Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the "Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade" method. METHODS: We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as "early" (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or "late" (i.e. after the 6th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies ("Irinotecan" and "Oxaliplatin") from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database (fondationarcad.org). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS: Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3-4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. CONCLUSION: We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.

Association of post-operative CEA with survival and oxaliplatin benefit in patients with stage II colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer (CC) can be proposed to patients with high-risk disease. Recently, 2.35 ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was identified as the best cut-off value. This post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial assessed post-operative CEA prognostic value for survival outcomes and predictive value for the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Prognostic and predictive values of post-operative CEA in patients with stage II CC were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox model with interaction terms. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 899 stage II CC patients, post-operative CEA was available in 867 (96.4%); and 434 (48.65%) had a high-risk stage II disease. The 3-year DFS rate was 88.5% and 78.7% in the ≤ 2.35 ng/mL and > 2.35 ng/mL group, respectively (P = 0.006). Use of oxaliplatin showed survival benefit only in patients with high-risk stage II CC and post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/ml (interaction term P = 0.09 and 0.03 for DFS and OS). CONCLUSION: CEA is a strong prognostic factor for DFS and OS in stage II CC. In the MOSAIC trial, only high-risk stage II CC patients with post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/mL benefited from the addition of oxaliplatin to LV5FU2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00275210 (January 11, 2006).

MABp1 as a novel antibody treatment for advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: MABp1, an antibody that targets interleukin 1α, has been associated with antitumour activity and relief of debilitating symptoms in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We sought to establish the effect of MABp1 with a new primary endpoint in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients for the double-blind phase of this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, had metastatic or unresectable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 1 or 2, systemic inflammation, weight loss, and other disease-related morbidities associated with poor prognosis, and were refractory to oxaliplatin and irinotecan. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either MABp1 or placebo. Randomisation codes were obtained from a centrally held list via an interactive web response system. Patients received an intravenous infusion of 7·5 mg/kg MABp1 or placebo given every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of MABp1 or placebo (modified intention-to-treat population), and was a composite of stable or increased lean body mass and stability or improvement in two of three symptoms (pain, fatigue, or anorexia) at week 8 compared with baseline measurements. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02138422. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between May 20, 2014, and Sept 2, 2015. The double-blind phase of the study was completed on Nov 3, 2015. Of 333 patients randomly assigned treatment, 207 received at least one dose of MABp1 and 102 at least one dose of placebo. 68 (33%) and 19 (19%) patients, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk 1·76, 95% CI 1·12-2·77, p=0·0045). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the MABp1 group compared with in the placebo group were anaemia (eight [4%] of 207 vs five [5%] of 102 patients), increased concentration of alkaline phosphatase (nine [4%] vs two [2%]), fatigue (six [3%] vs seven [7%]), and increased concentration of aspartate aminotransferase (six [3%] vs two [2%]). After 8 weeks, 17 (8%) patients in the MABp1 group and 11 (11%) in the placebo group had died, but no death was judged to be related to treatment. The incidence of serious adverse events was not significantly different in the MABp1 group and placebo groups (47 [23%] vs 33 [32%], p=0·07). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint was a useful means of measuring clinical performance in patients. MABp1 might represent a new standard in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. FUNDING: XBiotech.

BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer: What Is the Optimal Strategy for Treatment?

