Search

Supplementary Results

Table S1: Baseline patient demographics and disease characteristics. Table S2: mRNA/IHC AREG/EREG concordance table. Figure S1: AREG/EREG IHC scatterplot. Table S3: Prognostic effect of dichotomous AREG/EREG. Table S4: AREG/EREG and RECIST response rate. Table S5: AREG and EREG as individual continuous variables. Table S6: AREG/EREG predictive analyses adjusted for BRAF mutation, PTL and peritoneal metastases. Table S7: Exploratory analyses of different AREG/EREG cut points. Table S8: AREG/EREG IHC in biopsy and resection specimens.

Figures S1-S9, Tables S1, S2

Patient characteristics of the pooled data set in relation to MMR and BRAF mutation status.

Purpose:High tumor mRNA levels of the EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are associated with anti-EGFR agent response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, ligand RNA assays have not been adopted into routine practice due to issues with analytic precision and practicality. We investigated whether AREG/EREG IHC could predict benefit from the anti-EGFR agent panitumumab.Experimental Design:Artificial intelligence algorithms were developed to assess AREG/EREG IHC in 274 patients from the PICCOLO trial of irinotecan with or without panitumumab (Ir vs. IrPan) in RAS wild-type mCRC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were RECIST response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Models were repeated adjusting separately for BRAF mutation status and primary tumor location (PTL).Results:High ligand expression was associated with significant PFS benefit from IrPan compared with Ir [8.0 vs. 3.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37–0.79; P = 0.001]; whereas low ligand expression was not (3.4 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.74–1.49; P = 0.78). The ligand-treatment interaction was significant (Pinteraction = 0.02) and remained significant after adjustment for BRAF-mutation status and PTL. Likewise, RECIST RR was significantly improved in patients with high ligand expression (IrPan vs. Ir: 48% vs. 6%; P < 0.0001) but not those with low ligand expression (25% vs. 14%; P = 0.10; Pinteraction = 0.01). The effect on OS was similar but not statistically significant.Conclusions:AREG/EREG IHC identified patients who benefitted from the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan chemotherapy. IHC is a practicable assay that may be of use in routine practice.

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data.Results: The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAFMT. BRAFMT was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAFWT) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17–1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66–2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAFMT within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAFWT or BRAFMT.Conclusions: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAFMT in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status. Clin Cancer Res; 20(20); 5322–30. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose:The DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay was developed in breast cancer based on biology associated with deficiencies in homologous recombination and Fanconi anemia pathways. A positive DDIR call identifies patients likely to respond to platinum-based chemotherapies in breast and esophageal cancers. In colorectal cancer, there is currently no biomarker to predict response to oxaliplatin. We tested the ability of the DDIR assay to predict response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer and characterized the biology in DDIR-positive colorectal cancer.Experimental Design:Samples and clinical data were assessed according to DDIR status from patients who received either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5FUFA (bolus and infusion 5-FU with folinic acid) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) within the FOCUS trial (n = 361, stage IV), or neoadjuvant FOLFOX in the FOxTROT trial (n = 97, stage II/III). Whole transcriptome, mutation, and IHC data of these samples were used to interrogate the biology of DDIR in colorectal cancer.Results:Contrary to our hypothesis, DDIR-negative patients displayed a trend toward improved outcome for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy compared with DDIR-positive patients. DDIR positivity was associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal molecular subtype 1. Refinement of the DDIR signature, based on overlapping IFN-related chemokine signaling associated with DDIR positivity across colorectal cancer and breast cancer cohorts, further confirmed that the DDIR assay did not have predictive value for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.Conclusions:DDIR positivity does not predict improved response following oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer. However, data presented here suggest the potential of the DDIR assay in identifying immune-rich tumors that may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, beyond current use of MSI status.

supplementary methods

PURPOSE Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Purpose: High tumor mRNA levels of the EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are associated with anti-EGFR agent response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, ligand RNA assays have not been adopted into routine practice due to issues with analytic precision and practicality. We investigated whether AREG/EREG IHC could predict benefit from the anti-EGFR agent panitumumab. Experimental Design: Artificial intelligence algorithms were developed to assess AREG/EREG IHC in 274 patients from the PICCOLO trial of irinotecan with or without panitumumab (Ir vs. IrPan) in RAS wild-type mCRC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were RECIST response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Models were repeated adjusting separately for BRAF mutation status and primary tumor location (PTL). Results: High ligand expression was associated with significant PFS benefit from IrPan compared with Ir [8.0 vs. 3.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37–0.79; P = 0.001]; whereas low ligand expression was not (3.4 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.74–1.49; P = 0.78). The ligand-treatment interaction was significant (Pinteraction = 0.02) and remained significant after adjustment for BRAF-mutation status and PTL. Likewise, RECIST RR was significantly improved in patients with high ligand expression (IrPan vs. Ir: 48% vs. 6%; P < 0.0001) but not those with low ligand expression (25% vs. 14%; P = 0.10; Pinteraction = 0.01). The effect on OS was similar but not statistically significant. Conclusions: AREG/EREG IHC identified patients who benefitted from the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan chemotherapy. IHC is a practicable assay that may be of use in routine practice.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumour location (PTL) is being adopted by clinicians to guide treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here we test PTL as a predictive marker for panitumumab efficacy, and examine its relationship with an extended biomarker profile. We also examine rectal tumours as a separate location. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRC patients from the second-line PICCOLO trial of irinotecan versus irinotecan/panitumumab (IrPan). PTL was classified as right-PTL, left-PTL or rectal-PTL. PTL was assessed as a predictive biomarker for IrPan effect in RAS-wild-type (RAS-wt) patients (compared with irinotecan alone), then tested for independence alongside an extended biomarker profile (BRAF, epiregulin/amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) and HER3 mRNA expression). RESULTS: PTL data were available for 1180 patients (98.5%), of whom 558 were RAS-wt. High HER3 expression was independently predictive of panitumumab overall survival improvement, but PTL and EREG/AREG were not. IrPan progression-free survival (PFS) improvement compared with irinotecan was seen in left-PTL [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, P = 0.002) but not right-PTL (HR = 0.98, P = 0.90) (interaction P = 0.05; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.10), or in rectal-PTL (HR = 0.82, P = 0.20) (interaction P = 0.14 compared with left-PTL; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.04). Patients with right-PTL and high EREG/AREG or HER3 expression, had IrPan PFS improvement (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.20, P = 0.04; high HER3 HR = 0.33, P = 0.10) compared with irinotecan. Similar effect was seen for rectal-PTL patients (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.44, P = 0.03; high HER3 HR = 0.34, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RAS-wt patients with left-PTL are more likely to have panitumumab PFS advantage than those with right-PTL or rectal-PTL. However, an extended biomarker panel demonstrated significant heterogeneity in panitumumab PFS effect within a tumour location. AREG/EREG and HER3 mRNA expression identifies patients with right-PTL or rectal-PTL who achieve similar PFS effect with panitumumab as left-colon patients. Testing could provide a more reliable basis for clinical decision making. Further validation and development of these biomarkers is required to optimise routine patient care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN93248876. ispartof: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY vol:31 issue:8 pages:1021-1029 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Patient selection for addition of anti-EGFR therapy to chemotherapy for patients with RAS and BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer can still be optimised. Here we investigate the effect of anti-EGFR therapy on survival in different consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) and stratified by primary tumour location. Methods Retrospective analyses, using the immunohistochemistry-based CMS classifier, were performed in the COIN (first-line oxaliplatin backbone with or without cetuximab) and PICCOLO trial (second-line irinotecan with or without panitumumab). Tumour tissue was available for 323 patients (20%) and 349 (41%), respectively. Results When using an irinotecan backbone, anti-EGFR therapy is effective in both CMS2/3 and CMS4 in left-sided primary tumours (progression-free survival (PFS): HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.75, P = 0.003 and HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.36, P P = 0.02). Efficacy using an oxaliplatin backbone was restricted to left-sided CMS2/3 tumours (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36–0.96, P = 0.034). Conclusions The subtype-specific efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy is dependent on the chemotherapy backbone. This may provide the possibility of subtype-specific treatment strategies for a more optimal use of anti-EGFR therapy.

