Improving menstrual health literacy in sport

Menstrual health represents a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being in relation to a woman's menstrual cycle. From a health literacy perspective, knowledge acquisition and expertise are dependent upon the degree to which an individual can find, access, understand, critically analyse, and apply health information. Therefore, menstrual health literacy can be used to describe the state of knowledge acquisition and application specific to menstrual health-related issues. Menstrual health literacy is low among female athletes, their coaches, and practitioners, and few evidence-informed education or implementation strategies exist to improve menstrual health literacy in sport. Moreover, athletes seldom discuss their menstrual cycles or hormonal contraceptive use with their coaches, despite experiencing menstrual symptoms and/or disturbances and perceiving their menstrual cycles/hormonal contraceptive use to affect performance. Barriers to communication about menstrual cycle- and hormonal contraceptive-related topics include a perceived lack of knowledge among athletes, coaches, and practitioners, concerns about how conversations on these issues will affect interpersonal relationships, and a lack of formal and informal discussion forums. Whilst evidence relating to the effects of the menstrual cycle phase and hormonal contraceptive use on training and performance is currently limited, with existing studies often lacking methodological rigour, impactful steps can still be made to support female athletes. This cornerstone review highlights the current state of menstrual health literacy among athletes, coaches, and practitioners, and provides recommendations for improving menstrual health literacy in sport.

Prediction of overall survival in stage II and III colon cancer beyond TNM system: a retrospective, pooled biomarker study

Background

TNM staging alone does not accurately predict outcome in colon cancer (CC) patients who may be eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. It is unknown to what extent the molecular markers microsatellite instability (MSI) and mutations in BRAF or KRAS improve prognostic estimation in multivariable models that include detailed clinicopathological annotation.

Patients and methods

After imputation of missing at random data, a subset of patients accrued in phase 3 trials with adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 3016)-N0147 (NCT00079274) and PETACC3 (NCT00026273)-was aggregated to construct multivariable Cox models for 5-year overall survival that were subsequently validated internally in the remaining clinical trial samples (n = 1499), and also externally in different population cohorts of chemotherapy-treated (n = 949) or -untreated (n = 1080) CC patients, and an additional series without treatment annotation (n = 782).

Results

TNM staging, MSI and BRAFV600E mutation status remained independent prognostic factors in multivariable models across clinical trials cohorts and observational studies. Concordance indices increased from 0.61-0.68 in the TNM alone model to 0.63-0.71 in models with added molecular markers, 0.65-0.73 with clinicopathological features and 0.66-0.74 with all covariates. In validation cohorts with complete annotation, the integrated time-dependent AUC rose from 0.64 for the TNM alone model to 0.67 for models that included clinicopathological features, with or without molecular markers. In patient cohorts that received adjuvant chemotherapy, the relative proportion of variance explained (R2) by TNM, clinicopathological features and molecular markers was on an average 65%, 25% and 10%, respectively.

Conclusions

Incorporation of MSI, BRAFV600E and KRAS mutation status to overall survival models with TNM staging improves the ability to precisely prognosticate in stage II and III CC patients, but only modestly increases prediction accuracy in multivariable models that include clinicopathological features, particularly in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Challenges of conducting a prospective clinical trial for older patients: Lessons learned from NCCTG N0949 (alliance)

OBJECTIVES

While the risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, there are limited prospective data regarding best treatment in the older adult population. We launched a phase III trial to evaluate difference in treatment outcome for older adults (aged ≥70years) with advanced colorectal cancer. Here we review the challenges faced and reasons for poor accrual to N0949.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe the conceptualization, development and limited results of N0949, a randomized phase III study of fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX7 or XELOX) as first line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Fluoropyrimidine was physician choice (e.g., 5-FU/LV or capecitabine).

RESULTS

Of the projected 380 patients, only 32 patients were enrolled between the study activation in January 2011 until its closure in September 2012. Reasons for poor accrual included eligibility criteria that were too stringent, discomfort with randomizing older patients to regimens of varying intensity without considering their physical fitness, and discomfort with the use of bevacizumab in the older patient population. Several efforts were mounted to design a rationale and age-appropriate study, consider toxicities and varying study practices, and be responsive to stakeholder feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges were experienced in conducting the first prospective phase III study evaluating progression-free survival of older adults with advanced colorectal cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab with or without oxaliplatin in the USA. Future efforts to evaluate treatment outcomes in the older adult population should reflect on lessons learned in this large national effort.

Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Europe and worldwide, with the peak incidence in patients >70 years of age. However, as the treatment algorithms for the treatment of patients with CRC become ever more complex, it is clear that a significant percentage of older CRC patients (>70 years) are being less than optimally treated. This document provides a summary of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force meeting convened in Paris in 2013 to update the existing expert recommendations for the treatment of older (geriatric) CRC patients published in 2009 and includes overviews of the recent data on epidemiology, geriatric assessment as it relates to surgery and oncology, and the ability of older CRC patients to tolerate surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, treatment of their metastatic disease including palliative chemotherapy with and without the use of the biologics, and finally the use of adjuvant and palliative radiotherapy in the treatment of older rectal cancer patients. An overview of each area was presented by one of the task force experts and comments invited from other task force members.