OPINION STATEMENT: The BRAF activating mutation, harbored by approximately 10% of colorectal cancers (CRC), confers dramatic prognosis to advanced diseases. In early-stage setting, the identification of the BRAF mutation does not impact the therapeutic decision. Yet, the BRAF mutation could be considered as a stratification factor in adjuvant trials, because of its prognostic impact after relapse. Moreover, both BRAF mutation and mismatch repair (MMR) statuses should be determined in all CRC to help identify sporadic tumors versus Lynch syndrome-related tumors. Indeed, in patients with MMR-deficient (dMMR) tumors and MLH1 loss of expression, the BRAFV600E mutation indicates a sporadic origin. In advanced BRAF-mutated CRC, the standard of care remains fluoropyrimidine-based cytotoxic regimen in combination with bevacizumab. Although a recent meta-analysis showed that there was insufficient data to justify the exclusion of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, antiangiogenic agents should be preferred in the first-line setting. Despite the lack of a randomized phase 3 study dedicated to BRAF-mutated CRC, chemotherapy intensification combining a quadruple association of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI), and bevacizumab seems like a valid option. Although first results with BRAF inhibitors as single agents in BRAF-mutated CRC were disappointing, their association with therapies targeting the MAPK pathway seems to overcome the primary resistance to BRAF inhibition. In the field of sporadic CRC, the BRAF mutation is strongly associated with MMR deficiency. Considering breakthrough results of immune checkpoint inhibitors in dMMR repair tumors, determination of the MMR status appears to be mandatory. Given the dramatic prognosis conferred by the BRAF mutation, patients with BRAF-mutated advanced CRC need to be systematically identified and proposed for clinical trial enrolment in order to benefit from innovative therapies.

Prognosis of patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer given systemic therapy: an analysis of individual patient data from prospective randomised trials from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) database.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have reduced overall survival compared with patients with metastatic colorectal cancer without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: We analysed individual patient data for previously untreated patients enrolled in 14 phase 3 randomised trials done between 1997 and 2008. Trials were included if protocols explicitly pre-specified and solicited for patients with peritoneal involvement in the trial data collection process or had done a formal peritoneum-focused review of individual pre-treatment scans. We used stratified multivariable Cox models to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival, adjusting for other key clinical-pathological factors (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, primary tumour location [colon vs rectum], previous treatment, and baseline BMI). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival between populations with and without peritoneal metastases. FINDINGS: Individual patient data were available for 10 553 patients. 9178 (87%) of 10 553 patients had non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (4385 with one site of metastasis, 4793 with two or more sites of metastasis), 194 (2%) patients had isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, and 1181 (11%) had peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer and other organ involvement. These groups were similar in age, ethnic origin, and use of targeted treatment. Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer were more likely than those with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer to be women (565 [41%] of 1371 vs 3312 [36%] of 9169 patients; p=0·0003), have colon primary tumours (1116 [84%] of 1334 patients vs 5603 [66%]; p<0·0001), and have performance status of 2 (136 [10%] vs 521 [6%]; p<0·0001). We recorded a higher proportion of patients with mutated BRAF in patients with peritoneal-only (eight [18%] of 44 patients with available data) and peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with other sites of metastasis (34 [12%] of 289), compared with patients with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (194 [9%] of 2230; p=0·028 comparing the three groups). Overall survival (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·91; p=0·003) was better in patients with isolated non-peritoneal sites than in those with isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival of patients with two of more non-peritoneal sites of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·25, p=0.69) and those with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer plus one other site of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·37, p=0·37) was similar to those with isolated peritoneal metastases. Compared with patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, those with peritoneal metastases and two or more additional sites of metastasis had the shortest survival (adjusted HR 1·40; CI 1·14-1·71; p=0·0011). INTERPRETATION: Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with other isolated sites of metastases. In patients with several sites of metastasis, poor survival is a function of both increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement. The pattern of metastasis and in particular, peritoneal involvement, results in prognostic heterogeneity of metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: None.

Efficacy of a sequential treatment strategy with GEMOX-based followed by FOLFIRI-based chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (GEM)-platinum chemotherapy stands as first-line therapy for patients with recurrent/advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), yielding progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.4-6.4 months. No standard second-line chemotherapy after GEM-platinum failure exists and data on survival benefit remain limited. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with recurrent/advanced BTC who received gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (GEMOX)-based chemotherapy followed by 5-fluorouracil-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-based chemotherapy to evaluate the efficacy of the sequential treatment strategy. Overall survival (OS) and PFS were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were analyzed, 21 (40%) had intrahepatic, 14 (27%) had hilar/extrahepatic, and 17 (33%) had gallbladder cancer. Median age was 64 years (range 38-79 years). Prior curative intent resection of the primary tumor was performed in 23 (44.2%) patients and GEMOX adjuvant chemotherapy was given in 12 (23.1%) patients. After a median follow-up of 36.3 months, 47 (90.4%) patients completed the treatment strategy. First-sequence GEMOX and second sequence FOLFIRI achieved 4.8 months and 3.2 months median PFS, respectively. The global OS for the sequential chemotherapy was 21.9 months. The sequence of FOLFIRI resulted in a median OS of 8.4 months. CONCLUSION: The sequence of GEMOX-FOLFIRI is a potential treatment strategy for patients with recurrent/advanced BTC.

