A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Three agents with differing mechanisms of action are available for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In this study, we compared the activity and toxicity of three different two-drug combinations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had not been treated previously for advanced disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to receive irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (IFL, control combination), oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FOLFOX), or irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX). The primary end point was time to progression, with secondary end points of response rate, survival time, and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 795 patients were randomly assigned between May 1999 and April 2001. A median time to progression of 8.7 months, response rate of 45%, and median survival time of 19.5 months were observed for FOLFOX. These results were significantly superior to those observed for IFL for all end points (6.9 months, 31%, and 15.0 months, respectively) or for IROX (6.5 months, 35%, and 17.4 months, respectively) for time to progression and response. The FOLFOX regimen had significantly lower rates of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and dehydration. Sensory neuropathy and neutropenia were more common with the regimens containing oxaliplatin. CONCLUSION: The FOLFOX regimen of oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin was active and comparatively safe. It should be considered as a standard therapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Colon Cancer With Microsatellite Instability of Sporadic or Familial Origin Treated With Adjuvant FOLFOX With or Without Cetuximab: A Pooled Analysis of the PETACC8 and N0147 Trials.

PURPOSE: The microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually regarded as a single biologic entity, given the absence of comparative analyses regarding prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III colon cancers were randomly assigned to FOLFOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab in 2 large adjuvant phase III trials (N = 5,577). Among patients with MSI and KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumors, the prognostic and predictive impacts of sporadic versus familial dMMR cancers and BRAF V600E mutational status were determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment arm, adjusting for age, sex, tumor grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pT/pN stage, and primary tumor location. RESULTS: Among patients with MSI status with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (n = 354), 255 (72%) had sporadic (BRAF mutation and/or MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) had familial tumors (BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1 or loss of MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 protein expression). A large proportion of dMMR sporadic tumors were mutated for BRAF (n = 200). In patients treated with FOLFOX, DFS did not differ statistically by dMMR mechanism, whereas in patients treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab, those with sporadic tumors had worse DFS than those with familial cancers (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.08; P = .04). Considering the predictive utility, the interaction between treatment and dMMR mechanism was significant (P = .03). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend toward a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in patients with BRAF-mutant but not BRAF WT tumors. CONCLUSION: The addition of cetuximab to adjuvant FOLFOX was associated with shorter DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR colon cancer. Additional studies are needed to validate these results in metastatic disease.

Missing tumor measurement (TM) data in the search for alternative TM-based endpoints in cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Missing data commonly occur in cancer clinical trials (CCT) and may hinder the search for alternative trial endpoints. We consider reasons for missing tumor measurement (TM) data in CCT and how missing TM data are typically handled. We explore the potential impact of missing TM data on predictive ability of a set of TM-based endpoints. METHODS: Literature review identifies reasons for and approaches to handling missing TM data. Data from 3 actual clinical trials were used for illustration. A sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of missing TM data was performed by comparing overall survival (OS) predictive ability of alternative endpoints using observed and imputed data. RESULTS: Reasons for missing TM data in CCT are presented, based on the literature review and the three trials. Although missing TM data impacted individual objective status (e.g. 12-week status changed for 53% of patients in one imputation set), it surprisingly only minimally impacted endpoint predictive ability (e.g. median c-indices of 500 imputed datasets ranged from 0.566 to 0.570 for N9741, 0.592-0.616 for N9841, and 0.542-0.624 for N0026). CONCLUSION: By understanding the reasons for missingness, we can better anticipate them and minimize their occurrence. Our preliminary analysis suggests missing TM data may not impact endpoint predictive ability, but could impact objective response status classification; however these findings require further validation. With response status accepted as an important phase II endpoint in the development of new cancer therapies (including immunotherapy), we urge that in CCT complete TM data collection and adherence to protocol-defined disease evaluation as closely as possible be a priority.

An adaptive multi-stage phase I dose-finding design incorporating continuous efficacy and toxicity data from multiple treatment cycles.