Genetic markers of toxicity from capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based regimens: investigation in the QUASAR2 study, systematic review, and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Fluourouracil (FU) is a mainstay of chemotherapy, although toxicities are common. Genetic biomarkers have been used to predict these adverse events, but their utility is uncertain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We tested candidate polymorphisms identified from a systematic literature search for associations with capecitabine toxicity in 927 patients with colorectal cancer in the Quick and Simple and Reliable trial (QUASAR2). We then performed meta-analysis of QUASAR2 and 16 published studies (n = 4,855 patients) to examine the polymorphisms in various FU monotherapy and combination therapy regimens.

RESULTS

Global capecitabine toxicity (grades 0/1/2 v grades 3/4/5) was associated with the rare, functional DPYD alleles 2846T>A and *2A (combined odds ratio, 5.51; P = .0013) and with the common TYMS polymorphisms 5'VNTR2R/3R and 3'UTR 6bp ins-del (combined odds ratio, 1.31; P = 9.4 × 10(-6)). There was weaker evidence that these polymorphisms predict toxicity from bolus and infusional FU monotherapy. No good evidence of association with toxicity was found for the remaining polymorphisms, including several currently included in predictive kits. No polymorphisms were associated with toxicity in combination regimens.

CONCLUSION

A panel of genetic biomarkers for capecitabine monotherapy toxicity would currently comprise only the four DPYD and TYMS variants above. We estimate this test could provide 26% sensitivity, 86% specificity, and 49% positive predictive value-better than most available commercial kits, but suboptimal for clinical use. The test panel might be extended to include additional, rare DPYD variants functionally equivalent to *2A and 2846A, though insufficient evidence supports its use in bolus, infusional, or combination FU. There remains a need to identify further markers of FU toxicity for all regimens.

The role of response evaluation criteria in solid tumour in anticancer treatment evaluation: results of a survey in the oncology community

PURPOSE

With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria.

METHODS

140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version.

RESULTS

Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types.

Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In investigations of the effectiveness of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancers, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard endpoint. However, the disadvantage of using OS as the endpoint is that it requires an extended follow-up period. We sought to investigate whether disease-free survival (DFS) is a valid surrogate for OS in trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer.

METHODS

The GASTRIC group initiated a meta-analysis of individual patient data collected in randomized clinical trials comparing adjuvant chemotherapy vs surgery alone for patients with curatively resected gastric cancer. Surrogacy of DFS was assessed through the correlation between the endpoints as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the endpoints. External validation of the prediction based on DFS was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 14 randomized clinical trials that included a total of 3288 patients were analyzed. The rank correlation coefficient between DFS and OS was 0.974 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.971 to 0.976). The coefficient of determination between the treatment effects on DFS and on OS was as high as 0.964 (95% CI = 0.926 to 1.000), and the surrogate threshold effect based on adjusted regression analysis was 0.92. In external validation, the six hazard ratios for OS predicted according to DFS were in very good agreement with those actually observed for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

DFS is an acceptable surrogate for OS in trials of cytotoxic agents for gastric cancer in the adjuvant setting.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer trials: a meta-analysis

The traditional endpoint for assessing efficacy of chemotherapies for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer is overall survival (OS), but OS requires prolonged follow-up. We investigated whether progression-free survival (PFS) is a valid surrogate for OS. Using individual patient data from the GASTRIC meta-analysis, surrogacy of PFS was assessed through the correlation between the endpoints and through the correlation between the treatment effects on the endpoints. External validation of the prediction based on PFS was also evaluated. Individual data from 4069 patients in 20 randomized trials were analyzed. The rank correlation coefficient between PFS and OS was 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.852 to 0.854). The R (2) between treatment effects on PFS and on OS was 0.61 (95% CI = 0.04 to 1.00). Treatment effects on PFS and on OS were only moderately correlated, and we could not confirm the validity of PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer.

Role of chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer: an individual-patient-data meta-analysis

We conducted an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of the efficacy of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced/recurrent gastric cancer (AGC). Our primary research question was whether the experimental arms of the trials included in the meta-analysis showed a benefit as compared with their corresponding control arms. MEDLINE (up to 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Institutes of Health (NIH) trial registry and proceedings of major oncologic and gastrointestinal cancer meetings were searched. Randomised controlled trials for AGC closed to patient accrual before the end of 2006 were eligible. As of December 2010, individual patient data were available from 22 trials (4245 patients, representing 47% of the targeted data) of 55 eligible trials. The overall comparison of experimental arms with the corresponding control arms showed statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS. Hazard ratio was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.82-0.94, P<0.0001) for OS and 0.81 (0.76-0.88, P<0.0001) for PFS. The results of the sub-analysis of adding a given chemotherapeutic agent to any chemotherapy confirm the results of the overall analysis, with a hazard reduction of 11% for OS (P<0.01) and 26% for PFS (P<0.0001). This meta-analysis of individual patient data shows that the additions of experimental chemotherapeutic agents to pre-existing control or standard regimens have produced a modest improvement in OS and PFS. Median survival remained below 1 year for all investigated chemotherapy regimens and none emerged as a clear standard.

Benefits and adverse events in younger versus older patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer: findings from the Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints data set

PURPOSE

Limited data exist regarding the outcomes of adjuvant therapy in younger patients with stage II and III colon cancer. We examined disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), and grade 3+ adverse events (AEs) in younger patients in the 33,574 patient Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints Group data set.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from 24 randomized phase III clinical trials were obtained for survival outcomes, which included 10 clinical trials for AE outcomes. Two age-based cutoff points were used to define younger patients: age younger than 40 years and younger than 50 years. Adjuvant therapy benefit analyses were limited to the nine clinical trials in which the investigational chemotherapeutic arm demonstrated benefit.

