Search

Purpose:BRAF V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer represents a significant clinical problem, with combination approaches being developed clinically with oral BRAF inhibitors combined with EGFR-targeting antibodies. While compelling preclinical data have highlighted the effectiveness of combination therapy with vemurafenib and small-molecule EGFR inhibitors, gefitinib or erlotinib, in colorectal cancer, this therapeutic strategy has not been investigated in clinical studies.Patients and Methods:We conducted a phase Ib/II dose-escalation/expansion trial investigating the safety/efficacy of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and EGFR inhibitor erlotinib.Results:Thirty-two patients with BRAF V600E positive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 7 patients with other cancers were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in escalation, with vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily with erlotinib 150 mg daily selected as the recommended phase II dose. Among 31 evaluable patients with mCRC and 7 with other cancers, overall response rates were 32% [10/31, 16% (5/31) confirmed] and 43% (3/7), respectively, with clinical benefit rates of 65% and 100%. Early ctDNA dynamics were predictive of treatment efficacy, and serial ctDNA monitoring revealed distinct patterns of convergent genomic evolution associated with acquired treatment resistance, with frequent emergence of MAPK pathway alterations, including polyclonal KRAS, NRAS, and MAP2K1 mutations, and MET amplification.Conclusions:The Erlotinib and Vemurafenib In Combination Trial study demonstrated a safe and novel combination of two oral inhibitors targeting BRAF and EGFR. The dynamic assessment of serial ctDNA was a useful measure of underlying genomic changes in response to this combination and in understanding potential mechanisms of resistance.

The VEGF-A monoclonal antibody bevacizumab is currently recommended for first-line treatment of all metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Cost-benefit ratio and side-effects however necessitate patient selection. A large retrospective yet nonrandomized study showed that patients with loss of chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 in the tumor and treated with bevacizumab have 3 months improved median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit compared to patients without this loss and/or treatment modality. Implementation for loss of chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 as a marker in clinical practice mandates evidence in a randomized controlled trial for bevacizumab. Of the trials with randomization of chemotherapy vs chemotherapy with bevacizumab, the AGITG-MAX trial was the only one with tumor materials available. Chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 copy number status was measured for 256 AGITG-MAX trial patients and correlated with PFS according to a predefined analysis plan with marker-treatment interaction as the primary end-point. Chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 losses were detected in 71% of patients (181/256) characteristic for mCRC. Consistent with the nonrandomized study, significant PFS benefit of bevacizumab was observed in patients with chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 loss (P =.009), and not in patients without 18q loss (P =.67). Although significance for marker-treatment interaction was not reached (Pinteraction =.28), hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval of this randomized cohort (HRinteraction = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.39-1.32) shows striking overlap with the nonrandomized study cohorts (HRinteraction = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.32-0.8) supported by a nonsignificant Cochrane χ2 test (P =.11) for heterogeneity. We conclude that post hoc analysis of the AGITG-MAX RCT provides supportive evidence for chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 as a predictive marker for bevacizumab in mCRC patients.

Supplementary Table 1

Supplementary figure 3 shows combining trametinib with different classes of HDAC inhibitors in COLO 201 cells

The EGFR/RAS/MEK/ERK signaling pathway (ERK/MAPK) is hyperactivated in most colorectal cancers. A current limitation of inhibitors of this pathway is that they primarily induce cytostatic effects in colorectal cancer cells. Nevertheless, these drugs do induce expression of proapoptotic factors, suggesting they may prime colorectal cancer cells to undergo apoptosis. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) induce expression of multiple proapoptotic proteins, we examined whether they could synergize with ERK/MAPK inhibitors to trigger colorectal cancer cell apoptosis. Combined MEK/ERK and HDAC inhibition synergistically induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoids in vitro, and attenuated Apc-initiated adenoma formation in vivo. Mechanistically, combined MAPK/HDAC inhibition enhanced expression of the BH3-only proapoptotic proteins BIM and BMF, and their knockdown significantly attenuated MAPK/HDAC inhibitor–induced apoptosis. Importantly, we demonstrate that the paradigm of combined MAPK/HDAC inhibitor treatment to induce apoptosis can be tailored to specific MAPK genotypes in colorectal cancers, by combining an HDAC inhibitor with either an EGFR, KRASG12C or BRAFV600 inhibitor in KRAS/BRAFWT; KRASG12C, BRAFV600E colorectal cancer cell lines, respectively. These findings identify a series of ERK/MAPK genotype-tailored treatment strategies that can readily undergo clinical testing for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Supplementary Figure 4