Phase I designs traditionally use the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), a binary endpoint from the first treatment cycle, to identify the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) assuming a monotonically increasing relationship between dose and efficacy. In this article, we establish a general framework for a multi-stage adaptive design where we jointly model a continuous efficacy outcome and continuous/quasi-continuous toxicity endpoints from multiple treatment cycles. The normalized Total Toxicity Profile (nTTP) is used as an illustration for quasi-continuous toxicity endpoints, and we replace DLT with nTTP to take into account multiple grades and types of toxicities. In addition, the proposed design accommodates non-monotone dose-efficacy relationships, and longitudinal toxicity data in effort to capture the adverse events from multiple cycles. Stage 1 of our design uses toxicity data to perform dose-escalation and identify a set of initially allowable (safe) doses; stage 2 of our design incorporates an efficacy outcome to update the set of allowable doses for each new cohort and randomizes the new cohort of patients to the allowable doses with emphasis towards those with higher predicted efficacy. Stage 3 uses all data from all treated patients at the end of the trial to make final recommendations. Simulations showed that the design had a high probability of making the correct dose selection and good overdose control across various dose-efficacy and dose-toxicity scenarios. In addition, the proposed design allows for early termination when all doses are too toxic. To our best knowledge, the proposed dual-endpoint dose-finding design is the first such study to incorporate multiple cycles of toxicities and a continuous efficacy outcome.

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. BACKGROUND: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. METHODS: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. RESULTS: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4-84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3-88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN.Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21-2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85-3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30-3.77). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.

Clinicopathological differences and survival outcomes with first-line therapy in patients with left-sided colon cancer and rectal cancer: Pooled analysis of 2879 patients from AGITG (MAX), COIN, FOCUS2, OPUS, CRYSTAL and COIN-B trials in the ARCAD database.

PURPOSE: Patients with left-sided colon tumours have better survival and respond differently to biologics compared with patients with right-sided tumours. Left-sided colon tumours and rectal cancers are often grouped together. Herein, we examined the clinicopathological differences and outcomes between left-sided colon and rectal cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 2879 metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled on six first-line clinical trials during 2004-2010 were pooled. Patients were included if the primary tumour origin was clearly defined. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the two groups after adjusting for patient and tumour characteristics, metastatic sites and the first-line regimen. RESULTS: In total, 1374 patients with metastatic left-sided colon cancer and 1505 patients with metastatic rectal cancers were evaluated. Left-sided colon cancer patients were more likely to be female (40.1% versus 32.6%; P < 0.0001) and older (31.0% ≥ 70 years versus 25.8%; P = 0.0033) compared with rectal cancers patients. Patients with left-sided colon cancer had higher rates of liver metastases (80.9% versus 72.3%, P < 0.0001) but lower rates of lung metastases (34.2% versus 53.8%, P < 0.0001). KRAS mutations were slightly less frequent among left-sided tumours (34.8% versus 40.5%; P = 0.0103). Patients with left-sided tumours had approximately similar PFS (median 7.4 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.03; P = 0.1998) and OS (median 17.4 versus 16.6 months; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.7597) compared with rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSION: The site of tumour origin within the left side was not prognostic of outcomes. Moreover, neither bevacizumab nor cetuximab impacted, differently, the findings of the comparisons in outcomes between patients with left-sided colon tumours or rectal cancers.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007. RESULTS: Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007. CONCLUSIONS: We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Physical Activity and Outcomes in Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer: A Correlative Analysis of Phase III Trial NCCTG N0147 (Alliance).

Background: Prior studies have supported an inverse association between physical activity and colon cancer risk and suggest that higher physical activity may also improve cancer survival. Among participants in a phase III adjuvant trial for stage III colon cancer, we assessed the association of physical activity around the time of cancer diagnosis with subsequent outcomes.Methods: Before treatment arm randomization (FOLFOX or FOLFOX + cetuximab), study participants completed a questionnaire including items regarding usual daily activity level and frequency of participation in recreational physical activity (N = 1,992). Using multivariable Cox models, we calculated HRs for associations of aspects of physical activity with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).Results: Over follow-up, 505 participants died and 541 experienced a recurrence. Overall, 75% of participants reported recreational physical activity at least several times a month; for participants who reported physical activity at least that often (vs. once a month or less), the HRs for DFS and OS were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-0.99] and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.63-0.93), respectively. There was no evidence of material effect modification in these associations by patient or tumor attributes, except that physical activity was more strongly inversely associated with OS in patients with stage T3 versus T4 tumors (Pinteraction = 0.03).Conclusions: These findings suggest that higher physical activity around the time of colon cancer diagnosis may be associated with more favorable colon cancer outcomes.Impact: Our findings support further research on whether colon cancer survival may be enhanced by physical activity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(6); 696-703. ©2018 AACR.