Background Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the impact of PTS on outcomes of mCRC patients. Methods PTS data of 9277 mCRC patients from 12 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status, prior radiation/chemotherapy, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (cetuximab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone). All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Compared with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 2421, 26.1%), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 6856, 73.9%) had better OS (median = 21.6 vs 15.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 0.76; P < .001) and PFS (median = 8.6 vs 7.5 months; HRadj = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84; P < .001). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was statistically significant (Pinteraction < .001); left-sidedness was associated with better prognosis among KRAS wild-type (WT) (OS HRadj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.66; PFS HRadj =0.68, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.75) but not among KRAS mutated tumors. Among KRAS-WT tumors, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was confirmed for left-sidedness (OS HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97; P = .01; PFS HRadj = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88; P < .001) but not for right-sidedness. Conclusions The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS-WT population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a statistically significant improvement of survival for left-sidedness mCRC patients. These results suggest treatment choice in mCRC should be based on both PTS and KRAS status.

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis\ud Show less\ud Jun Yin*, Shaheenah Dawood*, Romain Cohen, Jeff Meyers, John Zalcberg, Takayuki Yoshino, Matthew Seymour, Tim Maughan, Leonard Saltz, Eric Van Cutsem, Alan Venook, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Richard Goldberg, Paulo Hoff, J. Randolph Hecht, Herbert Hurwitz, Cornelis Punt, Eduard Diaz Rubio, Miriam Koopman, Chiara Cremolini, Volker Heinemann, Christophe Tournigard, Carsten Bokemeyer, Charles Fuchs, Niall Tebbutt, John Souglakos, Jean-Yves Doulliard, Fairooz Kabbinavar, Benoist Chibaudel, Aimery de Gramont, Qian Shi, Axel Grothey, Richard AdamsFirst Published June 30, 2021 Research Article\ud https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359211020547\ud Article information \ud Article has an altmetric score of 7 Open AccessCreative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial 4.0 License\ud Article Information\ud Volume: 13\ud Article first published online: June 30, 2021; Issue published: January 1, 2021\ud Received: December 29, 2020; Accepted: May 05, 2021\ud Jun Yin*\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW Rochester, MN 55905, USA\ud Shaheenah Dawood*\ud Mediclinic City Hospital: North Wing, Dubai Health Care City, Dubai UAE\ud Romain Cohen\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud Jeff Meyers\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud John Zalcberg\ud School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia\ud Takayuki Yoshino\ud Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan\ud Matthew Seymour\ud NIHR Clinical Research Network, Leeds, UK\ud Tim Maughan\ud CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, UK\ud Leonard Saltz\ud Memory Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA\ud Eric Van Cutsem\ud Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium\ud Alan Venook\ud Department of Medicine, The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA\ud Hans-Joachim Schmoll\ud Klinik fur Innere Med IV, University Clinic Halle, Saale, Germany\ud Richard Goldberg\ud Department of Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA\ud Paulo Hoff\ud Centro de Oncologia de Brasilia do Sirio Libanes: Unidade Lago Sul, Siro Libanes, Brazil\ud J. Randolph Hecht\ud Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLS Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA\ud Herbert Hurwitz\ud Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA\ud Cornelis Punt\ud Department of Medical Oncology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands\ud Eduard Diaz Rubio\ud Department Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain\ud Miriam Koopman\ud Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands\ud Chiara Cremolini\ud Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy\ud Volker Heinemann\ud Department of Medical Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany\ud Christophe Tournigard\ud Hopital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France\ud Carsten Bokemeyer\ud Department of Oncology, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with Section of Pneumology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany\ud Charles Fuchs\ud Director of Yale Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA\ud Niall Tebbutt\ud Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia\ud John Souglakos\ud University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece\ud Jean-Yves Doulliard\ud University of Nantes Medical School, Nantes, France\ud Fairooz Kabbinavar\ud UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA\ud Benoist Chibaudel\ud Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France\ud Aimery de Gramont\ud Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France\ud Qian Shi\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud Axel Grothey\ud West Cancer Center, Germantown, TN, USA\ud Richard Adams\ud Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Center, Cardiff, UK\ud \ud Corresponding Author:\ud \ud yin.jun@mayo.edu\ud *Co-first authors.\ud \ud https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).\ud Abstract\ud Background:\ud Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs).\ud \ud Design:\ud Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions.\ud \ud Results:\ud Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p

