Trial In Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Research Articles

Generalizability of lesion detection and segmentation when ScaleNAS is trained on a large multi-organ dataset and validated in the liver.

Tumor assessment through imaging is crucial for diagnosing and treating cancer. Lesions in the liver, a common site for metastatic disease, are particularly challenging to accurately detect and segment. This labor-intensive task is subject to individual variation, which drives interest in automation using artificial intelligence (AI). Evaluate AI for lesion detection and lesion segmentation using CT in the context of human performance on the same task. Use internal testing to determine how an AI-developed model (ScaleNAS) trained on lesions in multiple organs performs when tested specifically on liver lesions in a dataset integrating real-world and clinical trial data. Use external testing to evaluate whether ScaleNAS's performance generalizes to publicly available colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). The CUPA study dataset included patients whose CT scan of chest, abdomen, or pelvis at Columbia University between 2010-2020 indicated solid tumors (CUIMC, n=5011) and from two clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer, PRIME (n=1183) and Amgen (n=463). Inclusion required ≥1 measurable lesion; exclusion criteria eliminated 1566 patients. Data were divided at the patient level into training (n=3996), validation (n=570), and testing (n=1529) sets. To create the reference standard for training and validation, each case was annotated by one of six radiologists, randomly assigned, who marked the CUPA lesions without access to any previous annotations. For internal testing we refined the CUPA test set to contain only patients who had liver lesions (n=525) and formed an enhanced reference standard through expert consensus reviewing prior annotations. For external testing, TCIA-CRLM (n=197) formed the test set. The reference standard for TCIA-CRLM was formed by consensus review of the original annotation and contours by two new radiologists. Metrics for lesion detection were sensitivity and false positives. Lesion segmentation was assessed with median Dice coefficient, under-segmentation ratio (USR), and over-segmentation ratio (OSR). Subgroup analysis examined the influence of lesion size ≥ 10mm (measurable by RECIST1.1) versus all lesions (important for early identification of disease progression). ScaleNAS trained on all lesions achieved sensitivity of 71.4% and Dice of 70.2% for liver lesions in the CUPA internal test set (3,495 lesions) and sensitivity of 68.2% and Dice 64.2% in the TCIA-CRLM external test set (638 lesions). Human radiologists had mean sensitivity of 53.5% and Dice of 73.9% in CUPA and sensitivity of 84.1% and Dice of 88.4% in TCIA-CRLM. Performance improved for ScaleNAS and radiologists in the subgroup of lesions that excluded sub-centimeter lesions. Our study presents the first evaluation of ScaleNAS in medical imaging, demonstrating its liver lesion detection and segmentation performance across diverse datasets. Using consensus reference standards from multiple radiologists, we addressed inter-observer variability and contributed to consistency in lesion annotation. While ScaleNAS does not surpass radiologists in performance, it offers fast and reliable results with potential utility in providing initial contours for radiologists. Future work will extend this model to lung and lymph node lesions, ultimately aiming to enhance clinical applications by generalizing detection and segmentation across tissue types.

Futility Interim Analysis Based on Probability of Success Using a Surrogate Endpoint.

In clinical trials with time-to-event data, the evaluation of treatment efficacy can be a long and complex process, especially when considering long-term primary endpoints. Using surrogate endpoints to correlate the primary endpoint has become a common practice to accelerate decision-making. Moreover, the ethical need to minimize sample size and the practical need to optimize available resources have encouraged the scientific community to develop methodologies that leverage historical data. Relying on the general theory of group sequential design and using a Bayesian framework, the methodology described in this paper exploits a documented historical relationship between a clinical "final" endpoint and a surrogate endpoint to build an informative prior for the primary endpoint, using surrogate data from an early interim analysis of the clinical trial. The predictive probability of success of the trial is then used to define a futility-stopping rule. The methodology demonstrates substantial enhancements in trial operating characteristics when there is a good agreement between current and historical data. Furthermore, incorporating a robust approach that combines the surrogate prior with a vague component mitigates the impact of the minor prior-data conflicts while maintaining acceptable performance even in the presence of significant prior-data conflicts. The proposed methodology was applied to design a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer, with overall survival as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival as the surrogate endpoint.

