Search

Genomics has greatly improved how patients with cancer are being treated; however, clinical-grade genomic biomarkers for chemotherapies are currently lacking. Using whole-genome analysis of 37 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with the chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI), we identified KRAS codon G12 (KRASG12) mutations as a potential biomarker of resistance. Next, we collected real-world data of 960 patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI and validated that KRASG12 mutations were significantly associated with poor survival, also in analyses restricted to the RAS/RAF mutant subgroup. We next analyzed the data of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RECOURSE trial (n = 800 patients) and found that KRASG12 mutations (n = 279) were predictive biomarkers for reduced overall survival (OS) benefit of FTD/TPI versus placebo (unadjusted interaction P = 0.0031, adjusted interaction P = 0.015). For patients with KRASG12 mutations in the RECOURSE trial, OS was not prolonged with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 279; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73–1.20; P = 0.85). In contrast, patients with KRASG13 mutant tumors showed significantly improved OS with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 60; HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15–0.55; P KRASG12 mutations were associated with increased resistance to FTD-based genotoxicity. In conclusion, these data show that KRASG12 mutations are biomarkers for reduced OS benefit of FTD/TPI treatment, with potential implications for approximately 28% of patients with mCRC under consideration for treatment with FTD/TPI. Furthermore, our data suggest that genomics-based precision medicine may be possible for a subset of chemotherapies.

PURPOSE Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) for 6 months remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Data are lacking as to whether early discontinuation of all treatment (ETD) or early discontinuation of oxaliplatin (EOD) could worsen the prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC from the ACCENT/IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment and EOD as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only before patients had received a maximum of 75% of planned cycles. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by Cox models adjusted for established prognostic factors. RESULTS Analysis of ETD and EOD included 10,447 (20.9% with ETD) and 7,243 (18.8% with EOD) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and for ETD, older with a lower body mass index. In multivariable analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in disease-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61, P < .001 and HR, 1.73, P < .001), which was not the case for EOD (HR, 1.07, P = .3 and HR, 1.13, P = .1). However, patients who received < 50% of the planned cycles of oxaliplatin had poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with poorer oncologic outcomes. However, this was not the case for EOD. These data favor discontinuing oxaliplatin while continuing fluoropyrimidine in individuals with significant neurotoxicity having received > 50% of the planned 6-month chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND The orally administered combination trifluridine/tipiracil has been approved as third line treatment in mCRC, demonstrating survival benefit and acceptable toxicity profile in the phase III RECOURSE study. PATIENT AND METHODS We performed a multicenter retrospective real-world analysis of patients with mCRC receiving trifluridine/tipiracil between 2016 and 2019 in eight cancer centers across the United Kingdom. RESULTS A total of 236 patients were included with median age of 69 years. All patients had received at least 2 lines of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. About 10% of patients had ECOG ≥ 2. Median duration of trifluridine/tipiracil treatment was 3 months with an ORR of 2.1% and disease control rate of 21.6%. Median OS was 7.6 and median PFS 3.3 months. A dose reduction was required in 27% of patients, while 7.6% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The most common grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (34%), fatigue (10%), anemia (9%) and febrile neutropenia (5%). Baseline NLR

Design: Phase III, randomised controlled, two arm, open label, multicentre, non-inferiority. Objectives: Assessment of the efficacy of 12 weeks versus 24 weeks of treatment and associated toxicity. Economic analysis of the cost effectiveness of the 2 arms. Comparison of 2 randomisation methodologies. Endpoints: Primary Endpoint: • Disease free survival Secondary Endpoints: • Overall survival • Cost-effectiveness • Toxicity • Quality of Life Study population: 6087 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or fully resected stage III colorectal cancer.

Background: esophageal cancer is increasingly common and carries a poor prognosis. The optimal treatment modality for locally advanced cancer is unknown, with current guidance recommending either neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery. There is a lack of adequately powered trials comparing CT against CRT. We retrospectively compared CT versus CRT using a propensity score weighting approach.Methods: demographic, disease, treatment and outcome data were retrieved from a local database for patients who received neoadjuvant CT or CRT followed by surgery. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance groups using a propensity score-weighting approach. Groups were assessed for differences in postoperative outcomes and survival. Kaplan-Meier and non-parametric tests were used to compare survival and outcome data as appropriate.Results: data for 284 patients were retrieved. Following IPTW groups were well matched. No significant differences were seen for postoperative complications (CT 64.9% vs. CRT 63.3%, p=0.807), including major complications (24.0% vs. 23.6%, p=0.943) and anastomotic leak (7.8% vs. 5.6%, p=0.526). Significantly higher rates of clinical regression and complete pathological response were seen following CRT (p=0.002 for both). Rates of R0 resection were higher with CRT, CT 79.1% vs. CRT 93.1%, p=0.006. There was no difference between groups for overall or disease-free survival.Conclusion: this study suggests that the significant improvements in local tumour response seen after neoadjuvant CRT compared to CT may not translate to different survival outcomes. However, it must be stressed that adequately powered prospective trials are sti

Histological ‘phenotypic subtypes’ that classify patients into four groups (immune, canonical, latent and stromal) have previously been demonstrated to stratify survival in a stage I–III colorectal cancer (CRC) pilot cohort. However, clinical utility has not yet been validated. Therefore, this study assessed prognostic value of these subtypes in additional patient cohorts along with associations with risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy. Two independent stage I–III CRC patient cohorts (internal and external cohort) were utilised to investigate phenotypic subtypes. The primary endpoint was disease‐free survival (DFS) and the secondary endpoint was recurrence risk (RR). Stage II–III patients, from the SCOT adjuvant chemotherapy trial, were utilised to further validate prognostic value and for exploratory analysis assessing associations with adjuvant chemotherapy. In an 893‐patient internal cohort, phenotypic subtype independently associated with DFS (p = 0.025) and this was attenuated in stage III patients (p = 0.020). Phenotypic subtype also independently associated with RR (p

Background The standard first- and second- line chemotherapy backbone regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based with addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Until recently, evidence for optimal sequencing post second-line was sparse. Trifluridine/tipiracil (indicated for mCRC and gastric cancer after standard chemotherapies) was made available to UK patients via a named patient programme (NPP) before receiving marketing authorisation in Europe in 2016, allowing characterisation of UK treatment pathways, and evaluation of trifluridine/tipiracil in a UK non-trial population. Methods Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s). Results Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0–69.0) and 62.0 (54.8–69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8–2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4–2.9) months. Conclusions The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.