New Therapeutic Opportunities Based on DNA Mismatch Repair and BRAF Status in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Recently, colorectal cancer (CRC) subtyping consortium identified four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS1-4). CMS1 is enriched for deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and BRAF (V600E) tumors. Intriguingly, this subtype has better relapse-free survival but worse overall survival after relapse compared with the other subtypes. Growing evidence is accumulating on the benefit of specific therapeutic strategies such as immune checkpoint inhibition therapy in dMMR tumors and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway targeted therapy in tumors harboring BRAF (V600E) mutation. After reviewing dMMR prognostic value, immune checkpoints as major targets for dMMR carcinomas will be highlighted. Following, BRAF (V600E) prognostic impact will be reviewed and therapeutic strategies with the combination of cytotoxic agents and especially the combinations of BRAF and MAPK inhibitors will be discussed.

Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (GERCOR DREAM; OPTIMOX3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of an anti-VEGF or an anti-EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody with chemotherapy has shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, combining both anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR antibodies with chemotherapy in first-line treatment resulted in adverse outcomes. We assessed whether the combination of erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with bevacizumab could increase the efficacy of maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was undertaken in 49 centres in France, Austria, and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with histologically confirmed, unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, WHO performance status 0-2, had received no previous therapy for metastatic disease, and had adequate organ function. Patients without disease progression after bevacizumab-based induction therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) by a minimisation technique to bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or bevacizumab plus erlotinib (150 mg once daily) as maintenance therapy until progression. All patients were stratified by centre, baseline performance status, age, and number of metastatic sites. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival on maintenance therapy analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00265824. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2007, and Oct 13, 2011, 700 eligible patients were enrolled; following induction treatment, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (n=228) or bevacizumab plus erlotinib (n=224). At the final analysis, median follow-up was 51·0 months (IQR 36·0-60·0) in the bevacizumab group and 48·3 months (31·5-61·0) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group. In the primary analysis (after 231 progression-free survival events), median progression-free survival from randomisation was 5·1 months (95% CI 4·1-5·9) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group compared with 6·0 months (4·6-7·9) in the bevacizumab group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·60-1·06]; p=0·11; unstratified HR 0·76 [0·59-0·99]; p=0·043). In the final analysis, median progression-free survival from randomisation was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·3-6·2) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group compared with 4·9 months (4·1-5·7) in the bevacizumab group (stratified HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-1·01], p=0·059; unstratified HR 0·78 [0·68-0·96], p=0·019). At the final analysis, median overall survival from maintenance was 24·9 months (95% CI 21·4-28·9) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group and 22·1 months (19·6-26·7) in the bevacizumab group (stratified HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·63-0·99], p=0·036; unstratified HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98], p=0·035). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were skin rash (47 [21%] of 220 patients in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group vs none of 224 patients in the bevacizumab alone group), diarrhoea (21 [10%] vs two [<1%]), and asthenia (12 [5%] vs two [<1%]). INTERPRETATION: Maintenance bevacizumab plus erlotinib might be a new non-chemotherapy-based maintenance option for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer after bevacizumab-based induction therapy. FUNDING: GERCOR and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a comprehensive treatment strategy involving several lines of therapy, maintenance, salvage surgery, and treatment-free intervals. Besides chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan), molecular-targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept, regorafenib) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents (cetuximab, panitumumab) have become available. Ultimately, given the increasing cost of new active compounds, new strategy trials are needed to define the optimal use and the best sequencing of these agents. Such new clinical trials require alternative endpoints that can capture the effect of several treatment lines and be measured earlier than overall survival to help shorten the duration and reduce the size and cost of trials. METHODS/DESIGN: STRATEGIC-1 is an international, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial designed to determine an optimally personalized treatment sequence of the available treatment modalities in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. Two standard treatment strategies are compared: first-line FOLFIRI-cetuximab, followed by oxaliplatin-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Arm A) vs. first-line OPTIMOX-bevacizumab, followed by irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab, and by an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody with or without irinotecan as third-line treatment (Arm B). The primary endpoint is duration of disease control. A total of 500 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies. DISCUSSION: The STRATEGIC-1 trial is designed to give global information on the therapeutic sequences in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC that in turn is likely to have a significant impact on the management of this patient population. The trial is open for inclusion since August 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: STRATEGIC-1 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01910610, 23 July, 2013. STRATEGIC-1 is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2013-001928-19, 25 April, 2013.