RESULTS

One thousand seven hundred fifty-eight patients (5.2%) were younger than 40 years, 5,817 patients (17.3%) were younger than 50 years, and only 299 patients (0.9%) were younger than 30 years. No meaningful differences in sex or stage were noted in younger versus older patients. Younger and older patients did not differ in RFI (age, < 40 years: hazard ratio [HR], 1.0; P = .62 and age < 50 years: HR, 1.02; P = .35). Younger patients (both cutoff points), had longer OS and DFS than older patients. In trials demonstrating adjuvant therapy benefit, similar DFS benefit was observed by age. Younger patients experienced less leukopenia and stomatitis, but more frequent nausea/vomiting.

CONCLUSION

Among patients on clinical trials, younger and older patients with stage II and III colon cancer had similar RFI and adjuvant therapy benefit. Younger patients have longer OS and DFS, which is likely primarily because of fewer competing causes of death. Adjuvant therapy is beneficial for colon cancer in patients younger than 50 years who meet typical clinical trial eligibility criteria.

Taking the long view: how to design a series of Phase III trials to maximize cumulative therapeutic benefit

BACKGROUND

Traditional clinical trial designs strive to definitively establish the superiority of an experimental treatment, which results in risk-adverse criteria and large sample sizes. Increasingly, common cancers are recognized as consisting of small subsets with specific aberrations for targeted therapy, making large trials infeasible.

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of different trial design strategies over a long-term research horizon.

METHODS

We simulated a series of two-treatment superiority trials over 15 years using different design parameters. Trial parameters examined included the number of positive trials to establish superiority (one-trial vs. two-trial rule), α level (2.5%-50%), and the number of trials in the 15-year period, K (thus, trial sample size). The design parameters were evaluated for different disease scenarios, accrual rates, and distributions of treatment effect. Metrics used included the overall survival gain at a 15-year horizon measured by the hazard ratio (HR), year 15 versus year 0. We also computed the expected total survival benefit and the risk of selecting as new standard of care at year 15 a treatment inferior to the initial control treatment, P(detrimental effect).

RESULTS

Expected survival benefits over the 15-year horizon were maximized when more (smaller) trials were conducted than recommended under traditional criteria, using the criterion of one positive trial (vs. two), and relaxing the α value from 2.5% to 20%. Reducing the sample size and relaxing the α value also increased the likelihood of selecting an inferior treatment at the end. The impact of α and K on the survival benefit depended on the specific disease scenario and accrual rate: greater gains for relaxing α in diseases with good outcome and/or low accrual rates and greater gains for increasing K for diseases with poor outcomes. Trials with smaller sample size did not perform well when using stringent (standard) level of evidence. For each disease scenario and accrual rate studied, the optimal design, defined as the design that the maximized expected total survival benefit while constraining P(detrimental effect) < 2.5%, specified α = 20% or 10%, and a sample size considerably smaller than that recommended by the traditional designs. The results were consistent under different assumed distributions for treatment effect.

LIMITATIONS

The simulations assumed no toxicity issues and did not consider interim analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

It is worthwhile to consider a design paradigm that seeks to maximize the expected survival benefit across a series of trials, over a longer research horizon. In today's environment of constrained, biomarker-selected populations, our results indicate that smaller sample sizes and larger α values lead to greater long-term survival gains compared to traditional large trials designed to meet stringent criteria with a low efficacy bar.

Abstract 1151: cMYC amplification in colon cancer: A novel association with BRAF V600E and proficient DNA mismatch repair

Background: Colon cancer is categorized by the acquisition of a number of molecular alterations in both oncogenes and in tumor suppressor genes. Although cMYC alterations have been reported in colon cancer cell lines, little other information exists in primary colon tumors. We sought to determine the frequency of cMYC amplification in primary colon cancer and its relationship to other well defined colon tumor alterations. Methods: An initial set of 392 tumors were evaluated. All samples were tested for the BRAF V600E mutation and all were classified as proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) based on both IHC and microsatellite analysis of tumor tissue. A second set of 522 tumors was selected to replicate associations identified in the first set of samples. Similar to the initial cohort, both the BRAF V600E and the mismatch repair status of the tumors were assessed. The second cohort, however, included tumors that were both pMMR and dMMR. In both sets of samples, fluorescent in situ hybridization was used to evaluate cMYC gene amplification. Results: In cohort 1, cMYC amplification was observed in 15 of the 362 (4%) pMMR tumors successfully analyzed (Table 1). cMYC amplification was detected in 10 of 323 (3%) tumors with normal BRAF status vs. 5 of 39 (13%) tumors with altered BRAF status (p=0.015). In the second cohort, cMYC amplification was found in 20 of the 522 (4%) tumors. Only 1 of the 152 (&lt;1%) dMMR tumors had cMYC amplification vs. 19 of the 370 (5%) pMMR tumors (p=0.012). Of the pMMR tumors, cMYC amplification was detected in 13 of 333 (4%) tumors with normal BRAF status vs. 6 of 37 (16%) tumors with altered BRAF status (p=0.007), nearly identical to the first group. Conclusion: cMYC amplification in colon cancer is an infrequent event. However, when present, cMYC amplification occurs almost exclusively in tumors that are pMMR. Additionally, among pMMR tumors, cMYC amplification is associated with the presence of the BRAF V600E mutation.