PURPOSE Early-onset (EO) colorectal cancer (CRC, age < 50 years) incidence is increasing. Decisions on optimal adjuvant therapy should consider treatment adherence, adverse events, and expected outcomes in a population with life expectancy longer than later-onset (LO) CRC (age ≥ 50 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from six trials in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy database were analyzed. Characteristics, treatment adherence, and adverse events in stage II or III EO-CRC and LO-CRC were compared. To reduce confounders of non–cancer-related deaths because of age or comorbidities, time to recurrence (3-year relapse-free rate) and cancer-specific survival (5-year cancer-specific mortality rate) were considered. RESULTS Out of 16,349 patients, 1,564 (9.6%) had EO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, EO-CRC had better performance status (86% v 80%, P < .01), similar T stage (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 v 77/23, P = .97), higher N2 disease rate (24% v 22%, P < .01), more likely to complete the planned treatment duration (83.2% v 78.2%, P < .01), and received a higher treatment dose intensity, especially with 6-month regimens. Gastrointestinal toxicity was more common in EO-CRC; hematologic toxicity was more frequent in LO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, significantly worse cancer-specific outcomes were demonstrated especially in high-risk stage III EO-CRC: lower 3-year relapse-free rate (54% v 65%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55; P value < .001) and higher 5-year cancer-specific mortality rate (24% v 20%; HR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.47; P value < .06). In this subgroup, no difference was observed with 3 or 6 months of therapy, with equally poor disease-free survival rates (57% v 56%; HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.29; P value = .85). CONCLUSION Young age is negatively prognostic in high-risk stage III CRC and associated with significantly higher relapse rate; this is despite better treatment adherence and higher administered treatment intensity, suggesting more aggressive disease biology.

Background Traditionally, adjuvant treatment for colon cancer has been 6 months of combination chemotherapy. Six phase III trials tested the hypothesis that 3 months is noninferior in efficacy to 6 months and reduces long-term side effects for patients. The results were pooled in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant therapy (IDEA) collaboration. Although this did not meet the noninferiority endpoint, a preplanned subgroup analysis by chemotherapy regimen did demonstrate noninferiority for capecitabine and oxaliplatin. Additionally, risk stratification by T and N stage was defined. Methods In an effort to understand the real-life impact of these results, 4 months after the IDEA results, an online survey was distributed to clinicians to ask their approach to the adjuvant treatment of patients with stage III colon cancer. Results The survey was completed by 458 clinicians from 12 countries. Assuming that 6 months of treatment was the pretrial standard of care, 89.5% of clinicians reported they had changed practice to prescribe 3 months of treatment for some patients. For patients with low-risk stage III disease, there was a preference for 3 months, and for patients with high-risk stage III disease, most clinicians still prescribed 6 months at that time. Overall, capecitabine and oxaliplatin regimen was the most popular. There were important differences in responses depending on the location of respondent and T and N stage of disease. Conclusion This survey shows that the IDEA collaboration has been practice changing but reveals important differences in the way results are interpreted by individual clinicians.

PURPOSE: As oxaliplatin results in cumulative neurotoxicity, reducing treatment duration without loss of efficacy would benefit patients and healthcare providers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four of the six studies in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration included patients with high-risk stage II colon and rectal cancers. Patients were treated (clinician and/or patient choice) with either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and randomly assigned to receive 3- or 6-month treatment. The primary end point is disease-free survival (DFS), and noninferiority of 3-month treatment was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of < 1.2- v 6-month arm. To detect this with 80% power at a one-sided type one error rate of 0.10, a total of 542 DFS events were required. RESULTS: 3,273 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 3- or 6-month treatment with 62% receiving CAPOX and 38% FOLFOX. There were 553 DFS events. Five-year DFS was 80.7% and 83.9% for 3-month and 6-month treatment, respectively (HR, 1.17; 80% CI, 1.05 to 1.31; P [for noninferiority] .39). This crossed the noninferiority limit of 1.2. As in the IDEA stage III analysis, the duration effect appeared dependent on the chemotherapy regimen although a test of interaction was negative. HR for CAPOX was 1.02 (80% CI, 0.88 to 1.17), and HR for FOLFOX was 1.41 (80% CI, 1.18 to 1.68). CONCLUSION: Although noninferiority has not been demonstrated in the overall population, the convenience, reduced toxicity, and cost of 3-month adjuvant CAPOX suggest it as a potential option for high-risk stage II colon cancer if oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is suitable. The relative contribution of the factors used to define high-risk stage II disease needs better understanding.

This study widens the transferability of cost-utility results from the SCOT trial showing that administering 3 months of adjuvant, oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is cost-effective and cost saving compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries recruited to SCOT. The impact on healthcare budgets if the findings are implemented as predicted will amount to savings of at least US$150 million over 5 years. Background: The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Patients and Methods: Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis. Results: Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries. Conclusion: This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

Background SCOT was an international, randomized phase 3 trial of 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in patients with colorectal cancer. We sought patients’ preferences for 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the SCOT trial. Methods SCOT participants from Australia and New Zealand completed a validated questionnaire (at 3 and 18 months) to elicit the minimum survival benefits judged necessary to make an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile, based on their experience. Standardized hypothetical scenarios used the following baseline survivals (with 3 months of chemotherapy): life expectancies (LE) of 5 years and 15 years and 5-year survival rates (5YS) of 65% and 85%. Results Of the 160 participants, 82 were assigned 3 months adjuvant chemotherapy, and 78 were assigned 6 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was FOLFOX in 121 (75.6%) and XELOX in 39 (24.4%). Preferences varied substantially and did not differ according to treatment group. The median survival benefits judged necessary to make the extra 3 months of chemotherapy worthwhile were an extra 3 years beyond a LE of 5 years; 3 years beyond a LE of 15 years; 15% beyond a 5YS of 65%; and 5% beyond a 5YS of 85%. Preferences were similar at 3 months and 18 months. Preferences were not predicted by participants’ baseline characteristics. Conclusion Preferences varied substantially, and the benefits many required to warrant an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy were larger than the benefits of an extra 3 months of chemotherapy calculated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) meta-analysis.

