Search

BackgroundThe Worldwide Innovative Network (WIN) Consortium has developed the Simplified Interventional Mapping System (SIMS) to better define the cancer molecular milieu based on genomics/transcriptomics from tumor and analogous normal tissue biopsies. SPRING is the first trial to assess a SIMS-based tri-therapy regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients with advanced NSCLC (no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 alterations; PD-L1 unrestricted; ≤2 prior therapy lines) received avelumab, axitinib, and palbociclib (3 + 3 dose escalation design).ResultsFifteen patients were treated (five centers, four countries): six at each of dose levels 1 (DL1) and DL2; three at DL3. The most common ≥Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia, hypertension, and fatigue. The recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) was DL1: avelumab 10 mg/kg IV q2weeks, axitinib 3 mg po bid, and palbociclib 75 mg po daily (7 days off/21 days on). Four patients (27%) achieved a partial response (PR) (progression-free survival [PFS]: 14, 24, 25 and 144+ weeks), including two after progression on pembrolizumab. Four patients attained stable disease (SD) that lasted ≥24 weeks: 24, 27, 29, and 64 weeks. At DL1 (RP2D), four of six patients (66%) achieved stable disease (SD) ≥6 months/PR (2 each). Responders included patients with no detectable PD-L1 expression and low tumor mutational burden.ConclusionsOverall, eight of 15 patients (53%) achieved clinical benefit (SD ≥ 24 weeks/PR) on the avelumab, axitinib, and palbociclib combination. This triplet showed antitumor activity in NSCLC, including in tumors post-pembrolizumab progression, and was active at the RP2D, which was well tolerated. NCT03386929 clinicaltrial.gov.

PURPOSE The prognosis of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), traditionally determined by anatomic histology and TNM staging, neglects the biological features of the tumor that may be important in determining patient outcome and guiding therapeutic interventions. Identifying patients with NSCLC at increased risk of recurrence after curative-intent surgery remains an important unmet need so that known effective adjuvant treatments can be offered to those at highest risk of recurrence. METHODS Relative gene expression level in the primary tumor and normal bronchial tissues was used to retrospectively assess their association with disease-free survival (DFS) in a cohort of 120 patients with NSCLC who underwent curative-intent surgery. RESULTS Low versus high Digital Display Precision Predictor (DDPP) score (a measure of relative gene expression) was significantly associated with shorter DFS (highest recurrence risk; P = .006) in all patients and in patients with TNM stages 1-2 (P = .00051; n = 83). For patients with stages 1-2 and low DDPP score (n = 29), adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved DFS (P = .0041). High co-overexpression of CTLA-4, PD-L1, and ICOS in normal lung (28 of 120 patients) was also significantly associated with decreased DFS (P = .0013), suggesting an immune tolerance to tumor neoantigens in some patients. Patients with DDPP low and immunotolerant normal tissue had the shortest DFS (P = 2.12E–11). CONCLUSION TNM stage, DDPP score, and immune competence status of normal lung are independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Our findings open new avenues for prospective prognostic assessment and treatment assignment on the basis of transcriptomic profiling of tumor and normal lung tissue in patients with NSCLC.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) elicits a T-cell antigen-mediated immune response of variable efficacy. To understand this variability, we explored transcriptomic expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor) and of immunoregulatory genes in normal lung tissues from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: This study used the transcriptomic and the clinical data for NSCLC patients generated during the CHEMORES study [n = 123 primary resected (early-stage) NSCLC] and the WINTHER clinical trial (n = 32 metastatic NSCLC). Results: We identified patient subgroups with high and low ACE2 expression (p = 1.55 × 10−19) in normal lung tissue, presumed to be at higher and lower risk, respectively, of developing severe COVID-19 should they become infected. ACE2 transcript expression in normal lung tissues (but not in tumor tissue) of patients with NSCLC was higher in individuals with more advanced disease. High-ACE2 expressors had significantly higher levels of CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes and natural killer cells but with presumably impaired function by high Thymocyte Selection-Associated High Mobility Group Box Protein TOX (TOX) expression. In addition, immune checkpoint-related molecules – PD-L1, CTLA-4, PD-1, and TIGIT – are more highly expressed in normal (but not tumor) lung tissues; these molecules might dampen immune response to either viruses or cancer. Importantly, however, high inducible T-cell co-stimulator (ICOS), which can amplify immune and cytokine reactivity, significantly correlated with high ACE2 expression in univariable analysis of normal lung (but not lung tumor tissue). Conclusions: We report a normal lung immune-tolerant state that may explain a potential comorbidity risk between two diseases – NSCLC and susceptibility to COVID-19 pneumonia. Further, a NSCLC patient subgroup has normal lung tissue expressing high ACE2 and high ICOS transcripts, the latter potentially promoting a hyperimmu

