Search

We conducted the first large genome‐wide association study to identify novel genetic variants that predict better (or poorer) prognosis in colorectal cancer patients receiving standard first‐line oxaliplatin‐based chemotherapy vs chemotherapy without oxaliplatin. We used data from two phase III trials, NCCTG N0147 and NCCTG N9741 and a population‐based patient cohort, DACHS. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were employed, including an interaction term between each SNP and type of treatment for overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival. The analysis was performed for studies individually, and the results were combined using fixed‐effect meta‐analyses separately for resected stage III colon cancer (3098 patients from NCCTG N0147 and 549 patients from DACHS) and mCRC (505 patients from NCCTG N9741 and 437 patients from DACHS). We further performed gene‐based analysis as well as in silico bioinformatics analysis for CRC‐relevant functional genomic annotation of identified loci. In stage III colon cancer patients, a locus on chr22 (rs11912167) was associated with significantly poorer OS after oxaliplatin‐based chemotherapy vs chemotherapy without oxaliplatin (Pinteraction < 5 × 10−8). For mCRC patients, three loci on chr1 (rs1234556), chr12 (rs11052270) and chr15 (rs11858406) were found to be associated with differential OS (P < 5 × 10−7). The locus on chr1 located in the intronic region of RCSD1 was replicated in an independent cohort of 586 mCRC patients from ALGB/SWOG 80405 (Pinteraction =.04). The GWA gene‐based analysis yielded for RCSD1 the most significant association with differential OS in mCRC (P = 6.6 × 10−6). With further investigation into its biological mechanisms, this finding could potentially be used to individualize first‐line treatment and improve clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The recommended duration of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is based on tumor classification into clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and high-risk (T4 or N2) groups. We determined whether Immunoscore can enhance prognostication within these risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with stage III colon carcinomas (N = 600) were randomly selected from the infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin arm of adjuvant trial NCCTG N0147 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Tumors were evaluated for Immunoscore that quantifies CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell densities in the tumor center and invasive margin by digital image analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) by Immunoscore was analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression model in each risk group with adjustment for covariates including KRAS , BRAF V600E , and mismatch repair status. RESULTS: Of 559 cancers with Immunoscore data, 299 (53.5%) were classified as clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and 260 (46.5%) as clinically high-risk (T4 and/or N2). Among patients with low-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors had significantly worse 5-year DFS rates (77.5% v 91.8%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.79; P =.037). Among patients with high-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors also had significantly worse DFS (55.3% v 70.3%; hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.47; P =.013). Tumors that were low-risk/Immunoscore-Low had similar outcomes as did tumors that were high-risk/Immunoscore-High (P =.174). Prognostication was significantly improved in multivariable models where Immunoscore was added to clinical risk parameters and limited biomarkers (likelihood ratio test P =.0003). CONCLUSION: Immunoscore can refine patient prognosis beyond clinical risk group classification, suggesting its potential utility for adjuvant decision making. Immunoscore can refine prognosis beyond clinical risk group classification in stage III colon cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Progression‐free survival (PFS) has been the regulatory primary end‐point for recent phase III trials in first‐line follicular lymphoma (FL), but requires prolonged follow‐up. Complete response (CR) at 30 months after initiation of induction treatment was validated as surrogate end‐point for PFS. Our objective was to further evaluate surrogacy of CR measured by [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging at the end of induction (EoI). Individual patient data were analysed from 1505 patients from five randomized trials. Trial‐level surrogacy examining the association between treatment effects on EoI‐PET‐CR and PFS was evaluated using linear regression (RWLS2) and bivariate Copula (RCopula2) models. Although EoI‐PET‐CR strongly predicted PFS at a prognostic level, the trial‐level assessment did not show strong correlation (RWLS2=0.56, confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–0.88; RCopula2=0.35, CI: 0.0–0.82). The high uncertainty in estimation was possibly due to the small number of trials and the population of patients with available PET data. Maintenance therapy affecting PFS beyond induction treatment, but not EoI‐PET‐CR end‐point, may have distorted the association between treatment effects. However, there will probably be a number of additional trials approaching completion with available PET response data. Refined evaluation of PET‐CR based surrogate end‐points is still warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Importance: Aspirin and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have been associated with a reduced risk of colorectal polyps and cancer in observational and randomized studies. The effect of celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, as treatment for nonmetastatic colon cancer is unknown.Objective: To determine if the addition of celecoxib to adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival in patients with stage III colon cancer.Design, Setting, and Participants: Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/Southwest Oncology Group 80702 was a 2 × 2 factorial design, phase 3 trial conducted at 654 community and academic centers throughout the United States and Canada. A total of 2526 patients with stage III colon cancer were enrolled between June 2010 and November 2015 and were followed up through August 10, 2020.Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive adjuvant FOLFOX (every 2 weeks) for 3 vs 6 months with or without 3 years of celecoxib (400 mg orally daily; n = 1263) vs placebo (n = 1261). This report focuses on the results of the celecoxib randomization.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival, measured from the time of randomization until documented recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points included overall survival, adverse events, and cardiovascular-specific events.Results: Of the 2526 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.0 years [11 years]; 1134 women [44.9%]), 2524 were included in the primary analysis. Adherence with protocol treatment, defined as receiving celecoxib or placebo for more than 2.75 years or continuing treatment until recurrence, death, or unacceptable adverse events, was 70.8% for patients treated with celecoxib and 69.9% for patients treated with placebo. A total of 337 patients randomized to celecoxib and 363 to placebo experienced disease recurrence or died, and with 6 years' median follow-up, the 3-year disease-free survival was 76.3% for celecoxib-treated patients vs 73.4% for placebo-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] for disease recurrence or death, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .12). The effect of celecoxib treatment on disease-free survival did not vary significantly according to assigned duration of adjuvant chemotherapy (P for interaction = .61). Five-year overall survival was 84.3% for celecoxib vs 81.6% for placebo (HR for death, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .13). Hypertension (any grade) occurred while treated with FOLFOX in 14.6% of patients in the celecoxib group vs 10.9% of patients in the placebo group, and a grade 2 or higher increase in creatinine levels occurred after completion of FOLFOX in 1.7% vs 0.5% of patients, respectively.Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with stage III colon cancer, the addition of celecoxib for 3 years, compared with placebo, to standard adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve disease-free survival.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the "Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade" method. Methods: We developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as "early" (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or "late" (i.e. after the 6th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies ("Irinotecan" and "Oxaliplatin") from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database (fondationarcad.org). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting. Results: Our method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3–4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset. Conclusion: We developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are used in conjunction with imaging to monitor response to systemic therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We sought to identify a threshold for CEA change from baseline to predict progressive disease (PD) in mCRC patients receiving first-line therapy.Methods: Patients from trials collected in the ARCAD database were included if baseline CEA was at least 10 ng/mL and repeat CEA was available within 14 days of first restaging scan. Optimal cutoffs for CEA change were identified by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Prediction performance of cutoffs was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value. Analyses were conducted by treatment class: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, and chemotherapy with anti-EGFR antibody.Results: A total of 2643 mCRC patients treated with systemic therapy were included. Median percent change of CEA from baseline to first restaging for patients with complete response, partial response, or stable disease (non-PD) and PD was -53.1% and +23.6% for chemotherapy alone (n = 957) and -71.7% and -45.3% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody (n = 1355). The optimal area under the curve cutoff for differentiating PD from non-PD on first restaging was -7.5% for chemotherapy alone and -62.0% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody; chemotherapy alone, adjusted odds ratio = 6.51 (95% CI = 3.31 to 12.83, P < .001), chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, adjusted odds ratio = 3.45 (95% CI = 1.93 to 6.18, P < .001). A 99% negative predictive value clinical cutoff for prediction of non-PD would avoid CT scan at first restaging in 21.0% of chemotherapy alone and 16.2% of chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody-treated patients. Among