TPS3645 Background: The prognostic advantage of early stage deficient-MMR/MSI-High CRC is lost after relapse, so there is a pressing clinical need to maximize the chance of cure in the early stages where prevalence of dMMR is higher comprising approximately 12% of Stage 3 and 20% of Stage 2 CRC. The efficacy of adjuvant checkpoint inhibition in this patient group has yet to be demonstrated in the context of micrometastatic disease without a supporting immune-competent microenvironment. Longitudinal studies especially in the neoadjuvant setting would optimally interrogate post-immunotherapy changes both in time and space. The NEOPRISM-CRC (NEOadjuvant PembRolizumab In Stratified Medicine – ColoReCtal) study is a Phase II Trial to determine whether neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab stratified to tumour mutation burden (TMB) is efficacious and safe. It will also be a platform to explore the relationships between possible predictive novel biomarkers and response to Pembrolizumab in blood, tumour tissue and microbiome. Methods: The study population consists of subjects with newly diagnosed operable dMMR/MSI-H CRC. Patients must be fit and eligible for planned curative surgery based on a) radiological node positive T1-4 CRC or b) high risk T3 defined as EITHER ≥ 5mm of extramural depth of invasion or unequivocal EMVI on imaging (regardless of depth), or T4 disease. They will receive one of two pre-operative regimens depending upon their TMB based on the FoundationOne®CDx test (FM1CDx). All patients will have one 21 day cycle of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV. Prior to cycle 2 and with the result of the FM1CDx test, patients will continue their treatment as follows: A) TMB-high (defined as ≥20 mutations per Mb) or TMB-medium (defined as 6-19 mutations per Mb), or MSI-H on PCR if FM1CDx test is not evaluable: A further 2 cycles of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 21 days. B) TMB-low (defined as ≤5 mutations per Mb), or if FM1CDx and PCR tests are not evaluable: No further Pembrolizumab given. Surgery to remove the CRC will be performed 4-6 weeks after the last dose of Pembrolizumab in both arms. Following resection patients may receive adjuvant chemotherapy in accordance with local institutional guidelines. The primary end point is pathological complete response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints include 3 year RFS, OS, safety and health-related quality of life. Up to 32 patients will be registered over a 18-24 month period assuming that the pCR with 3 cycles of Pembrolizumab will be ≥ 33% for patients with high or medium TMB based on the FM1CDx profile, and intend to rule out a percentage ≤10%. To reach 80% power with 5% statistical significance, 19 patients are required in the high/medium TMB arm. The trial will be considered a success if at least 5/19 patients have a pCR after 3 cycles of Pembrolizumab. Enrolment will commence in March 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05197322.

Summary Background A prospective, pooled analysis of six randomised phase 3 trials was done to investigate disease-free survival regarding non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer; non-inferiority was not shown. Here, we report the final overall survival results. Methods In this prospective, pooled analysis of six randomised phase 3 trials, we included patients with stage III colon cancer aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 recruited between June 20, 2007, and Dec 31, 2015, across 12 countries in the CALGB/SWOG 80702, IDEA France, SCOT, ACHIEVE, TOSCA, and HORG trials, who started any treatment (modified intention-to-treat). Patients in all trials were randomly assigned to 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) every 2 weeks or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in different doses and methods every 3 weeks, at the treating physician's discretion. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (time to relapse, secondary colorectal primary tumour, or death due to all causes), and overall survival (time to death due to all causes) was the prespecified secondary endpoint. The non-inferiority margin for overall survival was set as a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·11. Pre-planned subgroup analyses included regimen and risk group. Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRadj) p value was less than 0·025. Findings With median follow-up of 72·3 months (IQR 72·2–72·5), 2584 deaths among 12 835 patients were observed. 5064 (39·5%) patients received CAPOX and 7771 (60·5%) received FOLFOX. 5-year overall survival was 82·4% (95% CI 81·4–83·3) with 3 months of therapy and 82·8% (81·8–83·8) with 6 months of therapy (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·95–1·11]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·058). For patients treated with CAPOX, 5-year overall survival was 82·1% (80·5–83·6) versus 81·2% (79·2–82·9; HR 0·96 [0·85–1·08]); non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·033), and for patients treated with FOLFOX 5-year overall survival was 82·6% (81·3–83·8) and 83·8% (82·6–85·0; HR 1·07 [0·97–1·18]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·34). Updated disease-free survival results confirmed previous findings (HR 1·08 [95% CI 1·02–1·15]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0·25). Data on adverse events were not further recorded. Interpretation Non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer was not confirmed in terms of overall survival, but the absolute 0·4% difference in 5-year overall survival should be placed in clinical context. Overall survival results support the use of 3 months of adjuvant CAPOX for most patients with stage III colon cancer. This conclusion is strengthened by the substantial reduction of toxicities, inconveniencies, and cost associated with a shorter treatment duration. Funding US National Cancer Institute.

Purpose of review This article will review the results of recent studies, which have investigated the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy and also suggest, which aspects of adjuvant treatment need investigation in future studies. Recent findings The IDEA collaboration investigated whether the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy with an oxaliplatin doublet could be reduced from 6 to 3 months. Although this study did not demonstrate noninferiority for 3 months treatment, it did show noninferiority for patients receiving 3 months CAPOX chemotherapy and for those patients with low-risk stage III disease receiving 3 months' treatment. There was also significantly less toxicity seen with 3 months' treatment. Recent studies have shown that detectable ctDNA postoperatively can predict those patients most likely to relapse and so benefit from adjuvant treatment. Summary It has been shown that for patients receiving adjuvant CAPOX chemotherapy, or those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for low-risk stage III colon 3 months' chemotherapy gives similar outcomes to 6 months' treatment with significantly less toxicity.

