncer de colon se reduce durante un tiempo prolongado. La recuperación depende del estadio de la enfermedad, el tipo de tratamiento y la comorbilidad. Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio I-III tratados con cirugía curativa exclusivamente, son los primeros en recuperar la capacidad para trabajar, seguidos de los pacientes que reciben quimioterapia adyuvante. Los pacientes con enfermedad en estadio IV no recuperan la capacidad para trabajar. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B759 . (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

Translation of IDEA trial results into clinical practice: Analysis of the implementation of a new guideline for colon cancer.

The IDEA trial showed no clinical relevant differences in efficacy between 3 and 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in colon cancer (CC), while toxicity was substantially lower in the 3 months regimen. Therefore, in 2017 the Dutch colorectal cancer guideline was revised and currently recommends 3 months of oxaliplatin-based ACT. Furthermore, the definition of high-risk stage II CC was restricted to pT4 tumors. We analyzed changes in ACT between 2015 and 2019. From the Netherlands Cancer Registry all 16 721 patients ≥18 years with resected high-risk stage II and stage III CC during 2015 to 2019 were selected. Differences in patient and treatment characteristics were analyzed per calendar year according to stage and age. Mean duration of oxaliplatin-based ACT decreased from 18.6 (±8.0) to 9.5 (±3.8) weeks between 2015 and 2019. In patients receiving ACT (n = 8170), the proportion treated with oxaliplatin increased from 74% to 83%. The proportion of patients receiving ACT was stable, 61% to 69% in stage III and 26% to 29% in pT4 stage II. ACT in previous high-risk pT3N0 disease decreased from 15% to 3%. Use of oxaliplatin increased from 27% to 49% in patients aged ≥75 years. The revised guideline was rapidly implemented and led to an increase in oxaliplatin-based ACT in the elderly and increased guideline-adherence in high-risk stage II CC.

External validation of the MSKCC nomogram to estimate five-year overall survival after surgery for stage I-III colon cancer in a Dutch population.

INTRODUCTION: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) nomogram has been developed to estimate five-year overall survival (OS) after curative-intent surgery of colon cancer based on age, sex, T stage, differentiation grade, number of positive and examined regional lymph nodes. This is the first evaluation of the performance of the MSKCC model in a European population regarding prediction of OS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Population-based data from patients with stage I-III colon cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) for external validation of the MSKCC prediction model. Five-year survival probabilities were estimated for all patients in our dataset by using the MSKCC prediction equation. Histogram density plots were created to depict the distribution of the estimated probability and prognostic index. The performance of the model was evaluated in terms of its overall performance, discrimination, and calibration. RESULTS: A total of 39,805 patients were included. Five-year OS was 71.9% (95% CI 71.5; 72.3) (11,051 events) with a median follow up of 5.6 years (IQR 4.1; 7.7). The Brier score was 0.10 (95% CI 0.10; 0.10). The C-index was 0.75 (95% CI 0.75; 0.76). The calibration measures and plot indicated that the model slightly overestimated observed mortality (observed/expected ratio = 0.86 [95% CI 0.86; 0.87], calibration intercept = -0.14 [95% CI -0.16; -0.11], and slope 1.07 [95% CI 1.05; 1.09], ICI = 0.04, E50 = 0.04, and E90 = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The external validation of the MSKCC prediction nomogram in a large Dutch cohort supports the use of this practical tool in the European patient population. These personalised estimated survival probabilities may support clinicians when informing patients about prognosis. Adding potential relevant prognostic factors to the model, such as primary tumour location, might further improve the model.

Limited impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer care in the Netherlands in 2020.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the health services worldwide. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on colorectal cancer (CRC) care in the Netherlands in 2020. METHODS: CRC patients, diagnosed in 2018-2020 in the Netherlands, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). The year 2020 was divided in four periods reflecting COVID-19 developments in the Netherlands (pre-COVID, 1st peak, recovery period, 2nd peak) and compared with the same periods in 2018/2019. Patient characteristics and treatment were compared using the Chi-squared test. Median time between diagnosis and treatment, and between (neo)adjuvant therapy and surgery were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: In total, 38,021 CRC patients were diagnosed in 2018/2019 (n = 26,816) and 2020 (n = 11,205). Median time between diagnosis and initial treatment decreased on average 4 days and median time between neoadjuvant radiotherapy and surgery in clinical stage II or III rectal cancer patients increased on average 34 days during the three COVID-19 periods compared to the same periods of 2018/2019. The proportion of colon cancer patients that underwent elective surgery significantly decreased with 3.0% during the 1st peak. No differences were found in the proportion of patients who received (neo)adjuvant therapy, systemic therapy, or no anti-cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Only minor changes in the care for CRC patients occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly during the 1st peak. In conclusion, the impact on CRC care in the Netherlands was found to be limited. However, long-term effects cannot be precluded.