Importance Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed. Objectives To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration forERBB/HER2testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned. Results Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm. Conclusions and Relevance Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management. Trial Registration ISRCTN.org identifier:46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier:2006-000811-12

Background: Translating results from randomized trials to individual patients is challenging, since treatment effects may vary due to heterogeneous prognostic characteristics. We aimed to demonstrate model development for individualized treatment effect predictions in cancer patients. We used data from two randomized trials that investigated sequential versus combination chemotherapy in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Material and methods: We used data from 803 patients included in CAIRO for prediction model development and internal validation, and data from 1423 patients included in FOCUS for external validation. A Weibull model with pre-specified patient and tumour characteristics was developed for a prediction of gain in median overall survival (OS) by upfront combination versus sequential chemotherapy. Decision curve analysis with net benefit was used. A nomogram was built using logistic regression for estimating the probability of receiving second-line treatment after the first-line monochemotherapy. Results: Median-predicted gain in OS for the combination versus sequential chemotherapy was 2.3 months (IQR: −1.1 to 3.7 months). A predicted gain in favour of sequential chemotherapy was found in 231 patients (29%) and a predicted gain of >3 months for combination chemotherapy in 294 patients (37%). Patients with benefit from sequential chemotherapy had metachronous metastatic disease and a left-sided primary tumour. Decision curve analyses showed improvement in a net benefit for treating all patients according to prediction-based treatment compared to treating all patients with combination chemotherapy. Multiple characteristics were identified as prognostic variables which identify patients at risk of never receiving second-line treatment if treated with initial monochemotherapy. External validation showed good calibration with moderate discrimination in both models (C-index 0.66 and 0.65, respectively). Conclusions: We successfully developed individualized prediction models including prognostic characteristics derived from randomized trials to estimate treatment effects in mCRC patients. In times where the heterogeneity of CRC becomes increasingly evident, such tools are an important step towards personalized treatment.

3540 Background: The relevance of individual RAS (KRAS and NRAS) and TP53 mutations in CRC is well described, but the impact of the combination of both mutations together is less understood. RAS/TP53-mutant (mut) patients (pts) were selected in FOCUS 4-C for treatment with Adavosertib (Wee1 inhibitor) due to hypothesised sensitivity due to replication stress and loss of cell cycle checkpoint control. Initial analyses in CRC suggest that RAS/TP53-mut pts may be prognostically distinct from either mutation alone. Here we examine the impact of RAS/TP53-mut status in both early stage and metastatic CRC (mCRC). Methods: RAS and TP53 mutational status were assessed by whole gene targeted NGS or PCR in hotspot regions. Pts with RAS/TP53 status in the following studies were included after exclusion of BRAF-V600E mutants and MSI-H cases: for early-stage, QUASAR2 trial (N = 408) and an Australian community cohort (N = 654); for mCRC, FOCUS (N = 373) and FOCUS4 (N = 721). Biomarker prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcome data in the RAS/TP53-mut group were compared to pts not showing dual RAS/TP53-mut. Results: The prevalence of RAS/TP53-mut was greater in mCRC compared to early CRC (43.9% vs 25.4% respectively, p < 0.001). In early-stage (II & III) cohorts combined, RAS/TP53-mut pts were more likely to be female, have a right-sided primary tumour, and involved lymph nodes. In early CRC RAS/TP53-mut pts had worse outcome: DFS HR = 1.49[1.19-1.88], p = 0.001, and OS HR = 1.48[1.16-1.89], p = 0.001. In FOCUS, RAS/TP53-mut mCRC pts had inferior PFS with 1st line chemotherapy than not dual RAS/TP53-mut: 6.9 vs 8.6 months (HR = 1.44[1.17-1.79], p = 0.001), and also shorter post-progression survival (HR = 1.49, p = 0.001), and overall survival (14.9 vs 18.9 mths [HR = 1.60, p < 0.0005]). Consistently, during 16 weeks of induction chemotherapy for mCRC pts in FOCUS4, 27.4% of RAS/TP53-mut pts had progressive disease, compared with 18.4% in not dual RAS/TP53-mut; PFS from study registration was reduced in RAS/TP53-mut (5.3 vs 6.1 mths;HR = 1.53[1.22-1.94],p < 0.001), but no statistically significant difference in OS (13.6 vs 17.6 mths;HR = 1.27,p = 0.23). Outcomes by each of the four biomarker groups (RAS/TP53 dual mut; RASwt/TP53mut; RASmut/TP53 wt; RAS/TP53 dual wt) will be presented but in all cases the dual mut subgroup had the worst outcomes compared to the other three groups, marginally better than BRAF-V600E CRC. Conclusions: RAS/TP53 dual mutation status provides useful and readily available prognostic information in both early and mCRC, independent of MSI and BRAF status. It is associated with increased risk of recurrence in early CRC, and a higher risk of chemotherapy resistance and inferior outcomes in mCRC. Evaluation of treatment strategies in this sizeable patient group and further understanding of the underlying mechanism of poor outcomes are urgently required.