Supplementary table 1

Supplementary material

Purpose: To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods: In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

Supplementary Fig 2. Change in overall (A) and specific (B) plasma antibody titres against tumour antigens from baseline (D0) to 6 weeks of treatment (6W), n=8 patients.

Supplementary Table 1 Sequencing Primers used for FcGR 2a ( H/R,rs1801274) and FcGR3a (F/V;rs396991) polymorphisms genotyping

PDF file - 22K, Supplemental Fig. S3. Effect of cytoplasmic MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining on objective response rate in patients treated with panitumumab (pmab) plus rilotumumab (AMG 102) versus pmab plus placebo.

PDF file - 37K, Supplemental Fig. S4. The effect of baseline IGF and IGF-related protein expression on overall survival.

PDF file - 76K, Supplemental Fig. S1. (A) Randomized phase Ib/II trial of panitumumab plus rilotumumab (AMG 102) or ganitumab (AMG 479). (B) CONSORT diagram for part 2. *Panitumumab 6 mg/kg; rilotumumab 10 mg/kg with dose de-escalation to 5 mg/kg as necessary. �Panitumumab 6 mg/kg; rilotumumab 10 mg/kg; ganitumab 12 mg/kg. �Rilotumumab 10 mg/kg; ganitumab 12 mg/kg.

Supplementary Fig 3. Hierarchical clustering of plasma antibody profiles after 6 weeks of study treatment, using the Spearman rank correlation method with average linkage. Patient ID (0n) at the 6-week time point (best tumour response, PFS).

Supplementary tables 1-3

Supplementary Table from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

PDF file - 38K, Supplemental Fig. S5. The effect of baseline IGF and IGF-related protein expression on objective response rate.

PDF file - 38K, Supplemental Fig. S2. Best percent change of the sum of longest diameters of target lesions from baseline to post-baseline. (A) Panitumumab plus rilotumumab.(B) Panitumumab plus ganitumab. (C) Panitumumab alone.

Purpose: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb), has demonstrated efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Rilotumumab and ganitumab are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor and IGF1R, respectively. Here we evaluate combining rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.Experimental Design: Part 1 was a phase Ib dose-finding study of panitumumab plus rilotumumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Part 2 was a randomized phase II trial of panitumumab in combination with rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Archival tissue specimens were collected for exploratory correlative work.Results: In part 1, no DLTs were reported. A recommended phase II dose of 10 mg/kg rilotumumab was selected. In part 2, for the panitumumab plus rilotumumab (n = 48), panitumumab plus ganitumab (n = 46), and panitumumab plus placebo arms (n = 48), the ORRs were 31%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.2, 5.3, and 3.7 months and median OS 13.8, 10.6, and 11.6 months, respectively. Adverse events were tolerable. Exploratory biomarker analyses, including MET and IGF-related protein expression, failed to indicate conclusive predictive evidence on efficacy endpoints.Conclusions: Panitumumab plus rilotumumab met the prespecified criterion for improvement in ORR whereas ganitumab did not. This is the first study to suggest a benefit for combining an HGF inhibitor (rilotumumab) with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4240–50. ©2014 AACR.