PURPOSE The prognosis of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), traditionally determined by anatomic histology and TNM staging, neglects the biological features of the tumor that may be important in determining patient outcome and guiding therapeutic interventions. Identifying patients with NSCLC at increased risk of recurrence after curative-intent surgery remains an important unmet need so that known effective adjuvant treatments can be offered to those at highest risk of recurrence. METHODS Relative gene expression level in the primary tumor and normal bronchial tissues was used to retrospectively assess their association with disease-free survival (DFS) in a cohort of 120 patients with NSCLC who underwent curative-intent surgery. RESULTS Low versus high Digital Display Precision Predictor (DDPP) score (a measure of relative gene expression) was significantly associated with shorter DFS (highest recurrence risk; P = .006) in all patients and in patients with TNM stages 1-2 (P = .00051; n = 83). For patients with stages 1-2 and low DDPP score (n = 29), adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved DFS (P = .0041). High co-overexpression of CTLA-4, PD-L1, and ICOS in normal lung (28 of 120 patients) was also significantly associated with decreased DFS (P = .0013), suggesting an immune tolerance to tumor neoantigens in some patients. Patients with DDPP low and immunotolerant normal tissue had the shortest DFS (P = 2.12E–11). CONCLUSION TNM stage, DDPP score, and immune competence status of normal lung are independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Our findings open new avenues for prospective prognostic assessment and treatment assignment on the basis of transcriptomic profiling of tumor and normal lung tissue in patients with NSCLC.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) elicits a T-cell antigen-mediated immune response of variable efficacy. To understand this variability, we explored transcriptomic expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor) and of immunoregulatory genes in normal lung tissues from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: This study used the transcriptomic and the clinical data for NSCLC patients generated during the CHEMORES study [n = 123 primary resected (early-stage) NSCLC] and the WINTHER clinical trial (n = 32 metastatic NSCLC). Results: We identified patient subgroups with high and low ACE2 expression (p = 1.55 × 10−19) in normal lung tissue, presumed to be at higher and lower risk, respectively, of developing severe COVID-19 should they become infected. ACE2 transcript expression in normal lung tissues (but not in tumor tissue) of patients with NSCLC was higher in individuals with more advanced disease. High-ACE2 expressors had significantly higher levels of CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes and natural killer cells but with presumably impaired function by high Thymocyte Selection-Associated High Mobility Group Box Protein TOX (TOX) expression. In addition, immune checkpoint-related molecules – PD-L1, CTLA-4, PD-1, and TIGIT – are more highly expressed in normal (but not tumor) lung tissues; these molecules might dampen immune response to either viruses or cancer. Importantly, however, high inducible T-cell co-stimulator (ICOS), which can amplify immune and cytokine reactivity, significantly correlated with high ACE2 expression in univariable analysis of normal lung (but not lung tumor tissue). Conclusions: We report a normal lung immune-tolerant state that may explain a potential comorbidity risk between two diseases – NSCLC and susceptibility to COVID-19 pneumonia. Further, a NSCLC patient subgroup has normal lung tissue expressing high ACE2 and high ICOS transcripts, the latter potentially promoting a hyperimmu

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

PURPOSE To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales., SCOPUS: ar.j, DecretOANoAutActif, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. Methods: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Results: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. Conclusions: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.