TPS3633 Background: Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs indicates that anti-EGFR agents are ineffective in rPTL RAS-wt aCRC (Arnold D, et al. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1713-1729). However, data from the phase III PICCOLO and COIN trials suggest high tumor expression of the EGFR ligands, EREG and AREG, confers sensitivity to anti-EGFR agents in a subset of this population (Adams RA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(30_suppl):32-32; Seligmann JF, et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1021-1029). More data is needed before ligand assessment can be integrated into routine care: to date, EREG/AREG mRNA has only been assessed retrospectively, and feasibility of timely delivery of results must be demonstrated. The ARIEL trial aims to determine whether first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab or panitumumab is more effective than chemotherapy alone in achieving early tumor shrinkage (ETS) after 8 weeks of treatment in patients (pts) with EREG/AREG-high rPTL RAS-wt aCRC. Methods: ARIEL is a multicentre, phase IV, open label, biomarker enrichment RCT. Pts with previously untreated rPTL RAS-wt (or RAS-unknown) aCRC are eligible for registration and EREG/AREG assessment using archival FFPE tumor tissue. Those confirmed as RAS-wt EREG/AREG-high (expression above 30th centile based on PICCOLO)3 are eligible for randomization to chemotherapy alone (fluoropyrimidine backbone plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin) vs chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) plus anti-EGFR therapy (panitumumab or cetuximab) (options at physician’s discretion). Pts with EREG/AREG-low tumors are not eligible for randomization but may consent to translational research and follow-up. The primary endpoint is ETS at 8 weeks (≥30%, yes vs no). Secondary endpoints are depth of response at 16 weeks, overall survival, overall treatment utility, pt-reported quality of life, cost per QALY, pt acceptability of trial procedures, and safety. Pre-trial work-up included cross-validation of the EREG/AREG RT-qPCR assay at trial laboratories in Leeds and Birmingham, UK demonstrating reproducibility of biomarker results. Recruitment to an internal pilot phase is currently ongoing to demonstrate feasibility of timely delivery of biomarker results to sites (lower limit of 90% CI of mean result delivery time for first 20 pts must include 3 weeks). Mean monthly recruitment rate will be assessed at 18 months to determine likelihood of completion of the trial within the 3 year recruitment period. ARIEL is funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and opened the first of 40 sites in February 2022. 440 pts will be registered for biomarker assessment in order to randomize 162 pts. All pts will be followed-up to 1 year post-randomisation, with a final assessment in all pts when the last pt has completed a year of follow-up (median 3.5 years). ARIEL is participating in the NIHR Associate PI scheme. Clinical trial information: 11061442.

High tumor mRNA levels of the EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are associated with anti-EGFR agent response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, ligand RNA assays have not been adopted into routine practice due to issues with analytic precision and practicality. We investigated whether AREG/EREG IHC could predict benefit from the anti-EGFR agent panitumumab.Artificial intelligence algorithms were developed to assess AREG/EREG IHC in 274 patients from the PICCOLO trial of irinotecan with or without panitumumab (Ir vs. IrPan) inHigh ligand expression was associated with significant PFS benefit from IrPan compared with Ir [8.0 vs. 3.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.79;AREG/EREG IHC identified patients who benefitted from the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan chemotherapy. IHC is a practicable assay that may be of use in routine practice.

Background: We evaluated the time to progression and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared to adults aged less than 70 years following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression and overall survival were compared between older and younger adults enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver or peritoneum. Findings: Older adults comprised 16·4% of enrolled patients on first-line trials. Older adults and those with ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p-value = 0·0117). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experience similar median time to progression and median overall survival (5·1 vs. 5·2 months; 11·6 vs. 12·4 months, respectively). Interpretation: Older adults are less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for older vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine factors, including patient preference, along with the effects of comorbidities and functional status impacting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide more objective criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy to aid decision making for older adults considering second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Funding: The NCI GCC Spore Career Development Award (5P50CA127003-08) funded Dr. McCleary’s effort. The ARCAD Foundation funded data collection and analysis. Declaration of Interest: Alberto F Sobrero served on advisory boards and as a speaker at satellite symposia for Merck, Roche, Servier, Incyten, Sanofi, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Pierre Fabre. James M Cleary received research funding to his institution from Abbvie, Merus, Roche, and Bristol Myers Squib. He received research funding from Merck, Astrazeneca, Esperas Pharma, and Tesaro, received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, and received travel funding from Bristol Myers Squib. Volker Heinemann served as honoraria for Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Sirtex, Servier, Pfizer. He served as a consultant or Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Sirtex, and Bristol Myers Squibb. He served on an advisory board for Merck, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Pierre-Fabre, Celgene, and Terumo. He received research funding to his institution from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sirtex, Bayer, and Servier. He received travel funding from Merck, Roche, Amgen, Sirtex, Bayer, and Servier. Stuart M Lichtman is supported by the NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30CA008748). All other author have nothing to declare. Ethical Approval: All analyses were performed with approval from the local Institutional Review Board in accordance with the precepts of the Helsinki Declaration.

Objective Complex phenotypes captured on histological slides represent the biological processes at play in individual cancers, but the link to underlying molecular classification has not been clarified or systematised. In colorectal cancer (CRC), histological grading is a poor predictor of disease progression, and consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) cannot be distinguished without gene expression profiling. We hypothesise that image analysis is a cost-effective tool to associate complex features of tissue organisation with molecular and outcome data and to resolve unclassifiable or heterogeneous cases. In this study, we present an image-based approach to predict CRC CMS from standard H&E sections using deep learning. Design Training and evaluation of a neural network were performed using a total of n=1206 tissue sections with comprehensive multi-omic data from three independent datasets (training on FOCUS trial, n=278 patients; test on rectal cancer biopsies, GRAMPIAN cohort, n=144 patients; and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), n=430 patients). Ground truth CMS calls were ascertained by matching random forest and single sample predictions from CMS classifier. Results Image-based CMS (imCMS) accurately classified slides in unseen datasets from TCGA (n=431 slides, AUC)=0.84) and rectal cancer biopsies (n=265 slides, AUC=0.85). imCMS spatially resolved intratumoural heterogeneity and provided secondary calls correlating with bioinformatic prediction from molecular data. imCMS classified samples previously unclassifiable by RNA expression profiling, reproduced the expected correlations with genomic and epigenetic alterations and showed similar prognostic associations as transcriptomic CMS. Conclusion This study shows that a prediction of RNA expression classifiers can be made from H&E images, opening the door to simple, cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows.