Risk of new or recurrent cancer under immunosuppressive therapy in patients with IBD and previous cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the risk of new or recurrent cancer among patients with IBD and previous cancer, exposed or not to immunosuppressants. DESIGN: Among the 17 047 patients of the CESAME prospective observational cohort who were enrolled from May 2004 to June 2005, and followed-up until December 2007, we identified 405 patients with cancer diagnosed previous to study entry. We calculated the rates of incident cancer in patients with or without previous cancer, and we assessed by survival analysis and nested case-control study the impact of immunosuppressants on the risk of incident new or recurrent cancer in patients with previous cancer. RESULTS: The rate of incident cancer was 21.1/1000 patient-years (PY) and 6.1/1000 PY in patients with and without previous cancer, respectively. The multivariate-adjusted HR of incident cancer between patients with and without previous cancer was 1.9 (95% CI 1.2 to 3.0, p=0.003). Among patients with previous cancer, the rates of new and recurrent cancers were, respectively, 13.2/1000 PY and 6.0/1000 PY in the 312 patients who were not taking immunosuppressant at the time of study entry, and 23.1/1000 PY and 3.9/1000 PY in the 93 patients treated with immunosuppressants at study entry. There was no significant association between the exposure to immunosuppressants and the risk of new or recurrent cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IBD with a history of cancer are at increased risk of developing any (new or recurrent) cancer, with a predominant incidence of new cancers. Treatment with immunosuppressants has no overall major impact per se on this risk.

Could baseline health-related quality of life (QoL) predict overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer? The results of the GERCOR OPTIMOX 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (QoL) has prognostic value in many cancers. A recent study found that the performance of prognostic systems for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were improvable. We evaluated the independent prognostic value of QoL for overall survival (OS) and its ability to improve two prognostic systems'performance (Köhne and GERCOR models) for patients with mCRC. METHODS: The EQ-5D questionnaire was self-completed before randomization in the OPTIMOX1, a phase III trial comparing two strategies of FOLFOX chemotherapy which included 620 previously untreated mCRC patients recruited from January 2000 to June 2002 from 56 institutions in five countries. The improvement in models' performance (after addition of QoL) was studied with Harrell's C-index and the net reclassification improvement. RESULTS: Of the 620 patients, 249 (40%) completed QoL datasets. The Köhne model could be improved by LDH, mobility and pain/discomfort; the C-index rose from 0.54 to 0.67. The associated NRI for 12-month death was 0.23 [0.05; 0.46]. Mobility and pain/discomfort could be added to the GERCOR model: the C-index varied from 0.63 to 0.68. The NRI for 12 months death was 0.35 [0.12; 0.44]. CONCLUSIONS: Mobility and pain dimensions of EQ5D are independent prognostic factors and could be useful for staging and treatment assignment of mCRC patients. Presented at the 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting (#3632).

A Randomized Phase III Study of Arfolitixorin versus Leucovorin with 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Bevacizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The AGENT Trial.