Abstract 2200: Plant-based diet and survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Findings from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance)

Abstract Background: Plant-based diet is recommended by multiple cancer survivorship guidelines and was reported to be associated with better survival among patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the association between plant-based diet and survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is unknown. Methods: Using an NCI-sponsored systemic therapy trial conducted from 2005 to 2015 (CALGB/SWOG 80405), we included 1,279 patients who completed validated food frequency questionnaires at the initiation of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. To emphasize different impact of healthful plant foods, less healthful plant foods, and animal foods, we used 18 food groups to calculate three plant-based indexes (ranges: 18-90 points): overall plant-based diet index (PDI), healthful plant-based diet index (hPDI), and unhealthful plant-based diet index (uPDI). The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We estimated the associations of three indexes (quintiles) with survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of 1,279 patients (median follow-up: 6.1 years), mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 58.8 (11.7) years, 57.4% were men, 85.6% were White, and 1,096 deaths and 1,201 events of progression occurred. The mean (SD) points of three indexes were 51.2 (6.3) for PDI, 51.1 (6.7) for hPDI, and 51.2 (8.1) for uPDI. Compared to the lowest quintile (Q1), the highest quintile (Q5) of PDI was significantly associated with better overall survival (HR: 0.80 [0.65-0.99]) and progression-free survival (HR: 0.80 [0.65-0.98]). Similar findings were observed for hPDI, but uPDI was not significantly associated with worse survival. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that plant-based diet is associated with better survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and plant-based dietary interventions should be considered for future trials in metastatic colorectal cancer. Table. Adjusted Associations of Plant-Based Diet with Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 P for trend Overall Survival PDI 1.00 0.96 (0.80-1.16) 0.93 (0.77-1.14) 0.82 (0.67-0.99) 0.80 (0.65-0.99) 0.01 hPDI 1.00 0.95 (0.78-1.14) 0.94 (0.77-1.15) 0.86 (0.70-1.04) 0.84 (0.68-1.03) 0.07 uPDI 1.00 1.14 (0.95-1.39) 1.07 (0.87-1.31) 1.18 (0.97-1.45) 1.17 (0.95-1.45) 0.15 Progression-free Survival PDI 1.00 0.84 (0.70-1.01) 0.94 (0.78-1.14) 0.93 (0.77-1.12) 0.80 (0.65-0.98) 0.10 hPDI 1.00 0.86 (0.72-1.03) 0.83 (0.69-1.01) 0.80 (0.67-0.97) 0.80 (0.66-0.97) 0.03 uPDI 1.00 1.12 (0.94-1.34) 1.11 (0.91-1.34) 1.10 (0.91-1.34) 1.15 (0.94-1.41) 0.23 Citation Format: En Cheng, Fang-Shu Ou, Chao Ma, Alan P. Venook, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Peter T. Campbell, Chaoyuan Kuang, Bette J. Caan, Kimmie Ng, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Plant-based diet and survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Findings from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 2200.

Impact of sex on the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil and folinic acid versus fluorouracil and folinic acid alone as maintenance therapy in RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subgroup analysis of the PanaMa-study (AIO-KRK-0212)

Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are usually conducted irrespective of sex. Sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, however, are gaining interest. PanaMa investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) versus FU/FA alone after induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. In this post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex. Evaluated efficacy endpoints during maintenance treatment were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate during maintenance therapy. Safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events during maintenance therapy. In total, 165 male and 83 female patients were randomized and treated. Male and female patients showed numerically better objective response rates with Pmab, without reaching statistical significance. Male patients derived a significant benefit from the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment with regard to PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.88; P= 0.006] that was not observed in female patients (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53-1.35; P= 0.491). The better PFS for male patients treated with Pmab did not translate into improved OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P= 0.452). Female patients showed numerically improved OS when treated with Pmab. There was no difference in the total of grade ≥3 adverse events during maintenance regarding sex (P= 0.791). Female patients, however, had a higher rate of any grade nausea, diarrhea and stomatitis. In the PanaMa trial, the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC with FU/FA improved the outcome in terms of the primary endpoint (PFS) particularly in male patients. Female patients did not show the same benefit while experiencing higher rates of adverse events. Our results support the development of sex-specific protocols.

Impact of sex on the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) versus mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) plus Y90-radioembolization in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: An exploratory, retrospective analysis of the phase III SIRFLOX trial.