Supplementary Data from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Supplementary Legend

Purpose: Two germline Fc-γ receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms, rs1801274 [FCGR2A;His(H)131Arg(R)] and rs396991 [FCGR3A;Phe(F)158Val(V)] produce altered proteins through amino acid substitutions; both are reported to be associated with cetuximab-related outcomes. We performed a validation of these polymorphisms in NCIC CTG CO.17, a randomized trial of cetuximab monotherapy in refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer expressing EGFR.Experimental Design: DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was genotyped. In addition to log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazard models assessed their relationships with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adjusting for clinically important prognostic factors, along with a polymorphism–treatment arm interaction term.Results: Somatic KRAS status was wild-type for exon 2 in 153 (52%) of 293 patients, from whom tumor DNA was available. For FCGR2A H/H, a genotype–treatment interaction for KRAS wild-type patients was observed for OS (P = 0.03). In KRAS wild-type patients carrying FCGR2A H/H, cetuximab (vs. no cetuximab) improved survival substantially, with adjusted HRs (aHR) of 0.36 (OS) and 0.19 (PFS) and absolute benefits of 5.5 months (OS; P = 0.003) and 3.7 months (PFS; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients carrying FCGR2A R alleles (H/R or R/R) had aHRs of only 0.78 (OS; 2.8-month benefit) and 0.53 (PFS; 1.6-month benefit). No relationships were found for rs396991 (FCGR3A).Conclusions: In the CO.17 trial, cetuximab worked best for patients with KRAS wild-type colorectal cancers carrying FCGR2A H/H genotypes. Significantly lower benefits were observed in patients carrying germline FCGR2A R alleles. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2435–44. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Fig 1. (A) PFS in plasma VEGF-C subgroups, (B) OS in plasma Ang-2 subgroups.

Supplementary Figure from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Purpose:To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.Patients and Methods:In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.Results:Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively.Conclusions:Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

PDF file - 86K

PURPOSE The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs—which we term time toxicity—as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status. RESULTS In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras–mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001). CONCLUSION This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively.

The EGFR/RAS/MEK/ERK signaling pathway (ERK/MAPK) is hyperactivated in most colorectal cancers. A current limitation of inhibitors of this pathway is that they primarily induce cytostatic effects in colorectal cancer cells. Nevertheless, these drugs do induce expression of proapoptotic factors, suggesting they may prime colorectal cancer cells to undergo apoptosis. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) induce expression of multiple proapoptotic proteins, we examined whether they could synergize with ERK/MAPK inhibitors to trigger colorectal cancer cell apoptosis. Combined MEK/ERK and HDAC inhibition synergistically induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoids in vitro, and attenuated Apc-initiated adenoma formation in vivo. Mechanistically, combined MAPK/HDAC inhibition enhanced expression of the BH3-only proapoptotic proteins BIM and BMF, and their knockdown significantly attenuated MAPK/HDAC inhibitor–induced apoptosis. Importantly, we demonstrate that the paradigm of combined MAPK/HDAC inhibitor treatment to induce apoptosis can be tailored to specific MAPK genotypes in colorectal cancers, by combining an HDAC inhibitor with either an EGFR, KRASG12C or BRAFV600 inhibitor in KRAS/BRAFWT; KRASG12C, BRAFV600E colorectal cancer cell lines, respectively. These findings identify a series of ERK/MAPK genotype-tailored treatment strategies that can readily undergo clinical testing for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Epigenetics; Tumour-suppressor proteins Epigenética; Proteínas supresoras de tumores Epigenètica; Proteïnes supresores de tumors Colorectal cancers (CRCs) often display histological features indicative of aberrant differentiation but the molecular underpinnings of this trait and whether it directly drives disease progression is unclear. Here, we identify co-ordinate epigenetic inactivation of two epithelial-specific transcription factors, EHF and CDX1, as a mechanism driving differentiation loss in CRCs. Re-expression of EHF and CDX1 in poorly-differentiated CRC cells induced extensive chromatin remodelling, transcriptional re-programming, and differentiation along the enterocytic lineage, leading to reduced growth and metastasis. Strikingly, EHF and CDX1 were also able to reprogramme non-colonic epithelial cells to express colonic differentiation markers. By contrast, inactivation of EHF and CDX1 in well-differentiated CRC cells triggered tumour de-differentiation. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that EHF physically interacts with CDX1 via its PNT domain, and that these transcription factors co-operatively drive transcription of the colonic differentiation marker, VIL1. Compound genetic deletion of Ehf and Cdx1 in the mouse colon disrupted normal colonic differentiation and significantly enhanced colorectal tumour progression. These findings thus reveal a novel mechanism driving epithelial de-differentiation and tumour progression in CRC. This project was supported by NHMRC project grant (1107831), a Cancer Council Victoria Grant (1164674) and the Operational Infrastructure Support Programme, Victorian Government, Australia. JMM was supported by a NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1046092). IYL was supported by F J Fletcher Research Scholarship and Randal and Louisa Alcock Scholarship from the University of Melbourne. LJJ was supported by La Trobe University Australian Postgraduate Awards. IN was supported by La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. JWTT was supported by the University of Melbourne Australian Postgraduate Awards. OMS is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellow (APP1136119). Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade {greater than or equal to}3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade {greater than or equal to}3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively.Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade {greater than or equal to}3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