Background The Glasgow Microenvironment Score (GMS) combines peritumoural inflammation and tumour stroma percentage to assess interactions between tumour and microenvironment. This was previously demonstrated to associate with colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis, and now requires validation and assessment of interactions with adjuvant therapy. Methods Two cohorts were utilised; 862 TNM I–III CRC validation cohort, and 2912 TNM II–III CRC adjuvant chemotherapy cohort (TransSCOT). Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Exploratory endpoint was adjuvant chemotherapy interaction. Results GMS independently associated with DFS (p = 0.001) and RFS (p p p = 0.001). In TransSCOT, chemotherapy type (pinteraction = 0.013), but not duration (p = 0.64) was dependent on GMS. Furthermore, GMS 0 significantly associated with improved DFS in patients receiving FOLFOX compared with CAPOX (HR 2.23 95% CI 1.19–4.16, p = 0.012). Conclusions This study validates the GMS as a prognostic tool for patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer, independent of TNM, with the ability to stratify both low- and high-risk disease. Furthermore, GMS 0 could be employed to identify a subset of patients that benefit from FOLFOX over CAPOX.

Background Survival of patients with stage III colon cancer varies widely according to T-N sub-stages. Estimating the benefit of each therapeutic option in each T-N subgroup may provide more accurate information helping doctors and patients in the complex shared decision-making process surrounding adjuvant therapy. Methods The outcomes data of 12,834 patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the IDEA trial served as our database. Patients were categorised in 16 sub-stages, based on T-N categories. We created a meta-regression model to predict the expected 5-year DFS within each T-N sub-stage. We then evaluated the efficacy of each therapeutic option in every sub-stage, working backward by subtraction, using an average of the HRs reported in pertinent trial publications as a conversion factor. Results Large differences in 5-year DFS rate were observed among the subgroups, ranging from 89% (T1N1a) to 31% (T4N2b) in the overall population. The contribution to the outcome of each therapeutic option in this setting varied widely across sub-stages. According to our model, patients with T1N1a cancers have a projected 5-year DFS of 79.6% with surgery alone. Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine alone results in 5.6% absolute DFS gain; an additional 2.3% and 0.8% gain is seen with oxaliplatin for 3 and 6 months, respectively. Patients with T4N2b cancers show a 13.9% 5-year DFS with surgery alone, and an 11.2%, 6.4%, 2.5% increase with the aforementioned adjuvant options, respectively. Conclusion The resulting overlay bar graph gives patients and doctors the projected relative benefit of each treatment option and may substantially help the shared decision-making process, although caution must be exercised in using this model due to the significant variance of the estimates.

Background: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival. Methods: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0–2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1–14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m 2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m 2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367. Findings: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0–77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3–26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8–19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87–1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5–71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02–2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%]). Interpretation: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Background The variability of definitions for time-to-event (TTE) end-points impacts the conclusions of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). The Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer (DATECAN) initiative aims to provide consensus definitions for TTE end-points used in RCTs. Here, we formulate guidelines for adjuvant colon cancer RCTs. Methods We performed a literature review to identify TTE end-points and events included in their definition in RCT publications. Then, a consensus was reached among a panel of international experts, using a formal modified Delphi method, with 2 rounds of questionnaires and an in-person meeting. Results Twenty-four experts scored 72 events involved in 6 TTE end-points. Consensus was reached for 24%, 57% and 100% events after the first round, second round and in-person meeting. For RCTs not using overall survival as their primary end-point, the experts recommend using disease-free survival (DFS) rather than recurrence-free survival (RFS) or time to recurrence (TTR) as the primary end-point. The consensus definition of DFS includes all causes of death, second primary colorectal cancers (CRCs), anastomotic relapse and metastatic relapse as an event, but not second primary non-CRCs. Events included in the RFS definition are the same as for DFS with the exception of second primary CRCs. The consensus definition of TTR includes anastomotic or metastatic relapse, death with evidence of recurrence and death from CC cause. Conclusion Standardised definitions of TTE end-points ensure the reproducibility of the end-points between RCTs and facilitate cross-trial comparisons. These definitions should be integrated in standard practice for the design, reporting and interpretation of adjuvant CC RCTs.

11 Background: Six months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Early treatment discontinuation (ETD) could worsen the prognosis. In addition, there is current lack of data on the prognostic impact of early oxaliplatin only discontinuation (EOD). Methods: We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC who participated in 11 relevant clinical trials of the ACCENT and IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or CAPOX). ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment before 75% of cycles of chemotherapy. EOD was defined as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only, while continuing the fluoropyrimidine, before 75% of cycles of oxaliplatin. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was assessed by Cox model adjusted for prognostic factors. Results: ETD analysis included 10,444 patients (FOLFOX n = 7,033; CAPOX n = 3,411), with 20.9% of patients with ETD (17.8% with FOLFOX and 27.2% with CAPOX, p < 0.001). Out of 7,243 patients, 18.8% experienced EOD (17.4% FOLFOX versus 21.4% with CAPOX, p < 0.001). Compared to patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, older, with higher ECOG-PS ≥ 1, and in addition for ETD, a Body Mass Index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2. In multivariate analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in DFS and OS in the overall population (HR: 1.40 95%CI 1.23-1.58, p < 0.001 and HR: 1.51 95%CI 1.31-1.74, p < 0.001, respectively). The same pattern was present with FOLFOX and CAPOX regimen, and also in low-risk and high-risk groups for each regimen with the exception of the CAPOX regimen in the low-risk group for DFS and OS. By contrast, EOD was not associated with reduced DFS or OS in the overall population (HR: 1.10 95%CI 0.77-1.58, p = 0.6 and HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.62-1.52, p = 0.9, respectively), in the low-risk group (HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.56-1.66, p = 0.9 and HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.51-1.82, p = 0.9, respectively) and high-risk group (HR: 1.22 95%CI 0.74-2.02, p = 0.4 and HR: 1.05 95%CI 0.53-2.08, p = 0.9, respectively) and for all subgroups of regimen. Conclusions: In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with a decrease in DFS and OS. By contrast, EOD was not significantly associated with poorer outcomes. In case of relevant neurotoxicity during a 6 months schedule, these data are not in favor of continuing oxaliplatin beyond 75% of planned cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, and demonstrate that fluoropyrimidines remain the cornerstone of adjuvant chemotherapy in localized CC.