PURPOSE To compare cisplatin plus fluorouracil (FU) versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer to establish the optimal regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who had not received systemic therapy for advanced anal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m2 (day 1) plus FU 1,000 mg/m2 (days 1-4) every 21 days or carboplatin (area under the curve, 5; day 1) plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days for 24 weeks, until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Primary and secondary end points were assessed in a hierarchic model to compare the regimens and pick the winner. RESULTS We conducted an international multicenter randomized phase II study in 60 centers between December 2013 and November 2017. Median follow-up was 28.6 months. A total of 91 patients were randomly assigned: 46 to cisplatin plus FU and 45 to carboplatin plus paclitaxel. ORR was 57% (95% CI, 39.4% to 73.7%) for cisplatin plus FU versus 59% (95% CI, 42.1% to 74.4%) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. More serious adverse events were noted in the cisplatin plus FU arm (62%) compared with the carboplatin plus paclitaxel arm (36%; P = .016). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 9.0 months) for cisplatin plus FU compared with 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.8 months) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. Median overall survival was 12.3 months for cisplatin plus FU (95% CI, 9.2 to 17.7 months) compared with 20 months (95% CI, 12.7 months to not reached) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.47; P = .014). CONCLUSION This is the first international randomized trial to our knowledge conducted in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer. Although there was no difference in ORR, the association with clinically relevant reduced toxicity and a trend toward longer survival suggest that carboplatin plus paclitaxel should be considered as a new standard of care.

The presence of peritoneal metastases in patients with advanced colorectal cancer is associated with poor prognosis but the mechanisms for this are unclear. This review summarises the current knowledge of the pathophysiology, clinical features, prevalence, prognosis, and molecular biology of peritoneal metastases and the risk factors for the development of peritoneal metastases following resection of a primary colorectal tumour. Furthermore, the evidence for treatment strategies are described including cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, sequential post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy and emerging novel strategies. Active areas of research should include the identification of individuals at high risk of peritoneal metastases after curative resection of primary tumour, development of a surveillance program for high-risk patients, optimisation of systematic therapies and further investigation of the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Background: GO2 sought to optimise chemotherapy dosing in older/frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Methods: Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable. Two randomisation options were available: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (doses as used in the standard epirubicin/oxaliplatin/capecitabine regimen), B (0·8x A) or C (0·6x A). Non-inferiority of PFS was assessed using boundary HR=1·34, selected by a forum of patients and clinicians. Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxicity, QL and patient value/acceptability, was scored at nine weeks. Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, they could enter the CHEMO-BSC randomisation, comparing Level C versus best supportive care. Findings: 514 patients entered the CHEMO-INTENSITY randomisation: non-inferior PFS was confirmed for B vs A (HR=1·09 [CI=0·89-1·32]) and C vs A (HR=1·10 [0·90-1·33]). Level C produced less toxicity and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in the younger, fitter patients. 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomisation: overall survival was non-significantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6·1 vs 3·0 months, HR=0·69 [0·32-1·48], p=0·34. In multivariate analysis, baseline frailty, QL and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, so can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of better or worse outcome. Interpretation: Reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided non-inferior efficacy with an improved patient experience. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy. Trial Registration: [Trial registration: ISRCTN44687907] Funding Statement: Cancer Research UK [CRUK/12/022] Declaration of Interests: Dr. Grabsch reports personal fees from Merck Sharpe Dome, outside the submitted work; all other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the UK National Research Ethics Service and overseen by independent Trial Steering and Data Monitoring & Ethics Committees (TSC; IDMC).

Background Immunohistochemical quantification of the immune response is prognostic for colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we evaluate the suitability of alternative immune classifiers on prognosis and assess whether they relate to biological features amenable to targeted therapy. Methods Overall survival by immune (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20 and FOXP3) and immune-checkpoint (ICOS, IDO-1 and PD-L1) biomarkers in independent CRC cohorts was evaluated. Matched mutational and transcriptomic data were interrogated to identify associated biology. Results Determination of immune-cold tumours by combined low-density cell counts of CD3, CD4 and CD8 immunohistochemistry constituted the best prognosticator across stage II–IV CRC, particularly in patients with stage IV disease (HR 1.98 [95% CI: 1.47–2.67]). These immune-cold CRCs were associated with tumour hypoxia, confirmed using CAIX immunohistochemistry (P = 0.0009), which may mediate disease progression through common biology (KRAS mutations, CRIS-B subtype and SPP1 mRNA overexpression). Conclusions Given the significantly poorer survival of immune-cold CRC patients, these data illustrate that assessment of CD4-expressing cells complements low CD3 and CD8 immunohistochemical quantification in the tumour bulk, potentially facilitating immunophenotyping of patient biopsies to predict prognosis. In addition, we found immune-cold CRCs to associate with a difficult-to-treat, poor prognosis hypoxia signature, indicating that these patients may benefit from hypoxia-targeting clinical trials.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P =.34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

We review the mechanisms by which clinical cancer research can improve health outcomes and argue that this should be central to the development of policy. Recent series of major international studies have analysed large, often nationwide, datasets for cancer patient outcomes and participation in clinical research. They have evaluated and quantified the impact of new evidence generated by randomised controlled trials on cancer survival. They show a strong and probably causal relationship between the participation in clinical research in hospitals and the outcomes for patients with the disease under study in those hospitals. Also, institutions that are active in clinical trials appear to take up well evidenced innovations more rapidly than those which are not so engaged. Further work is necessary to confirm and examine the generalisability of these findings but we argue that all of these mechanisms are likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients as a consequence of the conduct of clinical research. The size of the benefit appears to be substantial and an active programme to promote clinical research across cancer care systems should be a part of National Cancer Plans and Cancer Control Strategies.