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.).

A hierarchical Bayesian design for randomized Phase II clinical trials with multiple groups.

Enhanced knowledge of the biological and genetic basis of cancer is re-defining the target population for new treatments. In oncology, potential targets for a new therapeutic agent often include various solid and hematologic malignancies that share common signaling pathways. New agents are often tested in multiple tumor types across which information can be borrowed. We propose a hierarchical Bayesian design (HBD) to simultaneously test a novel agent in multiple groups for randomized Phase II clinical trials with binary endpoints. Compared to parallel design for individual tumor groups, the HBD has greatly reduced sample size. Therefore, this improves efficiency and decreases the financial cost of conducting randomized Phase II clinical trials. An R package hbdct has been developed to implement the HBD and streamline the sample size calibration.

Combining Survival and Toxicity Effect Sizes from Clinical Trials: NCCTG 89-20-52 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: How can a clinician and patient incorporate survival and toxicity information into a single expression of comparative treatment benefit? Sloan et al. recently extended the ½ standard deviation concept for judging the clinical importance of findings from clinical trials to survival and tumor response endpoints. A new method using this approach to combine survival and toxicity effect sizes from clinical trials into a quality-adjusted effect size is presented. METHODS: The quality-adjusted survival effect size (QASES) is calculated as survival effect size (ESS) minus the calibrated toxicity effect sizes (EST) (QASES=ESS-EST). This combined effect size can be weighted to adjust for the relative emphasis placed by the patient on survival and toxicity effects. RESULTS: As an example, consider clinical trial NCCTG 89-20-52 which randomized patients to once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (ODTRT) versus twice-daily treatment of thoracic radiotherapy (TDRT) for the treatment of lung cancer. The ODTRT vs. TDRT arms had median survival time of 22 vs. 20 months (p=0.49) and toxicity rate of 39% vs. 54%, (p<0.05). The QASES of 0.18 standard deviations translates to a quality-adjusted survival difference of 5.7 months advantage for the ODRT arm over the TDRT treatment arm (22(16.3) months), p<0.05). Similar results are presented for the four possible case combinations of significant/non-significant survival and toxicity benefits using completed clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: We used a novel approach to re-analyze clinical trial data to produce a single estimate for each treatment that combines survival and toxicity data. The QASES approach is an intuitive and mathematically simple yet robust approach.

Personalizing Survival Predictions in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: The ARCAD Nomogram Project.

Background: Estimating prognosis on the basis of clinicopathologic factors can inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for one-year overall survival and six-month progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal carcinoma by using the ARCAD database. Methods: Data from 22 674 patients in 26 randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included baseline age, sex, body mass index, performance status, colon vs rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number and location of metastatic sites, tumor mutation status (BRAF, KRAS), bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. Missing data (<11%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions tested if P values were less than .001. Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices, and externally validated on a 10% holdout sample from each trial (n = 2257). Results: In final models, all included variables were associated with overall survival except for lung metastases, and all but total white cell count associated with progression-free survival. No clinically relevant pairwise interactions were identified. Final nomogram calibration was good (C = 0.68 for overall and C = 0.62 for progression-free survival), as was external validity (concordance between predicted >50% vs < 50% probability) and actual (yes/no) survival (72.8% and 68.2% concordance, respectively, for one-year overall and six-month progression-free survival, between predicted [>50% vs < 50% probability] and actual [yes/no] overall and progression-free survival). Median survival predictions fell within the actual 95% Kaplan-Meier confidence intervals. Conclusions: The nomograms are well calibrated and internally and externally valid. They have the potential to aid prognostication and patient-physician communication and balance risk in colorectal cancer trials.