196 Background: The ESMO clinical practice guidelines recommend consideration of Immunoscore (IS) for risk assessment of early colon cancer patients. IS clinical performance was assessed in the SCOT and IDEA-HORG trials evaluating 3 vs. 6 months (3m vs. 6m) of mFOLFOX6 adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: 1,002 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples (762 from SCOT;240 from HORG) were collected, of which 851 were eligible for biomarker analysis. Eligible samples were classified into 2 groups using pre-defined cut-offs (IS-Low, IS- High) and the performance of IS to predict 3 year disease-free survival (3y-DFS) was evaluated. Results: IS was successfully assessed in 846 cases (99%). 615 (72.7%) samples were classified as IS-High (311 and 304 in 3m and 6m arm, respectively). No significant association between IS and patients’ gender, age, PS, BMI or primary tumour location was observed. However, a significant difference between IS-High (43.7%) and IS Low (57.1%) was observed in the proportion of high risk (T4 and/or N2) tumours (p=0.001). Patients with IS-High tumors had significantly longer 3y-DFS (79.4%, 95%CI: 75.9%-82.4%) compared to those with IS-Low tumors (65.0%, 95%CI: 58.3%-70.9%); adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.9 (95%CI: 1.46-2.46; p

BACKGROUND\ud Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures.\ud \ud METHODS\ud We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12.\ud \ud RESULTS\ud After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority).\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS\ud Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.)

3517 Background: Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, age < 50) is steadily increasing. Decisions on adjuvant treatment (adjTx) regimen and duration should consider tx adherence, toxicity (tox) and expected outcomes in a population with life-expectancy longer than late onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual patient data from stage II/III patients (pts) from 6 randomised trials in the IDEA database were used to compare characteristics, tx adherence, and adverse events of eoCRC to loCRC. To reduce the confounder of non-cancer-related deaths due to age/co-morbidities, time-to-recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared by stratified Gay k-sample test. 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate were estimated by adjusted cumulative incidence function. 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were compared by stratified and adjusted COX models. Results: Out of 16,349 pts included, 1564 (9.6%) were eoCRC. Compared to loCRC, eoCRC had lower percent of male pts (51% vs 57%, p < 0.01) better performance status (PS0 86% vs 80%, p < 0.01), similar T stage distribution (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 vs 77/23, p = 0.97), higher rate of N2 disease (24% vs 22%, p < 0.01), more likely to complete pre-planned duration of adjTx (83.2% vs 78.2%, p < 0.01) and received a higher tx intensity especially with 6 month tx (mean oxaliplatin dose intensity 75% vs 72%, p < 0.01; capecitabine 85% vs 78%, p < 0.01; 5FU 85% vs 82% p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tox was more common in eoCRC (any grade nausea 58% vs 45%, p < 0.01; any grade vomiting 22% vs 16%, p < 0.01); haematological tox was more frequent in loCRC (62% vs, 69%, p = < 0.01); any grade neuropathy rate was similar (75%). Significant interaction was found between age and T stage for TTR (p = 0.04). Clinical outcome estimates and comparisons are shown in Table. Notably, high risk stage III (T4/N2) eoCRC had significantly lower 3-y RFS rate (54% vs 64%, HRadj 0.74, p < 0.01). Conclusions: eoCRC have better tx adherence than loCRC, as expected. While in high risk stage II and low risk stage III, cancer-specific outcomes are not different, in high risk stage III young age is negatively prognostic and associated with significantly higher relapse rate and risk of CRC death; this is despite a higher administered adjTx-intensity, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. Clinical trial information: NCT00749450 (SCOT); NCT00646607 (TOSCA); NCT01150045 (CALGB/SWOG 80702); NCT00958737 (IDEA France) [Table: see text]

Introduction: \ud Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice.\ud \ud Methods: \ud A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis.\ud \ud Results: \ud 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence.\ud \ud Discussion: \ud Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.

4004 Background: In overall population, IDEA pooled analysis did not demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) regarding 3y DFS in pts with stage III CC receiving 3m vs. 6m of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX. However, in pts treated with CAPOX (especially in low-risk pts), 3m of therapy was as effective as 6m. Results of OS and 5y DFS are reported. Methods: OS was defined as time from enrollment to death due to all causes. OS NI margin was conservatively set to be Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.11, which is equivalent to: the maximum acceptable loss of OS efficacy, by shortening treatment to 3m, was half of the OS efficacy gained in MOSAIC trial (i.e., 2.26% absolute reduction in 5y OS rate). Pre-planned sub-group analyses included by regimen and risk group for both OS and 5y DFS. NI was to be declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRa) NI p-value < 0.025. Results: With an overall median survival follow-up of 72 m (range per study, 62 to 84 m), 2584 deaths and 3777 DFS events among 12,835 pts from six trials were observed. Across 6 studies, 39.5% of pts received CAPOX (rate by study, 0% to 75.1%). Overall, the 5y OS rate was 82.4% (3m) and 82.8% (6m), with estimated OS HR of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.11; FDRa NI p, 0.058) and absolute 5-y OS rate difference of -0.4% (95% CI, -2.1 to 1.3%). Overall, the 5y DFS rate was 69.1% (3m) and 70.8% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.08 (95%CI, 1.01-1.15, FDRa NI p, 0.22). HRs (95% CI) within subgroups see table. Conclusions: 5y OS rate reported in IDEA trials was higher than historical rates, regardless of duration of therapy. While overall survival in IDEA did not meet prior statistical assumptions for NI in overall population, the 0.4% difference in 5y OS should be placed in clinical context. OS and 5y DFS results continue to support the use of 3m adjuvant CAPOX for the vast majority of stage III colon cancer pts. This conclusion is strengthened by the substantial reduction of toxicities, inconveniencies and cost associated with shorter treatment duration. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045; 2009-010384-16; NCT00749450; ISRCTN59757862; 2007-003957-10; UMIN000008543; 2007-000354 . [Table: see text]