Amplification or overexpression of the FGFR family of receptor tyrosine kinases occurs in a significant proportion of gastric cancers. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic and oncogenic kinases, including FGFR, which showed activity in the randomized phase II INTEGRATE clinical trial in advanced gastric cancer. There are currently no biomarkers that predict response to this agent, and whether regorafenib is preferentially active in FGFR-driven cancers is unknown. Through screening 25 gastric cancer cell lines, we identified five cell lines that were exquisitely sensitive to regorafenib, four of which harbored amplification or overexpression of FGFR family members. These four cell lines were also sensitive to the FGFR-specific inhibitors, BGJ398, erdafitinib, and TAS-120. Regorafenib inhibited FGFR-driven MAPK signaling in these cell lines, and knockdown studies confirmed their dependence on specific FGFRs for proliferation. In the INTEGRATE trial cohort, amplification or overexpression of FGFRs 1–4 was detected in 8%–19% of cases, however, this was not associated with improved progression-free survival and no objective responses were observed in these cases. Further preclinical analyses revealed FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines rapidly reactivate MAPK/ERK signaling in response to FGFR inhibition, which may underlie the limited clinical response to regorafenib. Importantly, combination treatment with an FGFR and MEK inhibitor delayed MAPK/ERK reactivation and synergistically inhibited proliferation of FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines. These findings suggest that upfront combinatorial inhibition of FGFR and MEK may represent a more effective treatment strategy for FGFR-driven gastric cancers.

PURPOSE The PETACC 6 trial investigates whether the addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative capecitabine improves disease-free survival (DFS) in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS Between November 2008 and September 2011, patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 12 cm from the anal verge, T3/4 and/or node positive, were randomly assigned to 5 weeks preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation (45-50.4 Gy) followed by six cycles of adjuvant capecitabine, both without (control arm, 1) or with (experimental arm, 2) oxaliplatin. The primary end point was improvement of 3-year DFS by oxaliplatin from 65% to 72% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.763). RESULTS A total of 1,094 patients were randomly assigned (intention to treat), and 1,068 eligible patients started their allocated treatment (arm 1, 543; arm 2, 525), with completion of protocol treatment in 68% (arm 1) v 54% (arm 2). A higher rate of grade 3/4 adverse events was reported in the experimental arm (14.4% v 37.3% and 23.4% v 46.6% for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, respectively). At a median follow-up of 68 months (interquartile range, 58-74 months), 157 and 156 DFS events were observed in arms 1 and 2, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.28; P = .835). Three-year DFS rate was not different, with 76.5% (95% CI, 72.7% to 79.9%) in arm 1, which is higher than anticipated, and 75.8% (95% CI, 71.9% to 79.3%) in arm 2. The 7-year DFS and overall survival (OS) rates were not different as well, with DFS of 66.1% v 65.5% (HR, 1.02) and OS of 73.5% v 73.7% (HR, 1.19) in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed heterogeneity in treatment effect according to German versus non-German site location, without detectable confounding factors in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION The addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy impairs tolerability and feasibility and does not improve efficacy.