Objective Complex phenotypes captured on histological slides represent the biological processes at play in individual cancers, but the link to underlying molecular classification has not been clarified or systematised. In colorectal cancer (CRC), histological grading is a poor predictor of disease progression, and consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) cannot be distinguished without gene expression profiling. We hypothesise that image analysis is a cost-effective tool to associate complex features of tissue organisation with molecular and outcome data and to resolve unclassifiable or heterogeneous cases. In this study, we present an image-based approach to predict CRC CMS from standard H&E sections using deep learning. Design Training and evaluation of a neural network were performed using a total of n=1206 tissue sections with comprehensive multi-omic data from three independent datasets (training on FOCUS trial, n=278 patients; test on rectal cancer biopsies, GRAMPIAN cohort, n=144 patients; and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), n=430 patients). Ground truth CMS calls were ascertained by matching random forest and single sample predictions from CMS classifier. Results Image-based CMS (imCMS) accurately classified slides in unseen datasets from TCGA (n=431 slides, AUC)=0.84) and rectal cancer biopsies (n=265 slides, AUC=0.85). imCMS spatially resolved intratumoural heterogeneity and provided secondary calls correlating with bioinformatic prediction from molecular data. imCMS classified samples previously unclassifiable by RNA expression profiling, reproduced the expected correlations with genomic and epigenetic alterations and showed similar prognostic associations as transcriptomic CMS. Conclusion This study shows that a prediction of RNA expression classifiers can be made from H&E images, opening the door to simple, cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows.

3504 Background: There is extensive randomised evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in mCRC, but breaks from treatment are not universally offered to patients despite reductions in toxicity, without detriment to OS. Prior trials have shown that the combination of Cp and bevacizumab extend PFS but not OS. FOCUS4-N explores oral maintenance Cp monotherapy in patients with disease control on first line therapy. Methods: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial programme registering patients with newly diagnosed mCRC from 88 hospitals in the UK. Whilst undergoing 16 wks of first line treatment, a sample of tumour was sent for laboratory testing to stratify their disease into molecular subtypes: MSI, BRAF, PIK3CA, TP53 and RAS mutations. For some molecular groups, a targeted therapy subtrial was available but entry into the FOCUS4-N trial was offered to those in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable. Patients were randomised 1:1 between maintenance Cp therapy or AM. The primary outcome was PFS assessed using 8-wkly RECIST reported CT scans with quality of life (using EQ5D 8 weekly) and OS as secondary outcomes. Toxicity and tolerability were assessed 4-wkly. On progression, from the nadir, patients recommenced first line treatment. Cox regression was used to assess efficacy by intention-to-treat (ITT) with adjustment for tumour location, WHO status, metastatic burden, first line treatment and biomarker subtype. Results: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomised (127 to Cp and 127 to AM). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups but event rates were higher than anticipated in the AM group and the final analysis was triggered early as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic halting recruitment. The table presents results for PFS and OS. Compliance with treatment was good with per-protocol analysis results very similar to ITT (PFS HR=0.38 (95% CI 0.28-0.51)). Toxicity from Cp v AM was as expected with G≥2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhoea (23% v 13%) and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed no statistically significant differences between the two arms. Conclusions: Despite strong evidence of prolongation of PFS with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as a safe management alternative for patients who are stable or responding well to first line treatment for mCRC. Cp without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS, in the interval after 16 weeks of combination therapy. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN#90061546. [Table: see text]

111 Background: High tumor mRNA levels of the EGFR ligands, AREG and EREG are associated with anti-EGFR agent response in patients (pts) with RAS-wt mCRC, regardless of tumor location. However, ligand RNA assays have not been adopted into routine clinical practice due to issues with analytical precision and practicality. Here we test whether AREG and EREG expression assessed by IHC can predict benefit from Pan. Methods: A retrospective biomarker study within the PICCOLO trial (NCT00389870; irinotecan [Ir] ± Pan in fluoropyrimidine-resistant RAS-wt mCRC). AREG and EREG positive tumor cells were assessed by IHC in all RAS-wt patients with available tumor tissue. Pathologists annotated tumor areas on digital images of glass slides. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms calculated the percentage of tumor cells staining positive for AREG and EREG within the tumor areas. More than 50% AREG and/or EREG tumor cell positivity was regarded as high ligand expression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were RECIST response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: 274 RAS-wt pts had available tumor tissue. High ligand expression (n = 132) was associated with significant PFS benefit from IrPan compared with Ir (8.0 vs 3.2 months; HR 0.54 [0.37-0.79]; p = 0.001); whereas low ligand expression (n = 142) was not (3.4 vs 4.4 months; HR 1.05 [95% CI, 0.74-1.49]; p = 0.78). The ligand-treatment interaction was significant (p = 0.02) and independent of BRAF-mutation status and primary tumor location. Likewise RR was significantly improved in pts with high ligand expression (IrPan vs Ir: 48% vs 6%; risk ratio, 7.8 [2.90-20.69]; p < 0.0001) but not those with low ligand expression (IrPan vs Ir: 25% vs 14%; risk ratio, 1.8 [95% CI, 0.89-3.65]; p = 0.10) (interaction p = 0.01). Lesser effect was seen on OS. Conclusions: IHC assessment of AREG and EREG identified pts who did or did not benefit from Pan, as has been previously demonstrated through mRNA quantification. IHC represents a more practicable technique as it can be provided at the point of care and is associated with shorter turn-around times. AREG and EREG IHC may be of use in routine practice to identify patients who would benefit from anti-EGFR therapy and those for whom alternative treatment strategies should be explored.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

Purpose: Patients with left-sided colon tumours have better survival and respond differently to biologics compared with patients with right-sided tumours. Left-sided colon tumours and rectal cancers are often grouped together. Herein, we examined the clinicopathological differences and outcomes between left-sided colon and rectal cancers.Patients and methods: Data from 2879 metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled on six first-line clinical trials during 2004–2010 were pooled. Patients were included if the primary tumour origin was clearly defined. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the two groups after adjusting for patient and tumour characteristics, metastatic sites and the first-line regimen.Results: In total, 1374 patients with metastatic left-sided colon cancer and 1505 patients with metastatic rectal cancers were evaluated. Left-sided colon cancer patients were more likely to be female (40.1% versus 32.6%; P < 0.0001) and older (31.0% ≥ 70 years versus 25.8%; P = 0.0033) compared with rectal cancers patients. Patients with left-sided colon cancer had higher rates of liver metastases (80.9% versus 72.3%, P < 0.0001) but lower rates of lung metastases (34.2% versus 53.8%, P < 0.0001). KRAS mutations were slightly less frequent among left-sided tumours (34.8% versus 40.5%; P = 0.0103). Patients with left-sided tumours had approximately similar PFS (median 7.4 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87–1.03; P = 0.1998) and OS (median 17.4 versus 16.6 months; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91–1.07; P = 0.7597) compared with rectal cancer patients.Conclusion: The site of tumour origin within the left side was not prognostic of outcomes. Moreover, neither bevacizumab nor cetuximab impacted, differently, the findings of the comparisons in outcomes between patients with left-sided colon tumours or rectal cancers.