205 Background: Histological phenotypic subtypes have been proposed that stratify survival in a discovery cohort of patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC). However, clinical utility has not been validated nor associations with recurrence and chemotherapy assessed. Therefore, this study assessed prognostic value in patients with stage I-III CRC as well as predictive value for recurrence and chemotherapy response. Methods: Two independent stage I-III CRC patient cohorts were utilized to assess associations between phenotypic subtypes, survival, and recurrence. Stage II-III patients, from the SCOT adjuvant chemotherapy trial, were utilized to assess associations between phenotypic subtypes and adjuvant chemotherapy response. Log rank analysis compared immune and stromal subtypes. Results: In an 867-patient internal cohort, phenotypic subtype stratified patients by disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 2.18 95% CI 2.26-4.47, p < 0.001); independent of stage and location. The stromal subtype also predicted increased local and distant recurrence (p < 0.001). In a 146-patient external validation cohort, phenotypic subtype significantly stratified patients by DFS (HR 3.43 95% CI 1.60-7.35, p = 0.001). In 1343 SCOT trial patients, phenotypic subtype significantly stratified patients by DFS (HR 1.59 95% CI 1.13-2.25, p = 0.010). Furthermore, there was evidence that the effect of regimen depended on phenotypic subtype (p = 0.048), only significantly stratifying DFS in patients receiving FOLFOX (HR 3.73 95% CI 1.58-8.81, p = 0.003) but not CAPOX (HR 0.84 95% CI 0.56-1.26, p = 0.396) adjuvant chemotherapy. Interestingly, the immune subtype associated with improved DFS in patients receiving FOLFOX compared to CAPOX adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 3.40 95% CI 1.41-8.19, p = 0.006). Whereas patients with a stromal subtype trended towards improved DFS in patients receiving CAPOX compared to FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.72 95% CI 0.50-1.05 p = 0.088). Conclusions: Histological phenotypic subtypes are an effective independent prognostic classification for patients with stage I-III CRC that can predict response to FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy as well as the presence of local and distant recurrence.

Background Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either ‘fighters’ or ‘fatalists’, and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as ‘fighters’ would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Background: Rilotumumab, an investigational, monoclonal antibody, inhibits MET-mediated signalling. In a randomized phase 2 trial of rilotumumab±epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine in gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer, patients receiving rilotumumab showed a trend towards improved survival, especially in MET-positive patients, but no clear dose–response relationship was observed. Exposure-response and biomarker analyses were used for dose selection and to differentiate patient subpopulations that may benefit most from treatment. Here, we analyse rilotumumab exposure–survival and exposure–safety and the impact of MET expression on these relationships. Methods: Individual rilotumumab exposure parameters were generated using population pharmacokinetic modelling. Relationships among rilotumumab dose (7.5 and 15 mg kg−1), exposure, and clinical outcomes (progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)) were evaluated with Cox regression models and Kaplan–Meier plots. MET status and other baseline covariates were evaluated in subgroup and multivariate analyses. Treatment-emergent adverse events were summarised by exposure. Results: Among MET-positive patients, higher rilotumumab exposure, vs placebo and low exposure, was associated with improved median PFS (80% CI: 7.0 (5.7–9.7) vs 4.4 (2.9–4.9) and 5.5 (4.2–6.8) months) and OS (13.4 (10.6–18.6) vs 5.7 (4.7–10.2) and 8.1 (6.9–11.1) months) without increased toxicity. No rilotumumab benefit was seen among MET-negative patients. Conclusions: Rilotumumab had an exposure-dependent treatment effect in patients with MET-positive gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer.

Summary Background Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer. Methods We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2 twice a day orally on days 1–21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550. Findings Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9–7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5–7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5–7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9–4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49–0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38–0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45–0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3–4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none). Interpretation Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress. Funding Amgen Inc.

Summary Background Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. Methods Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m 2 intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1–14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m 2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m 2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367. Findings 128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21·1 months (95% CI 12·6–33·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19·8 months (12·2–28·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20·7 months (95% CI 17·9–25·6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14·1 months [95% CI 11·8–15·9] vs 20·5 months [95% CI 16·8–26·7], hazard ratio 1·48, 95% CI 1·04–2·12, p=0·030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 [11%] preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four [4%] vs eight [8%] postoperatively), embolic events (six [4%] vs eight [6%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs three [3%] postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six [4%] vs one [1%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs four [4%] postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four [3%] vs six [4%] preoperatively; four [4%] vs two [2%] postoperatively), and skin rash (two [1%] vs 21 [15%] preoperatively; 0 vs eight [8%] postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related. Interpretation Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Figitumumab (CP-751,871) is a human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that binds and down-regulates insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF-1R) and inhibits activation of this receptor by IGF-1 and IGF-2. This nonrandomized, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of figitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that was refractory to ≥2 systemic therapies.Cohorts A and B received intravenous figitumumab 20 and 30 mg/kg in 3-week cycles, respectively. Both received loading doses (20 or 30 mg/kg) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1. The primary endpoint was 6-month survival (null hypothesis for each cohort, H0: p6 mo surv = 0.45). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response, safety, and pharmacokinetics.A total of 168 patients (Cohort A, n = 85; Cohort B, n = 83) received figitumumab. Estimated 6-month survival was 49.4 % (95 % CI 38.8-60.0) in Cohort A and 44.1 % (95 % CI 33.4-54.9) in Cohort B. Median OS was 5.8 and 5.6 months, respectively; median PFS was 1.4 months in both cohorts. No objective partial or complete responses occurred. The respective rates of treatment discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were 5 and 7 %. The most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic AEs in both cohorts were hyperglycemia and asthenia. No grade 4 hematologic laboratory abnormalities occurred. Most deaths were reported as due to progressive disease; none were due to figitumumab.Six-month survival data do not support further study of figitumumab 20 or 30 mg/kg in this patient population.