Challenges to accrual predictions to phase III cancer clinical trials: a survey of study chairs and lead statisticians of 248 NCI-sponsored trials

BACKGROUND

Research on barriers to accrual has typically emphasized factors influencing participation after trial activation.

PURPOSE

We sought to identify factors influencing trial design and accrual predictions prior to trial activation associated with sufficient accrual.

METHODS

A 30-question web-based survey was sent to the study chair and lead statistician for all 248 phase III trials open in 1993-2002 by five Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. Questions addressed prior trial experience, trial design elements, accrual predictions, and perceived accrual influences. Accrual sufficiency categorization was derived from Clinical Trials Cooperative Group records: sufficient accrual included trials closed with complete accrual or at interim analysis, insufficient accrual included trials closed with inadequate accrual. Responses were analyzed by respondent role (study chair/lead statistician) and accrual sufficiency.

RESULTS

Three hundred and nine eligible responses were included (response rate, 63%; lead statisticians, 81%; and study chairs, 45%), representing trials with sufficient (63%) and insufficient accruals (37%). Study chair seniority or lead statistician experience was not linked to accrual sufficiency. Literature review, study chair's personal experience, and expert opinion within Clinical Trials Cooperative Group most commonly influenced control arm selection. Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience most influenced accrual predictions. These influences were not associated with accrual sufficiency. Among respondents citing accrual difficulties (41%), factors negatively influencing accrual were not consistently identified. Respondents credited three factors with positively influencing accrual: clinical relevance of study, lack of competing trials, and protocol paralleling normal practice.

LIMITATIONS

Perceptions of lead statisticians and study chairs may not accurately reflect accrual barriers encountered by participating physicians or patients. Survey responses may be subject to recall bias.

CONCLUSION

Consistent factors explaining poor accrual were not identified, suggesting reasons for poor accrual are not well understood and warrant further study. Alternate strategies for accrual prediction are needed since Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience is linked to successful and unsuccessful accrual.

Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study

OBJECTIVE

Optimism bias refers to unwarranted belief in the efficacy of new therapies. We assessed the impact of optimism bias on a proportion of trials that did not answer their research question successfully and explored whether poor accrual or optimism bias is responsible for inconclusive results.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Retrospective analysis of a consecutive-series phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed under the aegis of National Cancer Institute Cooperative groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-nine trials (374 comparisons) enrolling 150,232 patients were analyzed. Seventy percent (262 of 374) of the trials generated conclusive results according to the statistical criteria. Investigators made definitive statements related to the treatment preference in 73% (273 of 374) of studies. Investigators' judgments and statistical inferences were concordant in 75% (279 of 374) of trials. Investigators consistently overestimated their expected treatment effects but to a significantly larger extent for inconclusive trials. The median ratio of expected and observed hazard ratio or odds ratio was 1.34 (range: 0.19-15.40) in conclusive trials compared with 1.86 (range: 1.09-12.00) in inconclusive studies (P<0.0001). Only 17% of the trials had treatment effects that matched original researchers' expectations.

CONCLUSION

Formal statistical inference is sufficient to answer the research question in 75% of RCTs. The answers to the other 25% depend mostly on subjective judgments, which at times are in conflict with statistical inference. Optimism bias significantly contributes to inconclusive results.

Incorporation of biomarker assessment in novel clinical trial designs: personalizing brain tumor treatments

Advances in molecular genetics have aided the identification of potential biomarkers with significant clinical promise in neurooncology. These advances and the evolution of targeted therapeutics necessitate the development and incorporation of innovative clinical trial designs that can effectively validate and assess the clinical utility of biomarkers. In this article, we review the use and potential of several such designs in neurooncology trials in order to support the development of personalized treatment approaches for brain tumor patients.

Two or three year disease-free survival (DFS) as a primary end-point in stage III adjuvant colon cancer trials with fluoropyrimidines with or without oxaliplatin or irinotecan: data from 12,676 patients from MOSAIC, X-ACT, PETACC-3, C-06, C-07 and C89803

BACKGROUND

The ACCENT group previously established disease-free survival (DFS) with 2 or 3 years median follow-up to predict 5 year overall survival (5 year OS) in stage II and III colon cancer. ACCENT further proposed (1) a stronger association between DFS and OS in stage III than II, and (2) 6 or 7 years necessary to demonstrate DFS/OS surrogacy in recent trials. The relationship between end-points in trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan is unknown.

METHODS

Associations between the treatment effect hazard ratios (HRs) on 2 and 3 years DFS, and 5 and 6 years OS were examined in 6 phase III trials not included in prior analyses from 1997 to 2002. Individual data for 12,676 patients were analysed; two trials each tested oxaliplatin, irinotecan and oral treatment versus 5-FU/LV.

FINDINGS

Overall association between 2/3 year DFS and 5/6 year OS HRs was modest to poor (simple R² measures: 0.58-0.76, model-based R²: 0.17-0.49). In stage III patients, the association increased (model-based R² ≥ 0.79). Observed treatment effects on 2 year DFS accurately 5/6 year OS effects overall and in stage III patients.