118 Background: Anti-VEGF is widely used in the treatment (trt) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Only studies with bevacizumab (BEV) have shown survival benefit (bnf) in first line trt. The magnitude of bnf might differ based on the metastatic (met) site and the chemotherapy regimen (CTR) with which BEV is partnered. ARCAD database contains individual patient data (IPD) of randomized trials that evaluated BEV+ CT. In this pooled analysis, we aimed to evaluate BEV bnf in mCRC with lung metastases (mets) either as single or multiple sites. Methods: IPD from four trials (AVF2107g, N016966, AVF2192g, AGITG) comparing CT +/- BEV were pooled. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models according to number and type of met sites and CTRs, oxaliplatin or irinotecan (OX/IRI) based. The predictive bnf of BEV was evaluated by interaction test (int) between trt and lung mets status in subgroups and considered as significant (sig) with a P < 0.1. Results: 2728 patients (pts) with known met sites and survival data were pooled. 1020 pts had single met site, 133 had only lung mets. 1708 pts had multiple met sites, 1008 had lung mets. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Sig OS bnf of BEV was observed in the whole population. In pts subgroup according to the presence or absence of lung mets, sig bnf of BEV were observed with a non-sig int ( Pint=.590). Non-sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with single site regardless of met site (lung or no lung) or CTR. Sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites without lung mets whatever the CTRs. While sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites with lung mets, we found a sig int between BEV and OX/IRI-based regimens ( Pint=.022). The bnf of BEV was observed with IRI-based regimen but not in OX-based regimen. The bnf of BEV appears greater in multiple sites without lung mets than with lung mets with a sig stratified log-rank test ( PLRT

LBA294 Background: AGOC has limited options after second-line therapy. Regorafenib (Rego), an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor TKs, prolonged progression free survival (PFS) versus placebo (PBO) across all regions/subgroups in the INTEGRATE phase 2 randomised trial (JCO 2016 43(23):2728-2735). INTEGRATE IIa was designed to examine if Rego improves overall survival (OS). Methods: Double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trial comparing Rego + best supportive care (BSC) vs PBO + BSC using 2:1 randomisation, stratified by tumour location (GO junction vs gastric), geographic region (Asia vs rest of world), prior VEGF inhibitors (Y/N). Eligibility criteria: histologically/cytologically confirmed AGOC, evaluable metastatic/locally advanced disease, failure/intolerance of ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy with a platinum agent + fluoropyrimidine. Primary objective: OS in the whole study population. OS among Asian sub-population is a key secondary objective. Target of at least 221 events from 250 patients provides 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. Pooled OS analysis incorporating INTEGRATE phase 2 data is also planned. Secondary endpoints include PFS, objective response rate, safety and quality of life. Results: 251 patients enrolled (Oct16 - Sep21) from 5 countries:157 from Asia (Korea, Taiwan, Japan);169 Rego and 82 PBO. After 238 events, median OS (in months) for Rego vs PBO was 4.5 vs 4.0 (HR 0.70 [95%CI: 0.53 to 0.92]; p = 0.011) in the whole study population, with a 12 mo survival of 19% vs 6%. Median PFS was 1.8 v 1.6 (HR = 0.52; [95%CI: 0.40-0.69]; p = < .0001). After pre-planned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions (Asia versus non-Asia) or other pre-specified subgroups. Pooled analysis median OS was 5.0 v 4.1 (HR 0.69 [95% CI:0.56 to 0.87]; p = 0.001). Rego toxicity was similar to previously reported. Conclusions: Rego improves survival compared with PBO in advanced refractory AGOC, offering a new treatment option. This result creates a therapeutic platform for combination studies. INTEGRATE IIb is an ongoing international randomised Phase 3 trial in pre-treated patients with AGOC comparing Rego + nivolumab to standard chemotherapy (NCT0487936). Clinical trial information: NCT02773524 .

