647 - Predictive Markers for Overall and Progression-Free Survival with Capox in Second-Line Chemotherapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Age, sex, Karnofsky (KPS), number of metastatic sites (NMS), primary tumour localization, baseline CEA, CEA response, scan response and k-RAS status are focused on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as predictive factors in chemotherapy metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study aims to find which might generate impact on PFS and OS for a second line therapy. Patients and methods 138 patients treated with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in second-line from 2002 to 2010 were analyzed. Cox hazard model was employed to build univariante and multivariate analysis. Results PFS and OS were 3.5 and 7.85 months, respectively. Among all evaluated factors, only KPS ≥70, CEA response and scan response were associated with better PFS and OS on univariate analysis with statistical significance. Age table 1 ) Multivariable analysis showed that scan response (HR = 0.34, p = 0.0003) and KPS ≥70% (HR = 0.96, p = 0.0002) were predictive for better PFS and OS (scan response: HR = 0.36, p = 0.0001 and KPS > 70%: HR = 0.97, p = 0.0007), while PTL (rectum, HR = 1.50, p = 0.032) and NMS (>2 sites, HR = 1.25, p = 0.0043) were predictive for worst PFS and OS, respectively. (See table 2 ) Table 1 . FS and OS univariate analyses N Median P-value PFS KPS 43 2.3 ≥70% 95 4.8 Response Yes 23 6.8 No 115 2.9 CEA response Yes 34 6.9 No 104 2.9 OS KPS 43 4.7 ≥70% 95 11.9 Response Yes 23 23.4 No 115 7.2 CEA response Yes 34 13.6 No 104 7.8 Age 68 11.7 ≥65 70 6.7 NMS ≤ 2 78 9.9 > 2 60 6.8 Table 2 . PFS and OS multivariate analyses P-value HR IC 95% LIC HIC PFS RECIST Response 0.34 0.20 0.56 KPS ≥70 0.96 0.95 0.98 Primary tumor localization Rectum 0.03 1.49 1.03 2.16 OS RECIST Response 0.36 0.21 0.61 KPS ≥70 0.97 0.96 0.98 Metastatic sites >2 0.004 1.25 1.07 1.46 Conclusion These findings suggest that scan response and good KPS may predict better PFS and OS in mCRC while primary tumour localization, CEA response and NMS should be further validated. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.