INTERPRETATION

In recent trials of cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 or 3 years DFS HRs are highly predictive of 5 and 6 years OS HRs in stage III but not stage II patients. In all patients the DFS/OS association is stronger for 6 year OS, thus at least 6 year follow-up is recommended to assess OS benefit. These data support DFS as the primary end-point for stage III colon cancer trials testing cytotoxic agents.

What constitutes reasonable evidence of efficacy and effectiveness to guide oncology treatment decisions?

The need to practice evidence-based medicine is the current prevailing paradigm within the medical community. Evidence to guide practice can and should come from a variety of sources, including clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of both or either. This paper discusses the relative strengths and weaknesses of data that arise from these various sources. The different types of evidence required to demonstrate "efficacy" versus "effectiveness," a critical and often overlooked distinction, are discussed. In the genomic age, in which targeted therapies with or without specific biomarkers are emerging in cancer care, new approaches are necessary to generate the evidence required for decision making.

Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Despite potentially curative resection of stomach cancer, 50% to 90% of patients die of disease relapse. Numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have compared surgery alone with adjuvant chemotherapy, but definitive evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To perform an individual patient-level meta-analysis of all RCTs to quantify the potential benefit of chemotherapy after complete resection over surgery alone in terms of overall survival and disease-free survival, and to further study the role of regimens, including monochemotherapy; combined chemotherapy with fluorouracil derivatives, mitomycin C, and other therapies but no anthracyclines; combined chemotherapy with fluorouracil derivatives, mitomycin C, and anthracyclines; and other treatments.

DATA SOURCES

Data from all RCTs comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone in patients with resectable gastric cancer. We searched MEDLINE (up to 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the National Institutes of Health trial registry, and published proceedings from major oncologic and gastrointestinal cancer meetings.

STUDY SELECTION

All RCTs closed to patient recruitment before 2004 were eligible. Trials testing radiotherapy; neoadjuvant, perioperative, or intraperitoneal chemotherapy; or immunotherapy were excluded. Thirty-one eligible trials (6390 patients) were identified.

DATA EXTRACTION

As of 2010, individual patient data were available from 17 trials (3838 patients representing 60% of the targeted data) with a median follow-up exceeding 7 years.

RESULTS

There were 1000 deaths among 1924 patients assigned to chemotherapy groups and 1067 deaths among 1857 patients assigned to surgery-only groups. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significant benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.90; P < .001) and disease-free survival (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90; P < .001). There was no significant heterogeneity for overall survival across RCTs (P = .52) or the 4 regimen groups (P = .13). Five-year overall survival increased from 49.6% to 55.3% with chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Among the RCTs included, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on fluorouracil regimens was associated with reduced risk of death in gastric cancer compared with surgery alone.

The design of phase II clinical trials testing cancer therapeutics: consensus recommendations from the clinical trial design task force of the national cancer institute investigational drug steering committee

The optimal design of phase II studies continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, especially studies of newer molecularly targeted agents. The observations that many new therapeutics "fail" in definitive phase III studies, coupled with the numbers of new agents to be tested as well as the increasing costs and complexity of clinical trials, further emphasize the critical importance of robust and efficient phase II design. The Clinical Trial Design Task Force (CTD-TF) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) has published a series of discussion papers on phase II trial design in Clinical Cancer Research. The IDSC has developed formal recommendations about aspects of phase II trial design that are the subject of frequent debate, such as endpoints (response versus progression-free survival), randomization (single-arm designs versus randomization), inclusion of biomarkers, biomarker-based patient enrichment strategies, and statistical design (e.g., two-stage designs versus multiple-group adaptive designs). Although these recommendations in general encourage the use of progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, randomization, inclusion of biomarkers, and incorporation of newer designs, we acknowledge that objective response as an endpoint and single-arm designs remain relevant in certain situations. The design of any clinical trial should always be carefully evaluated and justified based on characteristic specific to the situation.

Association between disease-free survival and overall survival when survival is prolonged after recurrence in patients receiving cytotoxic adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: simulations based on the 20,800 patient ACCENT data set

PURPOSE

We previously validated disease-free survival (DFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in fluorouracil-based adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials. New therapies have extended survival after recurrence from 1 to approximately 2 years. We examined the possible impact of this improvement on the DFS/OS association.

METHODS

The Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) data set of 20,898 patients was analyzed. In an exploratory fashion, time from recurrence to death in patients experiencing recurrence was extended using several algorithms, and the association of DFS after 3 years of median follow-up and OS after varying lengths of follow-up (median of 5, 6, and 7 years) was assessed.

RESULTS

Seven thousand four hundred two patients (35%) experienced recurrence. Median time from recurrence to death was 24 months in the hypothetical data sets. When times from recurrence to death were doubled, the association between treatment effects on DFS and 5-year OS was modest (R(2) = 0.51 for both 2- and 3-year DFS) but remained strong for DFS and 6-year OS (R(2) = 0.67 for both 2- and 3-year DFS) and 7-year OS (R(2) = 0.70 for both 2- and 3-year DFS). The reduced DFS/OS association with extended survival after recurrence was greater in stage II than stage III patients. Multiple simulations provided consistent findings.

CONCLUSION

Extended survival after recurrence reduces the association between treatment effects on 3-year DFS and 5-year OS, particularly in stage II patients; longer follow-up strengthens the association. In modern adjuvant trials, 6 or 7 years may be required to demonstrate OS improvements, further supporting DFS as the preferred primary end point for future adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials.