84 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivorship is rising. Few studies have considered shared follow up (FU) care (SC) between oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs). SCORE is the first large RCT of SC for CRC survivors. Aim: to compare SC with usual care (UC) for CRC survivors. Primary objective: assess the effect of SC vs UC on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months (mo). Secondary objectives: assess the effect of SC vs UC on QoL; pt perceptions of care; costs; clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences); and feasibility (recruitment, completion rate). Methods: Pts had stage I-III CRC, completed all treatments within 3 mo, spoke English, had a PCP, and no prior cancer. After pt consent, PCP could opt out. Pts were randomised 1 to 1 to SC or UC. SC replaced 2 routine oncologist visits with PCP visits and included a survivorship care plan, concerns checklist and management guidelines for the PCP. PCPs were asked to request CEA tests at 3 and 9 mo visits. Pts completed measures at baseline (BL) and at 6 and 12 mo FU. An estimate of the difference (diff) between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 mo was obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The test of non-inferiority was performed by evaluating the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated diff (SC–UC) against a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. All randomised pts with available data were included in the primary analysis. Per-protocol population (PPP) comprised all randomised pts with ≥ 1 post-BL questionnaire (6 +/or 12 mo) and, for SC, ≥ 1 of the PCP visits. Results: 150 pts were randomised to SC (N=74) or UC (N=76); 11 PCPs declined. Median age 63 years, 39% women, 24% had radiotherapy. Primary: colon (59%), rectum (32%), overlapping (9%). 138/150 (92%) had BL and ≥1 post-BL GHQ-QoL score. 65/74 (88%) of SC pts attended 3- and/or 9-mo PCP visit. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at baseline / 6 mo / 12 mo were: 69 (18.7) / 69 (21.2) / 72 (20.2) for SC versus 68 (20.0) / 73 (15.1) / 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 mo and 12 mo FU was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean diff -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. For the PPP (N=130/150), mean diff was -5.0 (95% CI: -10.1 to 0.2). No clear evidence of between group diffs on other C30 scales (accounting for multiplicity). At 12 mo, most popular preferences for FU were: SC for 40/63 (63%) in the SC group, similar preferences for SC 22/62 (35%) and ‘Hospital-based care with the doctors that treated the cancer’ 22/62 (35%) in UC. CEA completion was 89% at 3 and 83% at 9 mo in SC; 63% and 68% in UC. 5 recurrences in SC and 6 in UC arms. Conclusions: SCORE was highly feasible with high participation and retention, few PCPs declined. Compared to UC, pts having SC had non-inferior QoL. Adherence to CEA testing was higher in SC. Pts exposed to SC prefer this model of FU. Cost and implementation analyses will follow. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12617000004369 .

Studies in multiple solid tumor types have demonstrated the prognostic significance of ctDNA analysis after curative intent surgery. A combined analysis of data across completed studies could further our understanding of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a prognostic marker and inform future trial design. We combined individual patient data from three independent cohort studies of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Plasma samples were collected 4 to 10 weeks after surgery. Mutations in ctDNA were assayed using a massively parallel sequencing technique called SafeSeqS. We analyzed 485 CRC patients (230 Stage II colon, 96 Stage III colon, and 159 locally advanced rectum). ctDNA was detected after surgery in 59 (12%) patients overall (11.0%, 12.5% and 13.8% for samples taken at 4–6, 6–8 and 8–10 weeks; P = .740). ctDNA detection was associated with poorer 5-year recurrence-free (38.6% vs 85.5%; P < .001) and overall survival (64.6% vs 89.4%; P < .001). The predictive accuracy of postsurgery ctDNA for recurrence was higher than that of individual clinicopathologic risk features. Recurrence risk increased exponentially with increasing ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) (hazard ratio, 1.2, 2.5 and 5.8 for MAF of 0.1%, 0.5% and 1%). Postsurgery ctDNA was detected in 3 of 20 (15%) patients with locoregional and 27 of 60 (45%) with distant recurrence (P = .018). This analysis demonstrates a consistent long-term impact of ctDNA as a prognostic marker across nonmetastatic CRC, where ctDNA outperforms other clinicopathologic risk factors and MAF further stratifies recurrence risk. ctDNA is a better predictor of distant vs locoregional recurrence.