Role of Deficient DNA Mismatch Repair Status in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer Treated With FOLFOX Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis From 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: The prognostic impact of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) status in stage III colon cancer patients receiving FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) adjuvant chemotherapy remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of MMR status with disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage III colon cancer treated with FOLFOX. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The evaluated biomarkers for MMR status were determined from prospectively collected tumor blocks from patients treated with FOLFOX in 2 open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trials: NCCTG N0147 and PETACC8. The studies were conducted in general community practices, private practices, and institutional practices in the United States and Europe. All participants had stage III colon adenocarcinoma. They were enrolled in NCCTG N0147 from February 2004 to November 2009 and in PETACC8 from December 2005 to November 2009. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the clinical trials were randomly assigned to receive 6 months of chemotherapy with FOLFOX or FOLFOX plus cetuximab. Only those patients treated with FOLFOX alone were included in the present study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Association of MMR status with DFS was analyzed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, tumor grade, pT/pN stage, tumor location, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status, and BRAF V600E mutational status. RESULTS: Among 2636 patients with stage III colon cancer treated with FOLFOX, MMR status was available for 2501. Of these, 252 (10.1%) showed deficient MMR status (dMMR; 134 women, 118 men; median age, 59 years), while 2249 (89.9%) showed proficient MMR status (pMMR; 1020 women, 1229 men; median age, 59 years). The 3-year DFS rates in the dMMR and pMMR groups were 75.6% and 74.4%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, patients with dMMR phenotype had significantly longer DFS than those with pMMR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The deficient MMR phenotype remains a favorable prognostic factor in patients with stage III colon cancer receiving FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274 for the NCCTG N0147 trial and EudraCT identifier: 2005-003463-23 for the PETACC8 trial.

Repeated measures dose-finding design with time-trend detection in the presence of correlated toxicity data.

BACKGROUND: Phase I trials are designed to determine the safety, tolerability, and recommended phase 2 dose of therapeutic agents for subsequent testing. The dose-finding paradigm has thus traditionally focused on identifying the maximum tolerable dose of an agent or combination therapy under the assumption that there is a non-decreasing relationship between dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy. The dose is typically determined based on the probability of severe toxicity observed during the first treatment cycle. A novel endpoint, the total toxicity profile, was previously developed to account for the multiple toxicity types and grades experienced in the first cycle. More recently, this was extended to a repeated measures design based on the total toxicity profile to account for longitudinal toxicities over multiple treatment cycles in the absence of within-patient correlation. METHODS: In this work, we propose to extend the design in the presence of within-patient correlation. Furthermore, we provide a framework to detect a toxicity time trend (toxicity increasing, decreasing, or stable) over multiple treatment cycles. We utilize a linear mixed model in the Bayesian framework, with the addition of Bayesian risk functions for decision-making in dose assignment. RESULTS: The performance of this design was evaluated using simulation studies and real data from a phase I trial. We demonstrated that using available toxicity data from all cycles of treatment improves the accuracy of maximum tolerated dose identification and allows for the detection of a time trend. The performance is consistent regardless of the strength of the within-patient correlation. In addition, the use of a quasi-continuous total toxicity profile score significantly increased the power to detect time trends compared to when binary data only were used. CONCLUSION: The increased interest in molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies in oncology necessitates innovative phase I study designs. Our proposed framework provides a tool to tackle some of the challenges presented by these novel agents, specifically through the ability to understand patterns of toxicity over time, which is important in the cases of cumulative or late toxicities.

Use of Bayesian Decision Analysis to Minimize Harm in Patient-Centered Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) currently apply the same statistical threshold of alpha = 2.5% for controlling for false-positive results or type 1 error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. Is there an objective and systematic framework for designing RCTs that incorporates these considerations on a case-by-case basis? OBJECTIVE: To apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to cancer therapeutics to choose an alpha and sample size that minimize the potential harm to current and future patients under both null and alternative hypotheses. DATA SOURCES: We used the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and data from the 10 clinical trials of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. STUDY SELECTION: The NCI SEER database was used because it is the most comprehensive cancer database in the United States. The Alliance trial data was used owing to the quality and breadth of data, and because of the expertise in these trials of one of us (D.J.S.). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The NCI SEER and Alliance data have already been thoroughly vetted. Computations were replicated independently by 2 coauthors and reviewed by all coauthors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our prior hypothesis was that an alpha of 2.5% would not minimize the overall expected harm to current and future patients for the most deadly cancers, and that a less conservative alpha may be necessary. Our primary study outcomes involve measuring the potential harm to patients under both null and alternative hypotheses using NCI and Alliance data, and then computing BDA-optimal type 1 error rates and sample sizes for oncology RCTs. RESULTS: We computed BDA-optimal parameters for the 23 most common cancer sites using NCI data, and for the 10 Alliance clinical trials. For RCTs involving therapies for cancers with short survival times, no existing treatments, and low prevalence, the BDA-optimal type 1 error rates were much higher than the traditional 2.5%. For cancers with longer survival times, existing treatments, and high prevalence, the corresponding BDA-optimal error rates were much lower, in some cases even lower than 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Bayesian decision analysis is a systematic, objective, transparent, and repeatable process for deciding the outcomes of RCTs that explicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.