Cost implications of new treatments for advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Since 1996, 6 new drugs have been introduced for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Although they are promising, these drugs frequently are given in the palliative and are much more expensive than older treatments. The objective of the current study was to measure the cost implications of treatment with sequential regimens that include chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients supposedly received up to 3 lines of treatment before supportive care and subsequent death. Data were obtained from published, multicenter phase 2 and randomized phase 3 clinical trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the efficacy, toxicity, and cost.

RESULTS

Using drug costs alone, treatment that included new chemotherapeutic agents increased survival at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $100,000 per discounted life-year (DLY). The addition of monoclonal antibodies improved survival at an ICER of >$170,000 per DLY. The results were most sensitive to changes in the initial regimen. Even with significant improvements in clinical characteristics (efficacy and toxicity), treatment with the most effective regimens still had very high ICERs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with the most effective regimens came at very high incremental costs. The authors concluded that cost-effectiveness analyses should be a routine component of the drug-development process, so that physicians and patients are informed appropriately regarding the value of new innovations.

Baseline quality of life as a prognostic factor for overall survival in lung cancer patients

e19031

Background: Useful predictors of survival in cancer patients have been found including such as gender, race, age, marital status, state of disease and tumor location. We set to explore the prognostic value of baseline QOL assessments on overall survival in lung cancer patients. Methods: A total of 1,319 lung cancer patients were followed at Mayo Clinic between 1997 and 2007. Overall QOL was assessed by either Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) or a single-item Linear Analogue Self Assessment (LASA) with comparable wording. QOL scores were transformed to a 0–100 scale with higher scores representing better status. Patients QOL scores assessed within the first 6 months of follow-up were dichotomized using a priori definition for clinically deficiency score (CDS, ≤50 vs. >50). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the distribution of survival times by QOL clinical deficient categorization. Cox Proportional Hazards Models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of QOL on OS alone and in the presence of age, smoking category, gender, treatment, stage of disease, smoking cessation and years of consuming a pack every day. Results: Baseline QOL was significantly associated with OS univariately (HR=0.46 with p<0.0001 based on the CDS categorization). After controlling for all these other factors, the indication of a clinically deficient baseline QOL contributed significantly to the prediction of patient survival (p=0.0002; HR=0.67). Age, treatment, disease stage, smoking cessation and smoking category were also significant predictors of OS multivariately. The median survival for patients that had an overall QOL score less than the CDS (≤50) was 1.6 versus 4.6 years for patients with QOL >50. Conclusions: Baseline overall QOL measured by LCSS or LASA is a significant and independent prognostic factor for OS in lung cancer patients. A meaningful next step in this research is to investigate interventions to improve lung cancer patient QOL and thereby increase their likelihood of survival as well.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Postoperative surveillance recommendations for early-stage colon cancer based on results from the clinical outcomes of surgical therapy trial

4013

Background: Intensive postoperative surveillance is associated with improved survival and recommended for patients with late stage (stage IIB & III) colon cancer. We hypothesized that stage I & IIA colon cancer patients would experience similar benefits. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from the Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy trial was performed by analyzing results according to TNM stage; early (stage I & IIA; 537 patients) and late (stage IIB & III; 254 patients) stage disease. Five-year recurrence rates were higher in patients with late (35.7%) versus early stage disease (9.5%). Early and late stage salvage rates, recurrence patterns and methods of first detection were compared by χ2 test. Results: Salvage rates for early and late stage disease patients with recurrence were the same (35.9% versus 37%, p=0.9 respectively). Median survival following second surgery after recurrence was 35.8 months late stage and 51.2 months for early stage patients respectively. Sites of first recurrence did not significantly differ between late and early stage disease: liver (37.4% vs. 27.2%); lung (29.7% vs.23.6%); intraabdominal (24.2% vs.10.9%); and locoregional (12.1% vs.10.9%). Methods of first detection of recurrence were also not significantly different: CEA (37.4% vs. 29.1%); CT scan (26.4% vs. 23.6%); chest X-ray (12.1% vs. 7.3%); and colonoscopy (8.8% vs. 12.7%), for late versus early stage disease, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with early stage colon cancer have similar sites of recurrence, and receive similar benefit from post-recurrence therapy as later stage patients; implementation of existing surveillance guidelines for early stage patients is appropriate.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected stage II and III colon cancer: Comparison of widely used two prognostic calculators

e15031

Background: Two web based prognostic calculators, Adjuvant! and Numeracy (JCO 22:1797–1806, 2004) are widely used to provide individual patient outcome predictions to aid decisions regarding adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. The comparability of these tools has not been studied yet. The aim of this project was to assess whether the Numeracy and Adjuvant! Colon cancer prognostic tools produced similar results for patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer based on a set of hypothetical patients. Methods: All possible hypothetical scenarios were formulated for the Numeracy calculator based on all potential combinations of age, lymph nodes status, tumor stage, and grade of tumor. These were applied to three post- surgical therapy choices: observation, 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), or FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin and oxaliplatin). Predictions for these hypothetical scenarios (N= 192 for males and 192 for females) were also entered into the Adjuvant! Program. Predicted relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were obtained using both calculators. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare the numerical predictions between the calculators for each outcome. Results: In the majority of the 384 hypothetical patient scenarios, predictions for RFS and OS from Adjuvant! were statistically significantly higher than from Numeracy (p value < 0.05), except for age≥70 for FOLFOX, and the number of positive nodes of 0 and 1–4 using FOLFOX, among males. The net estimate of benefit for RFS and OS for 5-FU over surgery, obtained from Adjuvant! and Numeracy, were similar (for both males and females), but the benefit in RFS and OS for FOLFOX over 5-FU obtained from Adjuvant! was significantly lower than the estimate obtained from Numeracy (p value < 0.05). Conclusions: Based on a hypothetical set of patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer, the estimated benefit in RFS and OS of FOLFOX over 5-FU based chemotherapy is lower in Adjuvant! than in the Numeracy tool (but benefit for 5-FU over surgery alone is similar). Further studies are needed to clarify the discrepancy and to assess which of these tools most accurately reflects actual patient outcome.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Impact of older age on the efficacy of newer adjuvant therapies in >12,500 patients (pts) with stage II/III colon cancer: Findings from the ACCENT Database