Evaluation of an individual feedback report on patient-reported outcomes in the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort.

PURPOSE: Returning patient-reported outcomes to patients might aid patients in detecting symptoms and might facilitate early intervention. This descriptive study evaluates the use of an individual feedback report on patient-reported outcomes for colorectal cancer patients and aims to assess differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics and cohort retention between patients who opt and do not opt for the feedback report. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer participating in the nationwide Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer Cohort, who filled in questionnaires digitally between June 2018 and January 2019, were included. Participants were given the option to receive a feedback report at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The usefulness, content, and layout of the feedback report were evaluated. Differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, patient-reported outcomes, and cohort retention at subsequent questionnaires between participants who did and did not opt for feedback were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 484 participants were included of whom 293 (61%) opted for feedback. The feedback report was considered useful by 92%. No differences in patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, and patient-reported outcomes were found between participants who did and did not opt for feedback. The response rate was higher among patients who opted for feedback compared to patients who did not opt for feedback at T3 (84 vs 74%), but not at T6 and T12. CONCLUSION: The feedback report was used by 6 out of 10 patients. The feedback report was considered valuable and associated with a higher subsequent response rate.

The impact of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with colon cancer: Changes at group level versus individual level.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) 1 year after surgical treatment in patients with primary resectable colon cancer and to assess whether changes at group level differ from changes at individual level. In addition, we assess which characteristics are associated with a decline of HR-QoL. METHODS: Patients with primary resectable colon cancer who received surgical treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy if indicated were selected from the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort (PLCRC). HR-QoL was assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire before surgery and 12 months post-surgery. Outcomes were assessed at group and individual levels. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess which socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with a clinically relevant decline of HR-QoL at 12 months. RESULTS: Of all 324 patients, the baseline level of HR-QoL summary score was relatively high with a mean of 88.1 (SD 11.4). On group level, the change of HR-QoL at 12 months varied between -2% for cognitive functioning and +9% for emotional functioning. On individual level, 15% of all patients experienced a clinically relevant decline in HR-QoL summary score at 12 months. Older age, comorbidity burden or the reception of adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with a decline of HR-QoL in one of the functional subscales of EORTC-QLQ-C30 at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Only trivial changes of HR-QoL were observed after colon cancer treatment on group level, whereas on individual level, at least 1 out of 10 patients experienced a decline of HR-QoL 12 months post-surgery. It is important to consider individual differences while making a treatment decision.

Informing metastatic colorectal cancer patients by quantifying multiple scenarios for survival time based on real-life data.

Reported median overall survival (mOS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients participating in systemic therapy trials has increased to over 30 months. It is uncertain whether trial results translate to real-life populations. Moreover, patients prefer presentation of multiple survival scenarios. Population-based data of all stage IV CRC patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2016 were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, which has a case ascertainment completeness surpassing 95%. We calculated the following percentiles (scenarios) of OS per year of diagnosis for the total population, and for treatment subgroups: 10th (best-case), 25th (upper-typical), 50th (median), 75th (lower-typical) and 90th (worst-case). Twenty-five percent of patients did not receive any antitumor treatment. From 2008 to 2016, mOS of the total population (n = 27275) remained unchanged at approximately 12 months. OS improved only for the upper-typical and best-case patients; by 4.2 to 29.1 months (P < .001), and by 6 to 62 months (P < .001), respectively. No clinically relevant change was observed among patients who received systemic therapy, with mOS close to 15 months and best-case scenario approximately 40 months. A clinically relevant improvement in survival over time was observed in patients who initially received metastasectomy and/or HIPEC only. In contrast to the wide belief based on trial data that mOS of mCRC patients receiving systemic therapy has improved substantially, improvement could not be demonstrated in our real-life population. Clinicians should consider quoting multiple survival scenarios based on real-life data instead of point estimates from clinical trials, when informing patients about their life expectancy.