3564 Background: Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) investigating systemic and local treatment options are usually conducted irrespective of sex. However, sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC are of gaining interest. Methods: The SIRFLOX trial investigated the efficacy and safety of adding radioembolization using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIRT) to standard fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)–based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mCRC comparing it to standard treatment with FOLFOX-based chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex (male versus female) using Propensity Score Matching (PSM) with baseline variables with difference (p-value < 0.20) in a gender specific comparison serving as matching covariates (age, BSA, sidedness, bilirubin). Groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio, with the nearest calculated propensity logit, with a caliper width of ≤0.20 of the SD of the propensity score logit. Evaluated efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial) and overall survival (OS). Results: 356 (67.2%) male and 173 (32.6%) female patients were randomized and treated in the SIRFLOX trial. In the overall study population, there was no difference regarding PFS or OS between male and female patients. No difference in PFS and OS between male (n = 101) and female (n = 101) patients could be observed independently of treatment arm. After PSM, female patients showed significant benefit regarding PFS from SIRT + chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone (12.2 [9.9-17] vs. 9.9 [7.5-12.7], p = 0.047) that translated into a trend to longer OS (27.3 [25.6-36.5] vs. 23.7 [17.8-28.8] months, p = 0.094, HR 0.68 [0.43-1.10]) while male patients did not show a difference regarding PFS and OS between treatment arms (p = 0.170, HR 1.41 [0.87-2.10]). In the experimental arm, female patients had significantly longer OS compared to male patients (27.3 [25.6-36.5] vs. 21.0 [17.9-26.7] months, p = 0.031, HR 0.64 [0.42-0.96]). Sex did not impact on OS in the chemotherapy arm (p = 0.410, HR 1.22 [0.76-2.02]). Conclusions: In the SIRFLOX trial, female patients seem to benefit from the addition of SIRT to chemotherapy regarding PFS and OS. This was not observed in male patients. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to show sex-differences in the application of SIRT in patients with mCRC. Our results support the development of specific protocols according to sex. Clinical trial information: NCT00724503 .

P-193 Tumor burden-related variables in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer

P-193 Tumor burden-related variables in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer

Associations between early tumor shrinkage (ETS)/depth of response (DpR) and overall and post-progression survivals (OS/PPS) from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) database.

3566 Background: According to the various types of clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS and DpR are suggested as the surrogates of OS. Whereas associations between ETS/DpR and OS/PPS in the era of chemotherapy (chemo) +anti-EGFR antibody (ab)/bevacizumab (bev) in 1st line therapy have not been elucidated. Methods: From 40,889 Individual patient data (IPD) from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 2,138 treatment-naïve pts with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC were selected from 7 randomized studies (PRIME, CAIRO2, CRYSTAL, OPUS, CALGB80495, WJOG4407G, ATOM) of chemo with/without anti-EGFR ab or bev. The ETS was defined as 20%≥ tumor shrinkage at 8 ± 2wks (ETS+: ≥20%, ETS-: <20%). Multivariate Cox regression models for OS/PPS were performed to investigate associations between ETS+ and ETS- by primary tumor location (overall/left-sided/right-sided), adjusting for potential confounders. DpR was defined as tumor shrinkage at nadir. OS/PPS were evaluated across quartile limits of DpR by multivariate Cox regression models. Results: In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of OS/PPS between ETS- and ETS+ for chemo +anti-EGFR ab, chemo +bev, and chemo alone showed great improvement, respectively (Table). In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, HRs of ETS for OS/PPS are higher in pts treated with chemo +anti-EGFR ab compared to those treated with chemo +bev or chemo alone. Compared to the pts with highest quartile (defined as ≥ 75th percentile (Q3)) of DpR, HRs of OS/PPS for lower quartile groups showed upward trends in pts with RAS wt & overall (Table). Conclusions: ETS/DpR in pts with RAS wt mCRC might be a potential prognostic marker of OS/PPS regardless of targeted therapy and primary tumor location. Superior prognostic values of ETS+ are expected in pts treated with anti-EGFR ab. [Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in colorectal cancer beyond immune checkpoint inhibitors: emerging from bench to bedside.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer in both men and women, and of concern increasing in the younger population. Despite the progress in treatment, still up to half of CRC patients will develop metastasis. Immunotherapy consists of an arsenal of different managements that in many aspects has revolutionized cancer therapy. Monoclonal antibodies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell receptor gene modified T-cells and immunization and/or vaccination are different immunotherapies used in cancer treatment. Large trials in metastatic CRC, such as CheckMate 142 and KEYNOTE-177, have proven the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The ICI drugs, targeting the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are now part of first-line treatment of dMMR/MSI-H metastatic CRC. However, ICIs are gaining a novel role in management of primary operable CRC after preliminary results from early-phase clinical studies in both colon and rectal cancer. Neoadjuvant ICI in operable colon and rectal cancer is hence becoming a clinical reality, while not quite yet adopted as a routine use. However, with some answers comes more questions and challenges. In this review article we aim to give an overview over different modes of immunotherapy to treat cancer with an emphasis on ICIs and their relevance to CRC, describe some of the progresses made in immunotherapy overall, with potential mechanisms, some of the concerns and, some highlight for the way forward.