4010

Background: Prior studies suggested that older and younger pts with colon cancer receive similar benefit from IV fluoropyrimidine (FU) adjuvant (adj) therapy (rx). Combination and/or oral FU rx are increasingly given as adj rx. We sought to determine the impact of pts age <70 v ≥70 yrs on colon cancer recurrence and mortality from adj rx with these newer options. Methods: We used data from 10,499 pts <70 yrs and 2,170 pts ≥70 yrs in 6 phase III adj rx trials comparing IV FU to combinations with irinotecan, oxaliplatin or oral FU (capecitabine and UFT/LV) in stage II/III colon cancer from the ACCENT database. Endpoints were overall survival (OS; time to death), disease-free survival (DFS; time to recurrence or death), and time to recurrence (TTR; censoring at last follow-up). Cox models were stratified by age and adjusted for gender and stage; interaction testing was used to explore the differential benefit by age. Results: Approximately 75% of pts had stage III disease (74% age<70, 77% age≥70). OS, DFS, and TTR were statistically significantly improved for those in the experimental v control arms among pts <70 but not those >70 ( table ); the interaction between age and rx was statistically significant for all endpoints (p=0.01 for OS, DFS, and TTR). These results were consistent whether experimental rx was oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based or oral FU. Deaths in first 6 month of adj rx were not statistically significantly different between experimental and control arm. Conclusions: Our results show conclusively that pts >70 do not receive the same benefit from combination and/or oral FU as those <70. Any benefit, if present, compared to IV FU/LV would not be clinically meaningful. Outcomes of experimental (combination or oral FU) vs control (IV 5-FU) by treatment and age

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Analysis of prognostic (prog) Web-based models for stage II and III colon cancer (CC): A population-based validation of Numeracy (NUM) and ADJUVANT! Online (ADJ!)

4044

Background: To aid in decisions regarding adjuvant therapy (AT) for resected high-risk CC, two prog models are in common use: the Mayo Clinic NUM calculator developed from a pooled data analysis of 7 randomized 5FU-based AT trials, and ADJ! developed using SEER data. This study examines the accuracy of NUM and ADJ! utilizing a cohort of patients (pts) referred to the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA). Methods: Demographic, disease and treatment data for pts with stage II/III CC referred to the BCCA from 1995–1996 + 1999–2003 were collected. Observed (obs) 5-year relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared to predicted estimates (pred) using NUM and ADJ!, both overall and for all prog subgroups with ≥ 10pts, as stratified by T stage, N stage, tumor grade and age. Data are presented in a descriptive manner and using confidence intervals. Results: Median follow-up was 5.6 yrs for 2,033 pts - 53% male, median age 68y, 40% N0. The mean percentages of 5 year pred outcomes for each of the two models and the actual Kaplan Meier mean survivals are presented in the table . The percentage correct predictions of 5 y status is also presented, with correctness deemed accurate if the pt was alive and predicted to be alive by ≥ 50% as determined by each model or dead while the respective tool predicted < 50% possibility of being alive. For surgery alone pts, ADJ!pred were more often closer to what was observed, as compared to NUMpred, in the prog subgroups (for RFS 56%, OS 88%). For surgery + 5-FU pts, within these subgroups, NUMpred were more often closer to what was observed, as compared to ADJ!pred, for RFS (62%) and for OS (55%). Conclusions: In this independent population-based validation, NUM and ADJ! have acceptable and similar reliability with modest over-estimations of 5y RFS and OS. Both models thus appear to be useful adjuvant decision-aids.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Evidence for cure by adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: observations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials

PURPOSE

Limited data are available on the time course of treatment failures (recurrence and/or death), the nature and duration of adjuvant treatment benefit, and long-term recurrence rates in patients with resected stage II and III colon cancer.

METHODS

The data set assembled by the Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints Group, a collection of individual patient data from 18 trials and more than 20,800 patients testing fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in patients with stage II or III colon cancer, was analyzed.

RESULTS

A significant overall survival (OS) benefit of adjuvant therapy was consistent over the 8-year follow-up period. The risk of recurrence in patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy never exceeds that of control patients, signifying that adjuvant therapy cures some patients, as opposed to delaying recurrence. After 5 years, recurrence rates were less than 1.5% per year, and after 8 years, they were less than 0.5% per year. Significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in the first 2 years. After 2 years, DFS rates in treated and control patients were not significantly different, and after 4 years, no trend toward benefit was demonstrated. This benefit was primarily driven by patients with stage III disease.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant chemotherapy provides significant DFS benefit, primarily by reducing the recurrence rate, within the first 2 years of adjuvant therapy with some benefit in years 3 to 4, translating into long-term OS benefit. This reflects the curative role of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. After 5 years, recurrence rates in patients treated on clinical trials are low, and after 8 years, they are minimal; thus, long-term follow-up for recurrence is of little value.