Clinical Calculator for Early Mortality in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Patients From 28 Clinical Trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive Database.

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

Family history of colorectal cancer and its impact on survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer: results from NCCTG Trial N0147 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Family history of colon cancer often portends increased risk of disease development; however, the prognostic significance of family history related to disease and survival outcomes is unclear. METHODS: To investigate the relationship between family history of colorectal cancer and survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer patients, a prospective cohort of 1,935 patients with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (N0147), comparing the standard of care FOLFOX to FOLFOX with cetuximab, was studied. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire on family history and were followed every 6 months until death or 5 years after randomization. RESULTS: We examined the endpoints of disease-free survival (DFS), time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS), comparing patients with a positive versus negative family history of colorectal cancer. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for patients with a positive family history were 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.16] for DFS, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.76-1.16) for TTR, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74-1.15) for OS (all adjusted P>0.47). A non-significant trend toward improved DFS (P=0.17; adjusted P=0.34) was observed when 2 or more relatives were affected as compared to 0 relatives (multivariate HR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.15), whereas subjects with histories of 0 or 1 affected relatives had similar DFS (multivariate HR for 1 vs. 0: 1.00; 95% CI, 0.81-1.24). Interactions of the molecular factors KRAS, BRAF, and MMR with family history were also explored. The only significant interaction was for deficient MMR (dMMR) and first-degree relatives with a family history of colorectal cancer (0 vs. 1 vs. 2+ relatives) for a benefit on OS (univariate P=0.001), which remained significant after adjusting for other factors (P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage III resected colon cancer treated with adjuvant FOLFOX, a family history of colorectal cancer did not significantly impact DFS, TTR, or OS outcomes, with the exception of patients with dMMR-expressing tumors.

Validation of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate Endpoint for Overall Survival in Malignant Mesothelioma: Analysis of Cancer and Leukemia Group B and North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Trials.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) can be considered a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in malignant mesothelioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual data were collected from 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (615 patients) and 2 North Central Cancer Treatment Group (101 patients) phase II trials. The effects of 5 risk factors for OS and PFS, including age, histology, performance status (PS), white blood cell count, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) risk score, were used in the analysis. Individual-level surrogacy was assessed by Kendall's tau through a Clayton bivariate Copula survival (CBCS) model. Summary-level surrogacy was evaluated via the association between logarithms of the hazard ratio (log HR)-log HROS and log HRPFS-measured in R2 from a weighted least-square (WLS) regression model and the CBCS model. RESULTS: The median PFS for all patients was 3.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-3.5 months) and the median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.5-8.0 months). Moderate correlations between PFS and OS were observed across all risk factors at the individual level, with Kendall's tau ranging from 0.46 to 0.47. The summary-level surrogacy varied among risk factors. The Copula R2 ranged from 0.51 for PS to 0.78 for histology. The WLS R2 ranged from 0.26 for EORTC and PS to 0.67 for age. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses demonstrated low to moderate individual-level surrogacy between PFS and OS. At the summary level, the surrogacy between PFS and OS varied significantly across different risk factors. With a short postprogression survival and a moderate correlation between PFS and OS, there is no evidence that PFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for OS in malignant mesothelioma. The Oncologist 2017;22:189-198Implications for Practice: For better disease management and for more efficient clinical trial designs, it is important to know if progression-free survival (PFS) is a good surrogate endpoint for overall survival in malignant mesothelioma. With a relatively large database of 17 phase II trials and 716 patients from Cancer and Leukemia Group B and North Central Cancer Treatment Group, we conducted statistical analyses and found that there is no evidence to suggest that PFS is a valid surrogate endpoint for OS for malignant mesothelioma. Future research work is needed to find alternative surrogate endpoints for OS.