Survival improvement for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer over twenty years

Over the past two decades of successive clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), the median overall survival of both control and experimental arms has steadily improved. However, the incremental change in survival for metastatic CRC patients not treated on trial has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective review of 1420 patients with de novo metastatic CRC who received their primary treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) from 2004 through 2019. Median OS was roughly stable for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2012 (22.6 months) but since has steadily improved for those diagnosed in 2013 to 2015 (28.8 months), and 2016 to 2019 (32.4 months). Likewise, 5-year survival rate has increased from 15.7% for patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2006 to 26% for those diagnosed from 2013 to 2015. Notably, survival improved for patients with BRAFV600E mutant as well as microsatellite unstable (MSI-H) tumors. Multivariate regression analysis identified surgical resection of liver metastasis (HR = 0.26, 95% CI, 0.19–0.37), use of immunotherapy (HR = 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29–0.67) and use of third line chemotherapy (regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil, HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.58–0.95), but not year of diagnosis (HR = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98–1), as associated with better survival, suggesting that increased use of these therapies are the drivers of the observed improvement in survival.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021. First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed. A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004-2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment. When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

MOUNTAINEER-03: Phase 3 study of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment in HER2+ metastatic colorectal cancer—Trial in progress.

TPS261 Background: Current standard of care (SOC) for treatment (tx) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is multi-agent chemotherapy, w/ or w/o a VEGF- or EGFR-inhibitor. HER2 is a validated clinical target in breast and gastric cancers. HER2 amplification occurs in 3%-5% of patients (pts) w/ mCRC; the rate of HER2 amplification can increase to ~10% in pts w/ RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC tumors. Tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective, HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in multiple regions for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and is being investigated in gastrointestinal cancers. MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313) evaluated the safety and efficacy of TUC and trastuzumab (Tras) in pts w/ tx refractory RAS wild-type, HER2+ mCRC. Results from the primary endpoint analysis showed clinically meaningful activity (confirmed ORR of 38.1% and median DOR of 12.4 months) and demonstrated TUC + Tras was well tolerated with a low discontinuation rate (5.8%) and no deaths due to AEs. MOUNTAINEER-03 will further investigate TUC in combo w/ mFOLFOX and Tras in pts w/ RAS wild-type, HER2+ mCRC. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-03 (NCT05253651) is a global, open label, randomized, phase 3 study for 1L tx of HER2+ and RAS wild-type mCRC. Approximately 400 pts will be randomized 1:1 to the TUC experimental arm (TUC [300 mg PO BID] + Tras + mFOLFOX) or the SOC arm (mFOLFOX alone or in combo w/ either bevacizumab or cetuximab). HER2 status is determined centrally w/ tissue based HER2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization assays. Eligible pts must not have received prior tx in the metastatic setting but may have received adjuvant tx if completed > 6 months prior to enrollment. Pts must be ≥18 years of age w/ an ECOG performance status of ≤1 and RAS wild-type mCRC. Pts w/ treated stable central nervous system metastases are eligible. Randomization is stratified by primary tumor location (left-sided vs other) and liver metastases (presence/absence). Primary endpoint is progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Key secondary endpoints are overall survival and confirmed objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 assessed by BICR. Enrollment is ongoing in the US, w/ global sites planned. Clinical trial information: NCT05253651 .

Molecular selection of therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: the FOCUS4 molecularly stratified RCT