Background The orally administered combination trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride (TAS-102) has been approved as third line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer, demonstrating survival benefit and acceptable toxicity profile in the phase III RECOURSE study. Methods We performed an updated multicentre retrospective observational study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, receiving TAS-102 as third line treatment between 2016 and 2019 in 8 cancer centers across the UK. Medical records were reviewed for clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, survival and toxicity outcomes. Prognostic and predictive factors were identified with uni-and multivariate regression analyses. Results A total of 236 patients were included. Median age was 69 years (31-89). All patients had received at least 2 lines of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. About 10% of patients had ECOG > 2. Median duration of TAS-102 treatment was 3 months (0.2-25.9), with an ORR of 2.1% and disease control rate of 21.6%. Median OS was 7.6 months (95%CI 6.5-8.6) and median PFS 3.3 months (95%CI 3.01-3.57). A dose reduction was required in 27% of patients, while 7.6% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Neutropenia was present in 53%, (>G3 34%) with 4.6% cases of neutropaenic fever. Thrombocytopenia was less frequent 11% (>G3 1.6%). Fatigue was reported in 67.3% (G3 9%), nausea 30% (G3 3.3%) and diarrhoea 24.5% (G3 2%). Baseline Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) Conclusions These results are consistent with the efficacy and toxicity outcomes from RECOURSE study. However, lower disease control rates and higher rates of dose reductions are seen in the real-world population. Pre-treatment NLR and CEA could serve as potential markers for patient selection. Prospective validation is needed. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure C. Stavraka: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen. V. Aggelis: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen. T.J. Iveson: Advisory / Consultancy: Servier; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol-Myers Squibb. K. Shiu: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Guardant Health; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck KGaA; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sirtex; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier. M.E. Hill: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. P.J. Ross: Research grant / Funding (self): Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Servier; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: BMS; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Honoraria (self): Sirtex; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

TPS3624 Background: There is now a body of evidence indicating a potential role for aspirin in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. In cardiovascular trials, effects on incidence of cancer metastases and short-term mortality suggest further possible roles in the treatment setting, supported by observational studies of aspirin use after cancer diagnosis. In the prevention setting, aspirin use has been limited by toxicity concerns, particularly of serious bleeding. In the adjuvant setting, benefits associated with reducing recurrence and subsequent treatment may outweigh these risks. The Add-Aspirin trial will investigate this, and will also consider possible mechanisms of action for aspirin effects, including the impact of PIK3CA mutations, where there are currently several theories and conflicting data. Methods: Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN74358648) is an international, phase III, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial recruiting patients who have undergone surgery and relevant adjuvant treatment for stage II or III CRC, as well as those with completely resected CRC liver metastases. Parallel randomised cohorts will address the question in breast, gastro-oesophageal and prostate cancer. Participants take aspirin 100mg daily for an 8-week run-in, to assess adherence and toxicity, and those suitable to proceed are randomised (1:1:1) to aspirin 100mg, aspirin 300mg or placebo daily for at least 5 years. A number of measures – including blood pressure control and PPI use where relevant - are in place to reduce bleeding risk. The primary outcome is disease-free survival (target hazard ratio = 0.8, n = 2600 in 5 years) with a long term analysis of survival planned across the tumour groups. Translational work includes a sub-study monitoring urinary thromboxane B2 as a marker of platelet activation in a subgroup (n = 500) to investigate mechanisms of action. Add-Aspirin opened in 2015 and recruited 1505 CRC patients during the first 3 years from 137 UK centres. 1282 (85%) proceeded to randomisation. A pre-planned feasibility analysis of run-in data (n = 2253 across all 4 tumour groups) provided reassuring data on safety, tolerability and adherence, and recruitment continues with centres in India and Republic of Ireland recently joining. Clinical trial information: 74358648.

3501 Background: 6m of oxaliplatin-based treatment is an option as adj chemotherapy for patients with high risk stage II CC (T4, inadequate nodal harvest, poorly differentiated, obstruction, perforation or vascular/perineural invasion). The IDEA collaboration showed shorter treatment duration to be appropriate for most pts with stage III colon cancer. The results of the 4 IDEA studies with stage II pts are presented here. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of high-risk stage II patients from 4 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, ACHIEVE-2, HORG) was performed to evaluate non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adj FOLFOX/CAPOX (regimen preselected, not randomized). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.2. 542 DFS events were required to provide 80% power to declare NI. NI was also examined within regimen, T4 (Yes v No) and inadequate nodal harvest (Yes v No) as pre-planned subgroups. Results: The primary analysis included 3273 randomised pts of which 1254 had FOLFOX and 2019 had CAPOX. There were 552 events and the median follow-up was 60.2 m. There was significantly less grade 3-5 toxicity with 3m treatment (p < .0001). The 5-year DFS rate was 80.7% and 84.0% for 3m and 6m treatment with an estimated DFS HR of 1.18 (80% CI:1.05-1.31, p for NI = 0.404). For CAPOX the estimated HR was 1.02 (80% CI: 0.88-1.17, p for NI = 0.087) and for FOLFOX the estimated HR was 1.42 (80% CI: 1.19-1.70, p for NI = 0.894). The test for interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant (p = .174 adjusted for multiple testing) but was stronger than that for the other subgroups examined. Conclusions: In the overall population non-inferiority for 3m adj treatment in pts with high-risk stage II CC was not shown. As with the stage III population the choice of adj regimen appears important (although this did not reach statistical significance) with a small difference in DFS between 3 and 6 m treatment if CAPOX is used. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN59757862.