Lessons learned from independent central review

Independent central review (ICR) is advocated by regulatory authorities as a means of independent verification of clinical trial end-points dependent on medical imaging, when the data from the trials may be submitted for licensing applications [Food and Drug Administration. United States food and drug administration guidance for industry: clinical trial endpoints for the approval of cancer drugs and biologics. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. London, UK: European Medicines Agency; 2006; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-492 (oxaliplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 21-923 (sorafenib tosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-065 (ixabepilone). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Approval package for application number NDA 22-059 (lapatinib ditosylate). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Approval package for BLA numbers 97-0260 and BLA Number 97-0244 (rituximab). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA clinical review of BLA 98-0369 (Herceptin((R)) trastuzumab (rhuMAb HER2)). FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; 1998; United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA Briefing Document Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee meeting NDA 21801 (satraplatin). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2007; Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, et al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. JCO 2007(November):5210-7]. In addition, clinical trial sponsors have used ICR in Phase I-II studies to assist in critical pathway decisions including in-licensing of compounds [Cannistra SA, Matulonis UA, Penson RT, et al. Phase II study of bevacizumab in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer or peritoneal serous cancer. JCO 2007(November):5180-6; Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. JCO 2007(August):3407-14; Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. JCO 2007(June):2171-7; Ghassan KA, Schwartz L, Ricci S, et al. Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. JCO 2006(September):4293-300; Boué F, Gabarre J, GaBarre J, et al. Phase II trial of CHOP plus rituximab in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. JCO 2006(September):4123-8; Chen HX, Mooney M, Boron M, et al. Phase II multicenter trial of bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer: an NCI Treatment Referral Center Trial TRC-0301. JCO 2006(July):3354-60; Ratain MJ, Eisen T, Stadler WM, et al. Phase II placebo-controlled randomized discontinuation trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. JCO 2006(June):2502-12; Jaffer AA, Lee FC, Singh DA, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of S-1 plus cisplatin in patients with untreated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. JCO 2006(February):663-7; Bouché O, Raoul JL, Bonnetain F, et al. Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin, or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer: a Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study-FFCD 9803. JCO 2004(November):4319-28]. This article will focus on the definition and purpose of ICR and the issues and lessons learned in the ICR setting primarily in Phase II and III oncology studies. This will include a discussion on discordance between local and central interpretations, consequences of ICR, reader discordance during the ICR, operational considerations and the need for specific imaging requirements as part of the study protocol.

New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)

BACKGROUND

Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions.

FUTURE WORK

A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.

Bevacizumab beyond first progression is associated with prolonged overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large observational cohort study (BRiTE)

PURPOSE

Bevacizumab provides a survival benefit in first- and second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In a large, observational, bevacizumab treatment study (Bevacizumab Regimens: Investigation of Treatment Effects and Safety [BRiTE]) in patients who had mCRC, a longer-than-expected overall survival (OS) of 25.1 months was reported. The association between various pre- and post-treatment factors (including the use of bevacizumab beyond first progression [BBP]) and survival was examined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The 1,445 of 1,953 previously untreated patients with mCRC who were enrolled in BRiTE and who experienced disease progression (PD) were classified into three groups: no post-PD treatment (n = 253), post-PD treatment without bevacizumab (no BBP; n = 531), and BBP (n = 642). Relevant baseline and on-study variables, including BBP, were analyzed with a Cox model with respect to their independent effect on survival beyond first PD.

RESULTS

Median OS was 25.1 months (95% CI, 23.4 to 27.5 months), and median progression-free survival was 10.0 months in the overall BRiTE population. Baseline and postbaseline factors were well balanced between the BBP and no-BBP groups. Median OS rates were 12.6, 19.9, and 31.8 months in the no post-PD treatment, no-BBP, and BBP groups, respectively. In multivariate analyses, compared with no BBP, BBP was strongly and independently associated with improved survival (HR, 0.48; P < .001). Hypertension that required medication was the only bevacizumab-related safety event that occurred more frequently in the BBP group (24.6% v 19.2%).

CONCLUSION

These results from a large, prospective, observational study suggest that continued vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition with bevacizumab beyond initial PD could play an important role improving the overall success of therapy for patients who have mCRC.

Genomic classifiers in colon cancer - clinical utility

Rapid technologic advances are allowing for the development of algorithms to predict both patient prognosis, and possibly, responsiveness to specific therapeutic interventions. Such classifiers may potentially be based on hundreds or thousands of possible factors, including data from genomic, proteomic, pathologic, or other factors. As such, in the absence of careful experimental design, there is considerable potential for an over-optimistic assessment of a classifier's true performance in the clinical setting. Here, I describe a multi-step methodology for the development and assessment of genomic classifiers in the setting of colon cancer. Critical issues include the stability and reproducibility of the assay methodology, appropriate choice of patient population, proper segregation of data into learning and validation cohorts, inclusion of known prognostic and predictive factors (eg, staging), and a critical examination of the most relevant performance characteristics. The need for prospective vs. retrospective confirmation is also discussed.