ImportanceCombining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer.Design, setting, and participantsPatients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015.InterventionsCetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response.ResultsAmong 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progressi

PurposeConventional staging methods are inadequate to identify patients with stage II colon cancer (CC) who are at high risk of recurrence after surgery with curative intent. ColDx is a gene expression, microarray-based assay shown to be independently prognostic for recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival in CC. The objective of this study was to further validate ColDx using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens collected as part of the Alliance phase III trial, C9581.Patients and methodsC9581 evaluated edrecolomab versus observation in patients with stage II CC and reported no survival benefit. Under an initial case-cohort sampling design, a randomly selected subcohort (RS) comprised 514 patients from 901 eligible patients with available tissue. Forty-nine additional patients with recurrence events were included in the analysis. Final analysis comprised 393 patients: 360 RS (58 events) and 33 non-RS events. Risk status was determined for each patient by ColDx. The Self-Prentice method was used to test the association between the resulting ColDx risk score and RFI adjusting for standard prognostic variables.ResultsFifty-five percent of patients (216 of 393) were classified as high risk. After adjustment for prognostic variables that included mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, ColDx high-risk patients exhibited significantly worse RFI (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; P < .01). Age and MMR status were marginally significant. RFI at 5 years for patients classified as high risk was 82% (95% CI, 79% to 85%), compared with 91% (95% CI, 89% to 93%) for patients classified as low risk.ConclusionColDx is associated with RFI in the C9581 subsample in the presence of other prognostic factors, including MMR deficiency. ColDx could be incorporated with the traditional clinical markers of risk to refine patient prognosis.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Targeted monotherapies produce high regression rates, albeit for limited patient subgroups, who inevitably succumb. We present a novel strategy for identifying customized combinations of triplets of targeted agents, utilizing a simplified interventional mapping system (SIMS) that merges knowledge about existent drugs and their impact on the hallmarks of cancer. Based on interrogation of matched lung tumor and normal tissue using targeted genomic sequencing, copy number variation, transcriptomics, and miRNA expression, the activation status of 24 interventional nodes was elucidated. An algorithm was developed to create a scoring system that enables ranking of the activated interventional nodes for each patient. Based on the trends of co-activation at interventional points, combinations of drug triplets were defined in order to overcome resistance. This methodology will inform a prospective trial to be conducted by the WIN consortium, aiming to significantly impact survival in metastatic NSCLC and other malignancies.

PurposeThe impact of a personalized cancer treatment strategy (ie, matching patients with drugs based on specific biomarkers) is still a matter of debate.MethodsWe reviewed phase II single-agent studies (570 studies; 32,149 patients) published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012 (PubMed search). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for arms that used a personalized strategy versus those that did not.ResultsMultivariable analysis (both weighted multiple linear regression and random effects meta-regression) demonstrated that the personalized approach, compared with a nonpersonalized approach, consistently and independently correlated with higher median RR (31% v 10.5%, respectively; P < .001) and prolonged median PFS (5.9 v 2.7 months, respectively; P < .001) and OS (13.7 v 8.9 months, respectively; P < .001). Nonpersonalized targeted arms had poorer outcomes compared with either personalized targeted therapy or cytotoxics, with median RR of 4%, 30%, and 11.9%, respectively; median PFS of 2.6, 6.9, and 3.3 months, respectively (all P < .001); and median OS of 8.7, 15.9, and 9.4 months, respectively (all P < .05). Personalized arms using a genomic biomarker had higher median RR and prolonged median PFS and OS (all P ≤ .05) compared with personalized arms using a protein biomarker. A personalized strategy was associated with a lower treatment-related death rate than a nonpersonalized strategy (median, 1.5% v 2.3%, respectively; P < .001).ConclusionComprehensive analysis of phase II, single-agent arms revealed that, across malignancies, a personalized strategy was an independent predictor of better outcomes and fewer toxic deaths. In addition, nonpersonalized targeted therapies were associated with significantly poorer outcomes than cytotoxic agents, which in turn were worse than personalized targeted therapy.