Longitudinal effects of adjuvant chemotherapy and related neuropathy on health utility in stage II and III colon cancer patients: A prospective cohort study.

Patient's quality of life should be included in clinical decision making regarding the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) in stage II/III colon cancer. Therefore, quality of life, summarized as health utility (HU), was evaluated for patients treated with and without ACT. Furthermore, the role of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) on HU was evaluated. Patients diagnosed with stage II/III colon cancer between 2011 and 2019 and participating in the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort were included (n = 914). HU scores were assessed with the EQ-5D-5L at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Patients treated with ACT received mainly capecitabine and oxaliplatin (57%) or capecitabine monotherapy (40%) (average duration: 3.5 months). HU 3 to 18 months after diagnosis (potential ACT period + 12 months follow-up) was compared between patients treated with and without ACT using a mixed model adjusted for age, sex and education level. Subsequently, the CIPN sensory, motor and autonomy scales, measured using the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20, were independently included in the model to evaluate the impact of neuropathy. Using a mixed model, a significant difference of -0.039 (95% confidence interval: -0.062; -0.015) in HU was found between patients treated with and without ACT. Including the CIPN sensory, motor and autonomy scales decreased the difference with 0.019, 0.015 and 0.02, respectively. HU 3 to 18 months after diagnosis is significantly lower in patients treated with ACT vs without ACT. This difference is on the boundary of clinical relevance and appears to be partly related to the sensory and motor neuropathy-related side effects of ACT.

Survival of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer in the pre-immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified. RESULTS: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8-19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8-3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7-15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4-8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients. CONCLUSION: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

Role of Up-Front Primary Tumor Resection and Tumor Sidedness in the Survival of Synchronous Metastatic Colon Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty exists about a possible survival benefit of primary tumor resection (PTR) in synchronous metastatic colon cancer (mCC). Since sidedness of the primary tumor is regarded as an important prognostic factor, our objective was to study the interaction between PTR and sidedness in synchronous mCC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used data from 2 first-line phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A mixed Cox regression model was used to study the multiplicative interaction between PTR and sidedness. We adjusted for age, treatment arm, WHO performance status, number of affected organs by metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and year of enrollment. RESULTS: We found that PTR is associated with better survival in both right-sided (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.42-0.8 2]) and left-sided mCC (HR 0.70 [95% confidence interval 0.52-0.93]). The interaction between PTR and sidedness was not significant (p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the prognostic value of PTR is independent of sidedness. Validation of these results will be performed in ongoing RCTs.

Estimating adjuvant treatment effects in Stage II colon cancer: Comparing the synthesis of randomized clinical trial data to real-world data.

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage II colon cancer. We therefore estimated adjuvant treatment effect in Stage II colon cancer using pooled disease-free survival (DFS) data from randomized clinical trials (RCT approach) and compared this to real-world data (RWD approach) estimates. First, we estimated the treatment effect in RCTs by (i) searching relevant trials reporting DFS data, (ii) generating patient-level data from reported DFS data and (iii) estimating treatment effect in the patient-level data. Second, the treatment effect was estimated in an observational cohort of 1,947 patients provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry using three propensity score methods; matching, weighting and stratification. In the RCT approach, patient-level data of 4,489 patients (events: 853) were generated from seven trials which compared two of the following treatment arms: control, 5FU/LV or FOLFOX. A Cox model was used to estimate a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.77 (0.43;1.10) for 5FU/LV vs. control and 0.93 (0.72;1.15) for FOLFOX vs. 5FU/LV. In the RWD approach, HRs for any adjuvant treatment vs. control were 0.95 (0.50;1.80), 0.88 (0.24;3.21) and 1.05 (0.04;2.06) using matching, weighting and stratification, respectively. There was no significant difference with the estimates from the RCT approach (interaction test, p > 0.10). The RCT data suggest a clinically relevant benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of DFS, but the estimate did not reach statistical significance. Stratified analyses are required to evaluate whether treatment effect differs in specific subgroups.