PURPOSE: Suboptimal treatment outcomes with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folate, the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), have generated interest in optimizing the folate. Arfolitixorin ([6R]-5,10-methylene-tetrahydrofolate) is an immediately active folate and may improve outcomes over the existing standard of care (leucovorin). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: AGENT was a randomized, phase III study (NCT03750786). Patients with mCRC were randomized to arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2 given as two intravenous bolus doses of 60 mg/m2) or leucovorin (400 mg/m2 given as a single intravenous infusion) plus 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab. Assessments were performed every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the superiority of arfolitixorin for overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Between February 2019 and April 2021, 490 patients were randomized (245 to each arm). After a median follow-up of 266 days, the primary endpoint of superiority for ORR was not achieved (48.2% for arfolitixorin vs. 49.4% for leucovorin, Psuperiority = 0.57). Outcomes were not achieved for median progression-free survival (PFS; 12.8 and 11.6 months, P = 0.38), median duration of response (12.2 and 12.9 months, P = 0.40), and median overall survival (23.8 and 28.0 months, P = 0.78). The proportion of patients with an adverse event of grade ≥3 severity was similar between arms (68.7% and 67.2%, respectively), as was quality of life. BRAF mutations and MTHFD2 expression were both associated with a lower PFS with arfolitixorin. CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to demonstrate clinical benefit of arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2) over leucovorin. However, it provides some useful insights from the first-line treatment setting, including the effect of gene expression on outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE: This phase III study compared arfolitixorin, a direct-acting folate, with leucovorin in FOLFOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC. Arfolitixorin (120 mg/m2) did not improve the ORR, potentially indicating a suboptimal dose.

Assessment of the Addition of Oxaliplatin to Fluoropyrimidine-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With High-Risk Stage II Colon Cancer: An ACCENT Pooled Analysis.

PURPOSE: The adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer (CC) is chemotherapy combining fluoropyrimidine (FP) and oxaliplatin (OX). FP regimen plus OX (FPOX) may benefit in high-risk stage II CC. We performed a pooled analysis of pivotal MOSAIC and C-07 studies evaluating FPOX for the treatment of high-risk stage II CC according to prognostic factors, number of high-risk factors, and current clinicopathologic risk classification on the basis of T stage, tumor perforation, and number of lymph nodes examined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand five hundred and ninety-five patients with stage II CC receiving FP or FPOX were pooled. The overall survival (OS) benefit of OX was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study. Three thousand and fifty-nine patients with stage III CC were used only for interaction tests between the allocated chemotherapy and stage. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of stage II patients, independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis were sex, age, perforation/obstruction, and tumor sidedness. There was a significant interaction in OS between stage and allocated chemotherapy with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.03 for stage II (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.29; P = .813) and 0.82 for stage III (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92; P = .001; Pint = .073). There was no benefit from the addition of OX to FP for any of the prognostic factors. The number of high-risk factors tested was not predictive of OX benefit. According to the currently agreed clinicopathologic risk classification, no OS benefit of OX was observed, as HR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.18; P = .349). CONCLUSION: No OS benefit of adjuvant OX was found in high-risk stage II CC, regardless of the definition used to characterize tumors as having a high risk for recurrence. Hence, our analysis suggests that OX should not be the standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II CC, even in high-risk patients.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability in second or latter line using synthetic control arms: A non-randomised evaluation.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) appeared active in single-arm trials for patients with chemoresistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harboring microsatellite instability (MSI). Given the paucity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this setting, we evaluated the effect size of ICIs using intra-patients comparison and ARCAD database as historical controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual-patient data from NIPICOL and CheckMate 142 phase II trials that evaluated a combination of ICIs for MSI mCRC patients (N = 176) and from five non-ICI mCRC historical RCTs in second-line or latter (N = 4026) were analyzed. Firstly, promising of ICIs was identified using intra-patient comparison based on growth modulation index (GMI) defined the ratio of progression-free survivals (PFS) on ICIs and previous line of therapy. Survival outcomes of ICIs-treated patients were then compared with those matched non-ICIs treated from ARCAD database historical RCTs. RESULTS: Among ICIs-treated patients, median PFS on ICIs was 32.66 (range 0.10-74.25) versus 4.07 months (range 0.7-49.87) on prior therapy, resulting on median GMI of 4.97 (range 0.07-59.51; hazard-ratio (HR)= 0.16 (95 %CI=0.11-0.22, P < 0.001)). Compared to matched non-ICI patients, in third-line, median overall survival (OS) was not reached with ICIs versus 3.52 months with placebo (HR=0.20, 95 %CI=0.10-0.41, P < 0.001), and 6.51 months with active drugs (HR=0.30, 95 %CI=0.15-0.60, P = 0.001). In second-line, median OS was not reached with ICIs versus 11.7 months with chemotherapy+placebo (HR=0.12, 95 %CI=0.07-0.22, P < 0.001), and 16.3 months with chemotherapy+targeted therapy (HR=0.10, 95 %CI=0.05-0.19, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ICIs demonstrates high effect size for MSI mCRC patients in second-line and later. This work might be useful as an example of methodology to avoid RCTs when benefit from experimental therapy is likely to be high.