In order to ascertain the impact of a biomarker-based (personalized) strategy, we compared outcomes between US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cancer treatments that were studied with and without such a selection rationale. Anticancer agents newly approved (September 1998 to June 2013) were identified at the Drugs@FDA website. Efficacy, treatment-related mortality, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event endpoints were analyzed and compared in registration trials for these agents. All statistical tests were two-sided. Fifty-eight drugs were included (leading to 57 randomized [32% personalized] and 55 nonrandomized trials [47% personalized], n = 38 104 patients). Trials adopting a personalized strategy more often included targeted (100% vs 65%, P < .001), oral (68% vs 35%, P = .001), and single agents (89% vs 71%, P = .04) and more frequently permitted crossover to experimental treatment (67% vs 28%, P = .009). In randomized registration trials (using a random-effects meta-analysis), personalized therapy arms were associated with higher relative response rate ratios (RRRs, compared with their corresponding control arms) (RRRs = 3.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.51 to 5.82, vs RRRs = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.76 to 2.47, adjusted P = .03), longer PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.51, vs HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.65, adjusted P < .001) and a non-statistically significantly longer OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.83, vs HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.85, adjusted P = .07) compared with nonpersonalized trials. Analysis of experimental arms in all 112 registration trials (randomized and nonrandomized) demonstrated that personalized therapy was associated with higher response rate (48%, 95% CI = 42% to 55%, vs 23%, 95% CI = 20% to 27%, P < .001) and longer PFS (median = 8.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 5 vs 5.5 months, IQR = 5, adjusted P = .002) and OS (median = 19.3, IQR = 17 vs 13.5 months, IQR = 8, Adjusted P = .04). A personalize

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading cause of death worldwide. Targeted monotherapies produce high regression rates, albeit for limited patient subgroups, who inevitably succumb. We present a novel strategy for identifying customized combinations of triplets of targeted agents, utilizing a simplified interventional mapping system (SIMS) that merges knowledge about existent drugs and their impact on the hallmarks of cancer. Based on interrogation of matched lung tumor and normal tissue using targeted genomic sequencing, copy number variation, transcriptomics, and miRNA expression, the activation status of 24 interventional nodes was elucidated. An algorithm was developed to create a scoring system that enables ranking of the activated interventional nodes for each patient. Based on the trends of co-activation at interventional points, combinations of drug triplets were defined in order to overcome resistance. This methodology will inform a prospective trial to be conducted by the WIN consortium, aiming to significantly impact survival in metastatic NSCLC and other malignancies.

PurposeA greater understanding of the biology of tumor recurrence should improve adjuvant treatment decision making. We conducted a validation study of the 12-gene recurrence score (RS), a quantitative assay integrating stromal response and cell cycle gene expression, in tumor specimens from patients enrolled onto Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9581.Patients and methodsCALGB 9581 randomly assigned 1,713 patients with stage II colon cancer to treatment with edrecolomab or observation and found no survival difference. The analysis reported here included all patients with available tissue and recurrence (n = 162) and a random (approximately 1:3) selection of nonrecurring patients. RS was assessed in 690 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples with quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction by using prespecified genes and a previously validated algorithm. Association of RS and recurrence was analyzed by weighted Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsContinuous RS was significantly associated with risk of recurrence (P = .013) as was mismatch repair (MMR) gene deficiency (P = .044). In multivariate analyses, RS was the strongest predictor of recurrence (P = .004), independent of T stage, MMR, number of nodes examined, grade, and lymphovascular invasion. In T3 MMR-intact (MMR-I) patients, prespecified low and high RS groups had average 5-year recurrence risks of 13% (95% CI, 10% to 16%) and 21% (95% CI, 16% to 26%), respectively.ConclusionThe 12-gene RS predicts recurrence in stage II colon cancer in CALGB 9581. This is consistent with the importance of stromal response and cell cycle gene expression in colon tumor recurrence. RS appears to be most discerning for patients with T3 MMR-I tumors, although markers such as grade and lymphovascular invasion did not add value in this subset of patients.