Background Complex trials with innovative designs are becoming increasingly common and offer the potential to improve patient outcomes in a shorter time frame. There is evidence that patients with colorectal cancer fall into different subgroups with varying responsiveness to therapy, and that this variation is linked to genetic biomarkers. To the best of our knowledge, FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Objectives To identify novel therapies that improve disease control within the molecular subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer in which the novel therapies were expected to be most effective. Design This was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial that used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which subtrial should close early; new subtrials were added as protocol amendments. Setting The maintenance setting following 16 weeks of first-line combination chemotherapy. Participants Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified subtrial or the non-stratified FOCUS4-N trial. Interventions Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted subtrials were activated: FOCUS4-B (PIK3CA mutation or PTEN overexpression) – aspirin versus placebo; FOCUS4-C (TP53 and RAS mutation) – adavosertib (AstraZeneca Ltd, Cambridge, UK) versus active monitoring; and FOCUS4-D (BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild type) – AZD8931 versus placebo. A non-stratified subtrial was also carried out: FOCUS4-N – capecitabine versus active monitoring. Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was progression-free survival from the time of randomisation to progression, comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. Toxicity and overall survival data were collected in all randomised patients, and quality of life (using EuroQol-5 Dimensions) data were collected in FOCUS4-N only. Results Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 hospitals in the UK. Successful biomarker testing was completed in 1291 out of 1382 samples (93%), and 908 out of 1315 patients (69%) completing 16 weeks of first-line therapy were eligible for randomisation, with 361 randomly allocated to a subtrial. FOCUS4-B evaluated aspirin versus placebo in the PIK3CA-mutant/ PTEN -loss subgroup, but recruited only six patients, so was closed for futility. FOCUS4-C evaluated adavosertib versus active monitoring in 67 patients in the RAS + TP53 double-mutant subgroup and met its primary end point, showing an improvement in progression-free survival (median 3.61 vs. 1.87 months; hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.68; p = 0022). FOCUS4-D evaluated AZD8931 in 32 patients in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild-type subgroup and showed no benefit, so was discontinued after the first interim analysis. FOCUS4-N evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus active monitoring in 254 patients and met its primary end point, showing improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75; p < 0.0001). Limitations FOCUS4-C and FOCUS4-N were closed early owing to COVID-19, so did not accrue their planned recruitment numbers. Conclusions Adaptive stratified medicine studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Capecitabine monotherapy is an effective maintenance therapy. Wee1 inhibition using adavosertib shows significant clinical activity, notably in left-sided colorectal cancer. Trial registration This trial was registered as ISRCTN90061546. Funding This project was jointly funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership, and Cancer Research UK. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The heterogeneity effect of surveillance intervals on progression free survival

Progression-free survival (PFS) is an increasingly important surrogate endpoint in cancer clinical trials. However, the true time of progression is typically unknown if the evaluation of progression status is only scheduled at given surveillance intervals. In addition, comparison between treatment arms under different surveillance schema is not uncommon. Our aim is to explore whether the heterogeneity of the surveillance intervals may interfere with the validity of the conclusion of efficacy based on PFS, and the extent to which the variation would bias the results. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to explore the aforementioned goals in a two-arm randomized control trial. We introduce three steps to simulate survival data with predefined surveillance intervals under different censoring rate considerations. We report the estimated hazard ratios and examine false positive rate, power and bias under different surveillance intervals, given different baseline median PFS, hazard ratio and censoring rate settings. Results show that larger heterogeneous lengths of surveillance intervals lead to higher false positive rate and overestimate the power, and the effect of the heterogeneous surveillance intervals may depend upon both the life expectancy of the tumor prognoses and the censoring proportion of the survival data. We also demonstrate such heterogeneity effect of surveillance intervals on PFS in a phase III metastatic colorectal cancer trial. In our opinions, adherence to consistent surveillance intervals should be favored in designing the comparative trials. Otherwise, it needs to be appropriately taken into account when analyzing data.

Hybrid-control arm construction using historical trial data for an early-phase, randomized controlled trial in metastatic colorectal cancer

BackgroundTreatment for metastatic colorectal cancer patients beyond the second line remains challenging, highlighting the need for early phase trials of combination therapies for patients who had disease progression during or following two prior lines of therapy. Leveraging hybrid control design in these trials may preserve the benefits of randomization while strengthening evidence by integrating historical trial data. Few examples have been established to assess the applicability of such design in supporting early phase metastatic colorectal cancer trials.MethodsMORPHEUS-CRC is an umbrella, multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II, randomized, controlled trial (NCT03555149), with active experimental arms ongoing. Patients enrolled were assigned to a control arm (regorafenib, 15 patients randomized and 13 analysed) or multiple experimental arms for immunotherapy-based treatment combinations. One experimental arm (atezolizumab + isatuximab, 15 patients randomized and analysed) was completed and included in the hybrid-control study, where the hybrid-control arm was constructed by integrating data from the IMblaze370 phase 3 trial (NCT02788279). To estimate treatment efficacy, Cox and logistic regression models were used in a frequentist framework with standardized mortality ratio weighting or in a Bayesian framework with commensurate priors. The primary endpoint is objective response rate, while disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were the outcomes assessed in the hybrid-control study.ResultsThe experimental arm showed no efficacy signal, yet a well-tolerated safety profile in the MORPHEUS-CRC trial. Treatment effects estimated in hybrid control design were comparable to those in the MORPHEUS-CRC trial using either frequentist or Bayesian models.ConclusionsHybrid control provides comparable treatment-effect estimates with generally improved precision, and thus can be of value to inform early-phase clinical development in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Serum-based measurements of stromal activation through ADAM12 associate with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer

