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.

Predicting Benefit From FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE. RESULTS: In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48). CONCLUSION: Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.

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 value of total tumor volume in patients with colorectal liver metastases: A secondary analysis of the randomized CAIRO5 trial with external cohort validation.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of total tumor volume (TTV) for early recurrence (within 6 months) and overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), treated with induction systemic therapy followed by complete local treatment. METHODS: Patients with initially unresectable CRLM from the multicenter randomized phase 3 CAIRO5 trial (NCT02162563) who received induction systemic therapy followed by local treatment were included. Baseline TTV and change in TTV as response to systemic therapy were calculated using the CT scan before and the first after systemic treatment, and were assessed for their added prognostic value. The findings were validated in an external cohort of patients treated at a tertiary center. RESULTS: In total, 215 CAIRO5 patients were included. Baseline TTV and absolute change in TTV were significantly associated with early recurrence (P = 0.005 and P = 0.040, respectively) and OS in multivariable analyses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.006, respectively), whereas RECIST1.1 was not prognostic for early recurrence (P = 0.88) and OS (P = 0.35). In the validation cohort (n = 85), baseline TTV and absolute change in TTV remained prognostic for early recurrence (P = 0.041 and P = 0.021, respectively) and OS in multivariable analyses (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.012, respectively), and showed added prognostic value over conventional clinicopathological variables (increase C-statistic, 0.06; 95 % CI, 0.02 to 0.14; P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Total tumor volume is strongly prognostic for early recurrence and OS in patients who underwent complete local treatment of initially unresectable CRLM, both in the CAIRO5 trial and the validation cohort. In contrast, RECIST1.1 did not show prognostic value for neither early recurrence nor OS.