Background Many pts with aGOAC are elderly and/or frail. GO2 [ASCO 2019 #4006] found that lower dose OxaliplatinCapecitabine (OCap) led to non-inferior progression free survival, less toxicity and better patient-centred outcomes using a novel composite endpoint ‘Overall Treatment Utility’. QoL endpoints were chosen to reflect the balance between benefits and harms of the three dose levels and to help patients understand likely implications of treatment for shared decision making. Methods Eligible pts unsuitable for full-dose 3-drug chemotherapy due to frailty, but fit for OCap. Baseline assessment included QoL; symptoms; functional scales; comorbidity; frailty. Randomization was 1:1:1 to dose Level (Lvl) A (Ox 130 mg/m2d1, Cap 625 mg/m2bd d1-21, q21d), B (80% Lvl A doses) or C (60% Lvl A doses) until progression or decision to stop. An alternative randomisation option where chemo benefit was considered uncertain (‘uc’) was between OCap Lvl C and Best Supportive Care (BSC). QoL (EQ-VAS) was measured weekly during chemotherapy. QoL (EQ-5D), Fatigue (EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue scale) were measured 9-weekly for 1 year. QoL endpoints were analysed descriptively as pre-defined in the statistical analysis plan. Results 558 pts were enrolled, 2014-17, 61 UK centres, of which 45 pts were in the uc randomisation. Table . LBA46 Lvl A Lvl B Lvl C Lvl C (‘uc’) BSC (‘uc’) Pts 170 171 173 23 22 Median Age 76 76 77 79 79 % PS ≥ 2 31 32 31 57 68 % Severely Frail 61 56 58 70 68 9 wk Δ QLQ QoLa +0.4 +5.3 +4.9 na na 9 wk Δ EQ-5D QoLa -0.01 +0.06 +0.8 -0.19 -0.35 9 wk Δ EQ-VAS QoLa +8.6 +3.4 +5.4 +2.7 +0.2 9 wk Δ Fatigueb +8.6 +3.4 -0.6 +4.0 +15.1 Median TDFc (mths) 7.1 5.4 6.5 na na a. higher=better; b. higher=worse; c. TDF=Time to deterioration in fatigue Longitudinal QoL and Fatigue over the one year follow-up period were very similar between arms. Cancer symptoms also improved to a similar extend in each arm. Conclusions GO2 is the largest RCT to date investigating frail and/or elderly aGOAC pts, and should guide future treatment. Lower doses led to more rapid improvements in QoL and fatigue without compromising disease control or survival. Clinical trial identification EudraCT: 2013-000009-21; ISRCTN44687907 Rec No: 13/YH/0229. Legal entity responsible for the study University of Leeds. Funding Cancer Research UK. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background:Estimating prognosis on the basis of clinicopathologic factors can inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for one-year overall survival and six-month progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal carcinoma by using the ARCAD database. Methods:Data from 22 674 patients in 26 randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included baseline age, sex, body mass index, performance status, colon vs rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number and location of metastatic sites, tumor mutation status (BRAF, KRAS), bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. Missing data (50% vs 50% vs

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.

Purpose Progression-free survival (PFS) has previously been established as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because mCRC treatment has advanced in the last decade with extended OS, this surrogacy requires re-examination. Methods Individual patient data from 16,762 patients were available from 22 first-line mCRC studies conducted from 1997 to 2006; 12 of those studies tested antiangiogenic and/or anti–epidermal growth factor receptor agents. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated by using R2 statistics (the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the correlation) from weighted least squares regression of trial-specific hazard ratios estimated by using Cox and Copula models. Results Forty-four percent of patients received a regimen that included biologic agents. Median first-line PFS was 8.3 months, and median OS was 18.2 months. The correlation between PFS and OS was modest (R2, 0.45 to 0.69). Analyses limited to trials that tested treatments with biologic agents, nonstrategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy. Conclusion In modern mCRC trials, in which survival after the first progression exceeds time to first progression, a positive but modest correlation was observed between OS and PFS at both the patient and trial levels. This finding demonstrates the substantial variability in OS introduced by the number of lines of therapy and types of effective subsequent treatments and the associated challenge to the use of OS as an end point to assess the benefit attributable to a single line of therapy. PFS remains an appropriate primary end point for first-line mCRC trials to detect the direct treatment effect of new agents.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (HER1) signaling depends on ligand binding and dimerization with itself or other HER receptors. We previously showed in a randomized trial that high EGFR ligand expression is predictive of panitumumab benefit in advanced colorectal cancer. Tumor expression of HER3 may further refine the RAS wild-type (wt) population benefitting from anti-EGFR agents.To examine HER3 messenger RNA expression as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR therapy in a randomized clinical trial of panitumumab.The study was a prospectively planned retrospective biomarker study of pretreatment samples from the PICCOLO trial that tested the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan therapy in patients with KRAS wt advanced colorectal cancer who experienced failure with prior fluoropyrimidine treatment. HER3 was assessed as a prognostic marker, then as a predictive biomarker in patients with RAS wt, first as a continuous variable and then as a binary (high vs low) variable. Relationship with MEK-AKT pathway mutations and EGFR ligands epiregulin and amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) were also assessed.Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points were response rate and overall survival (OS).In 308 patients (mean age at randomization, 61.6 years; 193 men) higher HER3 was weakly prognostic for OS (hazard ratio [HR] per 2-fold change, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .04) but not PFS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05; P = .25). Higher HER3 was predictive, being associated with prolonged PFS on irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P .001), but not irinotecan (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13; P = .65) in patients with RAS wt, with significant interaction between biomarker and treatment (P = .001). Similar interaction was seen for OS (P = .004). In an exploratory binary model, dividing the population at the 66th percentile, HER3 was predictive of panitumumab benefit: in patients with high HER3 expression, median PFS was 8.2 months (IrPan) vs 4.4 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P .001). Patients with low HER3 expression gained no benefit in PFS: 3.3 months (IrPan) vs 4.3 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = .84), with significant interaction (P = .002). The binary model was also predictive for OS, with significant interaction (P = .01). Combining HER3 and ligand data, patients with HER3-high, AREG/EREG-high tumors gained markedly from panitumumab (PFS HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.51; P .005 and OS HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73; P = .004). Conversely, patients with HER3-low, AREG/EREG-low tumors did not benefit (PFS HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.79; P = .57 and OS HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.92-2.26; P = .11).High HER3 expression identified patients with RAS wt who gained markedly from panitumumab, and those who did not, with statistically significant biomarker-treatment interactions for PFS and OS. This finding provides insight into the mechanism of anti-EGFR agents and is of potential clinical utility.