BackgroundRecently it has been recognized that stromal markers could be used as a clinically relevant biomarker for therapy response and prognosis. Here, we report on a serum marker for stromal activation, A Disintegrin and Metalloprotease 12 (ADAM12) in colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsUsing gene expression databases we investigated ADAM12 expression in CRC and delineated the source of ADAM12 expression. The clinical value of ADAM12 was retrospectively assessed in the CAIRO2 trial in metastatic CRC with 235 patients (31% of total cohort), and an independent rectal cancer cohort (n = 20).ResultsADAM12 is expressed by activated CRC associated fibroblasts. In the CAIRO2 trial cohort, ADAM12 serum levels were prognostic (ADAM12 low versus ADAM12 high; median OS 25.3 vs. 17.1 months, HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.11–1.96], P = 0.007). The prognostic potential was specifically high for metastatic rectal cancer (HR 1.78 [95% CI 1.06–3.00], P = 0.030) and mesenchymal subtype tumors (HR 2.12 [95% CI 1.25–3.60], P = 0.004). ADAM12 also showed potential for predicting recurrence in an exploratory analysis of non-metastatic rectal cancers.ConclusionsHere we describe a non-invasive marker for activated stroma in CRC which associates with poor outcome, especially for primary cancers located in the rectum.

Management of chemotherapy dose intensity for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Chemotherapy dose intensity is a momentous parameter of antitumor clinical medication. In certain clinical trials, the actual application dose of the chemotherapeutic drugs is frequently different from the prescribed dose. The chemotherapy dose intensity completed in different trials is also variable, which has an impact on the treatment efficacy, disease prognosis and patient safety. When these agents are tested in the population, chemotherapy reduction and delay or failure to complete the planned cycle constantly occur due to age, performance status, adverse reactions and other reasons, resulting in the modification of the chemotherapy dose intensity. The present review analyzed the correlation between the chemotherapy dose intensity and the incidence of adverse reactions, the treatment efficacy and disease prognosis in clinical trials of metastatic colorectal cancer. Moreover, the clinical applications of chemotherapy dose intensity were discussed. Based on individual differences, the present review analyzed the clinical trials that examined the efficacy of the chemotherapy dose intensity in different patient populations. The conclusions suggested that different populations require a specific dose intensity to reduce treatment toxicity without affecting the curative effect.

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background:Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years.Methods:FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials.Results:Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014–March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016–July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017–October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised.Conclusion:Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.

Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

430P Learning from FOCUS4: A molecularly stratified adaptive trial platform in metastatic colorectal cancer

FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 1 of the first umbrella trial designs launched globally. After 10 years of trial delivery we report our molecular results and learning from all stakeholders.

A survival mediation model with Bayesian model averaging.

Determining the extent to which a patient is benefiting from cancer therapy is challenging. Criteria for quantifying the extent of "tumor response" observed within a few cycles of treatment have been established for various types of solids as well as hematologic malignancies. These measures comprise the primary endpoints of phase II trials. Regulatory approvals of new cancer therapies, however, are usually contingent upon the demonstration of superior overall survival with randomized evidence acquired with a phase III trial comparing the novel therapy to an appropriate standard of care treatment. With nearly two-thirds of phase III oncology trials failing to achieve statistically significant results, researchers continue to refine and propose new surrogate endpoints. This article presents a Bayesian framework for studying relationships among treatment, patient subgroups, tumor response, and survival. Combining classical components of a mediation analysis with Bayesian model averaging, the methodology is robust to model misspecification among various possible relationships among the observable entities. A posterior inference is demonstrated via an application to a randomized controlled phase III trial in metastatic colorectal cancer. Moreover, the article details posterior predictive distributions of survival and statistical metrics for quantifying the extent of direct and indirect, or tumor response mediated treatment effects.