Summary Background EGFR overexpression occurs in 27–55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. Findings Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11·3 months (95% CI 9·6–13·0) compared with 8·8 months (7·7–9·8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·07–1·76; p=0·013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3–4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). Interpretation Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Funding Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

BackgroundThe addition of cetuximab to perioperative chemotherapy for operable colorectal liver metastases resulted in a shorter progression free survival. Details of disease progression are described to further inform the primary study outcome.MethodsA total of 257 KRAS wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy with cetuximab. Data regarding sites and treatment of progressive disease were obtained for the 109 (chemotherapy n=48, chemotherapy and cetuximab n=61) patients with progressive disease at the cut-off date for analysis of November 2012. ResultsThe liver was the most frequent site of progression (chemotherapy 67% (32/48); chemotherapy and cetuximab 66% (40/61)). A higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab group had multi-site/other sites of progressive disease (chemotherapy 8%, 4/48; chemotherapy and cetuximab 23%, 14/61 p=0.04). Further treatment for progressive disease is known for 84 patients of whom 69 received further chemotherapy, most frequently irinotecan based. Twenty two patients, 11 in each arm, received cetuximab as a further line agent. ConclusionBoth the distribution of progressive disease and further treatment are as expected for such a cohort. The pattern of disease progression seen is consistent with failure of systemic micrometastatic disease control rather than failure of local disease control following liver surgery.

BACKGROUND: The ABC-02 (Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer) study established cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) as the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (BTC). We examine quality of life (QoL), describe the long-term survivors and provide a long-term outcome.METHODS: A total of 410 BTC patients were randomised to receive either CisGem or gemcitabine alone (Gem); 324 patients consented to complete EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-PAN26 QoL questionnaires; 268 (83%) patients returned at least one QoL questionnaire (134 in each arm). Long-term survivors were defined as those surviving over 2 years and we performed a final analysis of the primary outcome; overall survival (OS).RESULTS: Most QoL scales showed a trend favouring the combined CisGem arm, including functional and symptomatic scales, although the differences were not statistically significant. Forty-five (11%)) patients survived at least 2 years (34 received CisGem and 11 Gem) and 21 (5%) 3 years or more (14 received CisGem and 7 Gem). After a median follow-up of 9.2 months and 398 deaths, the median OS was 11.7 months for CisGem and 8.1 months for Gem (hazard ratio (HR)=0.65, 95% CI: 0.53-0.79, PCONCLUSIONS: The survival advantage of CisGem compared to Gem was not associated with an improvement or deterioration of QoL. Long-term survivors were more likely to have received CisGem and the long-term OS is identical to that previously described.

Background: This study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) given over 90 min i.v. and l-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) given over 120 min on day 1, followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) bolus and then 2400 mg/m2 infused over 46 h) in untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and methods: In this multicentre, phase I, open-label, dose-finding trial, FOLFIRI was administered every 2 weeks. Two sunitinib regimens were explored: Schedule 4/2 (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; 37.5 and 50 mg/day) and continuous daily dosing (CDD; 37.5 and 25 mg/day). Dose-limiting toxic toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during weeks 1-6. Efficacy was a secondary objective. Results: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. The 37.5 mg/day Schedule 4/2 cohort had zero of six DLTs, was expanded by 15 patients and declared the MTD. The MTD was exceeded at all other sunitinib doses and schedules; DLTs included febrile neutropenia (n = 1), grade 4 neutropenia (n = 4) and grade 3 deep vein thrombosis with grade 4 neutropenia (n = 1). At the MTD, non-haematologic grade 3/4 adverse events with a frequency of >10% were diarrhoea, vomiting and lethargy, and the objective response rate was 57.9% (95% confidence interval 33.5-79.7). Conclusions: The MTD of sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI in chemotherapy-naive mCRC was 37.5 mg/day on Schedule 4/2. CDD of sunitinib at 37.5 or 25 mg/day plus FOLFIRI was not feasible.

Background: The epirubicin with cisplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECisF) regimen was found to be highly active in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and as neoadjuvant therapy. The UK TRAFIC (trial of adjuvant 5-FU infusional chemotherapy) trial (CRUK/95/007) compared this schedule with 5-FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) as adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer. Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial, 349 women were randomly assigned to receive i.v. ECisF [epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2), day 1 and 5-FU 200 mg/m(2) by daily 24-h infusion (n = 172)] or FEC [5-FU 600 mg/m(2), day 1, epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), day 1 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), day 1 (n = 177)]. Both treatments were delivered every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was relapse-free interval (RFI). TRAFIC is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCTN 83324925). Results: All randomised patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 112 months, there was no significant difference in RFI between the treatment groups [hazard ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.60-1.19); P = 0.33]. Toxic effects were more frequent in patients allocated to ECisF. Conclusions: While limited by size, TRAFIC has long follow-up. No evidence of a clinically worthwhile benefit for the infusional treatment compared with standard treatment was observed which would justify further investigation or widespread use.

3599Background: The IDEA collaboration pooled data from nearly13,000 patients (pts), comparing 3 vs. 6 months (m) of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin to test noninferiority for disease-fr...

3602Background: The optimal duration of ACT following surgery for colon cancer remains controversial. SCOT is an international, randomised trial that compared 3 months versus 6 months of ACT in thi...

Background: it is unclear if differential chemotherapy effects exist on overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity depending on primary tumour origin [oesophageal versus oesophago–gastric junction (OGJ) versus gastric adenocarcinoma]. Patients and methods: a total of 2110 patients were enrolled in four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing fluoropyrimidine ± platinum-based chemotherapy. This analysis used individual patient data and restricted to patients with adenocarcinoma who received one or more dose of chemotherapy. Gastric origin was the control in comparisons of tumour origin. Results: of the 2110 patients randomised, 1775 (84%) patients had adenocarcinoma with oesophageal (n?=?485), OGJ (n?=?457) and gastric (n?=?833) origins. The median OS was 9.5 months in oesophageal, 9.3 months in OGJ and 8.7 months in gastric cancer (P?=?0.68). RR was 44.1% in oesophageal, 41.1% in OGJ and 35.6% in gastric cancers (P?=?0.11 and 0.27, respectively, compared with gastric cancer on multivariate analysis). Toxicity composite end point occurred in 46%, 47% and 45% in oesophageal, OGJ and gastric cancers, respectively (P?=?0.85 and 0.62 compared with gastric). Conclusions: in our large multicentre RCT dataset, no significant differences were demonstrated on multivariate analyses in OS, RR and toxic effects among patients with advanced oesophageal, OGJ and gastric adenocarcinoma. Future RCTs should not exclude oesophageal adenocarcinoma