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 positive surgical margins after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: reappraisal in the era of modern chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to assess the prognostic impact of positive surgical margins (R1) after liver resection (LR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in the era of modern chemotherapy regimens. R1 resection is a negative prognostic factor after LR of CRLM. The significance of R1 margins in the era of effective chemotherapy is unknown. METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2009, 215 patients (177 men: 62 %; median age 60 years; range 30-84 years) underwent LR of CRLM. The LR was considered R1 (margin <1 mm) in 49 patients (23 %) and R0 in 166 patients (77 %). Overall, 108 (50 %) patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 156 (72 %) patients received postoperative chemotherapy. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 36 months (range 1-141 months), the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate (47 vs 40 %; p = 0.05) and the disease-free survival (DFS) rate (36 vs 23 %; p = 0.006) were significantly lower in the R1 group. Recurrence developed in 152 patients (71 %) and the rate of recurrence was significantly higher (84 vs 67 %; p = 0.02) in the R1 group. On multivariate analysis, N+ status of the colorectal primary tumor (p = 0.008), presence of radiologically occult disease (p = 0.04), and R1 resection (p = 0.03) were independent adverse predictors of OS. The N+ status of the primary tumor (p = 0.003) and R1 resection (p = 0.02) were independent adverse predictors of DFS. On multivariate analysis use of postoperative chemotherapy was the only independent predictor of improved DFS (p = 0.02) in the R1 group. CONCLUSIONS: A positive resection margin remains a significant poor prognostic factor after LR of CRLM in the era of modern chemotherapy. Postoperative chemotherapy reduces recurrence rates after R1 resection of CRLM.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

FOLFIRI Followed by FOLFOX6 or the Reverse Sequence in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized GERCOR Study.

PURPOSE: In metastatic colorectal cancer, phase III studies have demonstrated the superiority of fluorouracil (FU) with leucovorin (LV) in combination with irinotecan or oxaliplatin over FU + LV alone. This phase III study investigated two sequences: folinic acid, FU, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by folinic acid, FU, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX6; arm A), and FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI (arm B). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were randomly assigned to receive a 2-hour infusion of l-LV 200 mg/m2 or dl-LV 400 mg/m2 followed by a FU bolus 400 mg/m2 and 46-hour infusion 2,400 to 3,000 mg/m2 every 46 hours every 2 weeks, either with irinotecan 180 mg/m2 or with oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1. At progression, irinotecan was replaced by oxaliplatin (arm A), or oxaliplatin by irinotecan (arm B). RESULTS: Median survival was 21.5 months in 109 patients allocated to FOLFIRI then FOLFOX6 versus 20.6 months in 111 patients allocated to FOLFOX6 then FOLFIRI (P = .99). Median second progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.2 months in arm A versus 10.9 in arm B (P = .64). In first-line therapy, FOLFIRI achieved 56% response rate (RR) and 8.5 months median PFS, versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 54% RR and 8.0 months median PFS (P = .26). Second-line FOLFIRI achieved 4% RR and 2.5 months median PFS, versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 15% RR and 4.2 months PFS. In first-line therapy, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4 mucositis, nausea/vomiting, and grade 2 alopecia were more frequent with FOLFIRI, and grade 3/4 neutropenia and neurosensory toxicity were more frequent with FOLFOX6. CONCLUSION: Both sequences achieved a prolonged survival and similar efficacy. The toxicity profiles were different.