AIM: To investigate the impact of histology on outcome in advanced oesophageal cancer treated with first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from three randomised phase III trials of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy ± platinum/anthracycline in patients with advanced, untreated gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) randomised between 1994 and 2005. The primary endpoint was overall survival of oesophageal cancer patients according to histology. Secondary endpoints were response rates and a toxicity composite endpoint. RESULTS: Of the total 1836 randomised patients, 973 patients (53%) were eligible (707 patients with gastric cancer were excluded), 841 (86%) had adenocarcinoma and 132 (14%) had SCC. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with adenocarcinoma and SCC, with median overall survivals of 9.5 mo vs 7.6 mo (HR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.70-1.03, P = 0.09) and one-year survivals of 38.8% vs 28.2% respectively. The overall response rate to chemotherapy was 44% for adenocarcinoma vs 33% for SCC (P = 0.01). There was no difference in the frequency of the toxicity composite endpoint between the two groups. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in survival between adenocarcinoma and SCC in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy despite a trend for worse survival and less chemo-sensitivity in SCC. Tolerance to treatment was similar in both groups. This analysis highlights the unmet need for SCC-specific studies in advanced oesophageal cancer and will aid in the design of future trials of targeted agents.

Contains fulltext : 182283.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Diversity in colorectal cancer biology is associated with variable responses to standard chemotherapy. We aimed to identify and validate DNA hypermethylated genes as predictive biomarkers for irinotecan treatment of metastatic CRC patients. Candidate genes were selected from 389 genes involved in DNA Damage Repair by correlation analyses between gene methylation status and drug response in 32 cell lines. A large series of samples (n=818) from two phase III clinical trials was used to evaluate these candidate genes by correlating methylation status to progression-free survival after treatment with first-line single-agent fluorouracil (Capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil) or combination chemotherapy (Capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil plus irinotecan (CAPIRI/FOLFIRI)). In the discovery (n=185) and initial validation set (n=166), patients with methylated Decoy Receptor 1 (DCR1) did not benefit from CAPIRI over Capecitabine treatment (discovery set: HR=1.2 (95%CI 0.7-1.9, p=0.6), validation set: HR=0.9 (95%CI 0.6-1.4, p=0.5)), whereas patients with unmethylated DCR1 did (discovery set: HR=0.4 (95%CI 0.3-0.6, p=0.00001), validation set: HR=0.5 (95%CI 0.3-0.7, p=0.0008)). These results could not be replicated in the external data set (n=467), where a similar effect size was found in patients with methylated and unmethylated DCR1 for FOLFIRI over 5FU treatment (methylated DCR1: HR=0.7 (95%CI 0.5-0.9, p=0.01), unmethylated DCR1: HR=0.8 (95%CI 0.6-1.2, p=0.4)). In conclusion, DCR1 promoter hypermethylation status is a potential predictive biomarker for response to treatment with irinotecan, when combined with capecitabine. This finding could not be replicated in an external validation set, in which irinotecan was combined with 5FU. These results underline the challenge and importance of extensive clinical evaluation of candidate biomarkers in multiple trials.

Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.

Introduction: Rare cancers together account for about 22% of new cancer diagnoses each year, which is more than any single common cancer. They constitute a serious public health problem with distinctive challenges. Compared with common cancers, less is known about their etiology and molecular pathology, and therapeutic options are mostly poorly evidence based with outcomes that are on average inferior to those of more common cancers. There is, therefore, a pressing need for well-organized clinical research to address these deficiencies. The International rare cancer initiative (IRCI) was formed in 2011 with the aim of stimulating and facilitating the development of international clinical trials for patients with rare cancers, and so helping to establish better, more evidence-based treatments. As of October 2013, 8 clinical trials are in design, in set up or recruiting, in seven rare cancer types, giving IRCI a good understanding of the current research conditions for rare cancer. Areas covered: This paper...

To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types.2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status.231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted OR = 0.76, P = 0.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HR = 1.14, P = 0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HR = 1.69, P 6 months; OS = 24.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS = 4.7 months.BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression.

Background The phase III international FOxTROT trial assessed the effectiveness of pre-operative chemotherapy in locally advanced colon cancer. Patients were randomised across 85 centres to pre- and post-operative FOLFOX-based chemotherapy (pre-op) or to post-operative FOLFOX chemotherapy alone (post-op) in a 2:1 ratio. Methods Central pathological review was performed on scanned H&E stained slides in 904 out of 1,052 cases (86%) to include reassessment of the core pathology endpoints and an additional assessment of novel prognostic and immunological markers according to trial arm. Results The pre-op group showed a lower pT stage (pT0-pT2 rate 18% vs 8%, p Conclusions Pre-op chemotherapy in locally advanced colon cancer is associated with a significant reduction in many high-risk pathological features and potential mechanisms of metastatic spread. There is also a clear effect on tumour immunology. The association with 2 year DFS is currently being performed and will be presented at the meeting. Legal entity responsible for the study University of Birmingham. Funding Amgen. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.