patients with stable disease on first restaging, those with decreased CEA from baseline had statistically significantly improved progression-free and overall survival.Conclusions: Change in CEA from baseline to first restaging can accurately predict non-progression and correlates with long-term outcomes in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The purpose of this study is to evaluate HealthCore/Anthem Research Network recruitment strategies, compare response and enrollment rates for different recruitment strategies, and describe demographic and clinical characteristics of responders and enrollees. Methods: HealthCore/Anthem Research Network, a part of the Health Plan Research Network of the Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network, used administrative claims data to identify eligible health plan members for potential participation in the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness study. We approached health plan members, identified with a validated Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network common data model computable phenotype, and their clinical providers during November 2017 to August 2018. Providers were offered the option to exclude their patients' participation in Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness prior to our direct patient (member) outreach. Member identification was in two phases: Phase 1: 1 January 2006 to 1 April 2017, and Phase 2: 1 January 2006 to 2 February 2018. Phase 1 consisted of two batches of mail and one phone call per patient. In Phase 2, which included two similar batches of patients, outreach was via either mail or brochure and one phone call. Results: Phase 1 and Phase 2 included 133,373 and 51,777 members, respectively. We engaged 28,593 providers in Phase 1, and 5077 in Phase 2. In Phase 1, 264,158 mixed email/mail messages were delivered to 133,373 members, followed by 90,481 phone calls from November 2017 to February 2018. In Phase 2, after simple randomization to letter or brochure, 51,777 members were sent email/mail or mailed brochure in three waves from May 2018 to July 2018. In this 9-week period, 51,623 communications were sent to 25,914 members in the email/mail group, and 50,160 brochures to 25,863 in the brochure group. Following email/mail or mailed brochure outreach, 16,624 and 16,580 calls were made to the groups, respectively. Overall, 1549 health plan members visited the study portal by 1 September 2018; 355 electronically signed the Informed Consent Form and enrolled. Mailed brochures drove more portal visits in Phase 2, but a lower percentage of responders enrolled. Recruitment was better in Phase 2—2.3 enrollees per 1000 outreach members versus 1.8 in Phase 1. Conclusion: This study showed the ability of a health plan within Patient-Centered Clinical Data Research Network to identify potential study participants with administrative claims, and use different outreach methods to facilitate recruitment and enrollment for pragmatic clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) is emerging as a next-generation standards framework developed by HL7 for exchanging electronic health care data. The modeling capability of FHIR in standardizing cancer data has been gaining increasing attention by the cancer research informatics community. However, few studies have been conducted to examine the capability of FHIR in electronic data capture (EDC) applications for effective cancer clinical trials. The objective of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate an FHIR-based method that enables the automation of the case report forms (CRFs) population for cancer clinical trials using real-world electronic health records (EHRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an FHIR-based computational pipeline of EDC with a case study for modeling colorectal cancer trials. We first leveraged an existing FHIR-based cancer profile to represent EHR data of patients with colorectal cancer, and then we used the FHIR Questionnaire and QuestionnaireResponse resources to represent the CRFs and their data population. To test the accuracy of and overall quality of the computational pipeline, we used synoptic reports of 287 Mayo Clinic patients with colorectal cancer from 2013 to 2019 with standard measures of precision, recall, and F1 score. RESULTS: Using the computational pipeline, a total of 1,037 synoptic reports were successfully converted as the instances of the FHIR-based cancer profile. The average accuracy for converting all data elements (excluding tumor perforation) of the cancer profile was 0.99, using 200 randomly selected records. The average F1 score for populating nine questions of the CRFs in a real-world colorectal cancer trial was 0.95, using 100 randomly selected records. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that it is feasible to populate CRFs with EHR data in an automated manner with satisfactory performance. The outcome of the study provides helpful insight into future directions in implementing FHIR-based EDC applications for modern cancer clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predicting the times of milestone events, ie, interim and final analyses in clinical trials, helps resource planning. This manuscript presents and compares several easily implemented methods for predicting when a milestone event is achieved. We show that it is beneficial to combine the predictions from different models to craft a better predictor through prediction synthesis. Furthermore, a Bayesian approach provides a better measure of the uncertainty involved in prediction of milestone events. We compare the methods through two simulations where the model has been correctly specified and where the models are a mixture of three incorrectly specified model classes. We then apply the methods on two real clinical trial data, North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N0147 and N9841. In summary, the Bayesian prediction synthesis methods automatically perform well even when the data collection is far from homogeneous. An R shiny app is under development to carry out the prediction in a user‐friendly fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enhanced knowledge of the biological and genetic basis of cancer is re-defining the target population for new treatments. In oncology, potential targets for a new therapeutic agent often include various solid and hematologic malignancies that share common signaling pathways. New agents are often tested in multiple tumor types across which information can be borrowed. We propose a hierarchical Bayesian design (HBD) to simultaneously test a novel agent in multiple groups for randomized Phase II clinical trials with binary endpoints. Compared to parallel design for individual tumor groups, the HBD has greatly reduced sample size. Therefore, this improves efficiency and decreases the financial cost of conducting randomized Phase II clinical trials. An R package hbdct has been developed to implement the HBD and streamline the sample size calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary describes the progress of the SEAL [Surrogate Endpoints for Aggressive Lymphoma] research group and invites collaboration in sharing data to continue building a large database of individual patient data from multiple clinical trials in DLBCL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Borderline resectable pancreatic cancers infiltrate into adjacent vascular structures to an extent that makes an R0 resection unlikely when pancreatectomy is performed de novo. In a pilot study, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Trial A021101, the median survival of patients who received chemotherapy and radiation prior to anticipated pancreatectomy was 22 months, and 64% of operations achieved an R0 resection. However, the individual contributions of preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy to therapeutic outcome remain poorly defined.Methods: In Alliance for Clinical Oncology Trial A021501, a recently activated randomized phase II trial, patients (N = 134) with a CT or MRI showing a biopsy-confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma that meets centrally-reviewed anatomic criteria for borderline resectable disease will be randomized to receive either 8 cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 2 days for 4 cycles) or to 7 cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX followed by stereotactic body radiation therapy (33-40 Gy in 5 fractions). Patients without evidence of disease progression following preoperative therapy will undergo pancreatectomy and will subsequently receive 4 cycles of postoperative modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, bolus 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2, and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 2 days for 4 cycles). The primary endpoint is the 18-month overall survival rate of patients enrolled into each of the two treatment arms. An interim analysis of the R0 resection rate within each arm will be conducted to assess treatment futility after accrual of 30 patients. Secondary endpoints include rates of margin-negative resection and event-free survival. The primary analysis will compare the 18-month overall survival rate of each arm to a historical control rate of 50%. The trial is activated nationwide and eligible to be opened for accrual at any National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group member site.Discussion: This study will help define standard preoperative treatment regimens for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer and position the superior arm for further evaluation in future phase III trials.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02839343 , registered July 14, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutations within microsatellite-unstable (MSI) and microsatellite-stable (MSS) subgroups of resected colon carcinoma patients remains controversial. We examined this question in prospectively collected biospecimens from stage III colon cancer with separate analysis of MSI and MSS tumors from patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant therapy trials.Methods: Three groups were defined: BRAF Mutant, KRAS Mutant, and double wild-type. The analytic strategy involved estimation of study-specific effects, assessment of homogeneity of results, and then analysis of pooled data as no differences in patient outcome were found between treatment arms in both trials. Associations of mutations with patient outcome were analyzed, and multivariable models were adjusted for treatment and relevant factors.Results: Four thousand four hundred eleven tumors were evaluable for BRAF and KRAS mutations and mismatch repair status; 3934 were MSS and 477 were MSI. In MSS patients, all BRAF V600E mutations (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.92, P < .001), KRAS codon 12 alterations, and p.G13D mutations (HR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.40 to 1.83, P < .001) were associated with shorter time to recurrence (TTR) and shorter survival after relapse (SAR; HR = 3.02 , 95% CI = 2.32 to 3.93, P < .001, and HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.44, P = .04, respectively). Overall survival (OS) in MSS patients was poorer for BRAF-mutant patients (HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.56 to 2.57, P < .001) and KRAS-mutant patients (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.38 to 1.91, P < .001) vs wild-type. No prognostic role of KRAS or BRAF mutations was seen in MSI patients. Furthermore, no interaction was found between treatment arm (with or without cetuximab) and KRAS and BRAF mutations for TTR or OS in MSS patients.Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of resected stage III colon cancer patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX, BRAF or KRAS mutations are independently associated with shorter TTR, SAR, and OS in patients with MSS, but not MSI, tumors. Future clinical trials in the adjuvant setting should consider these mutations as important stratification factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have reduced overall survival compared with patients with metastatic colorectal cancer without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy.Methods: We analysed individual patient data for previously untreated patients enrolled in 14 phase 3 randomised trials done between 1997 and 2008. Trials were included if protocols explicitly pre-specified and solicited for patients with peritoneal involvement in the trial data collection process or had done a formal peritoneum-focused review of individual pre-treatment scans. We used stratified multivariable Cox models to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival, adjusting for other key clinical-pathological factors (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, primary tumour location [colon vs rectum], previous treatment, and baseline BMI). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival between populations with and without peritoneal metastases.Findings: Individual patient data were available for 10 553 patients. 9178 (87%) of 10 553 patients had non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (4385 with one site of metastasis, 4793 with two or more sites of metastasis), 194 (2%) patients had isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, and 1181 (11%) had peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer and other organ involvement. These groups were similar in age, ethnic origin, and use of targeted treatment. Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer were more likely than those with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer to be women (565 [41%] of 1371 vs 3312 [36%] of 9169 patients; p=0·0003), have colon primary tumours (1116 [84%] of 1334 patients vs 5603 [66%]; p<0·0001), and have performance status of 2 (136 [10%] vs 521 [6%]; p<0·0001). We recorded a higher proportion of patients with mutated BRAF in patients with peritoneal-only (eight [18%] of 44 patients with available data) and peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with other sites of metastasis (34 [12%] of 289), compared with patients with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (194 [9%] of 2230; p=0·028 comparing the three groups). Overall survival (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63-0·91; p=0·003) was better in patients with isolated non-peritoneal sites than in those with isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival of patients with two of more non-peritoneal sites of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·25, p=0.69) and those with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer plus one other site of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·37, p=0·37) was similar to those with isolated peritoneal metastases. Compared with patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, those with peritoneal metastases and two or more additional sites of metastasis had the shortest survival (adjusted HR 1·40; CI 1·14-1·71; p=0·0011).Interpretation: Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with other isolated sites of metastases. In patients with several sites of metastasis, poor survival is a function of both increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement. The pattern of metastasis and in particular, peritoneal involvement, results in prognostic heterogeneity of metastatic colorectal cancer.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A well-designed pilot study can advance science by providing essential preliminary data to support or motivate further research, refine study logistics, and demonstrate proof of concept. Often, the outcomes of such studies can be quantified by a success/failure dichotomy. For example, a novel compound may show activation of a neural pathway, or it may not. When an intervention's efficacy is quantified using a dichotomous outcome, probability mass functions can be enumerated to determine the probability that the observed result from a pilot study supports further evaluation of the intervention since there is only a finite, and often small, number of sample configurations possible. The purpose of this research was to determine the probability of an 'efficacy signal' for pilot studies using one- and two-sample pilot study designs. Efficacy signal was defined as the probability of observing a more favorable response proportion relative to a historical control (one-sample setting) or to a concurrent control (two-sample setting). An enumeration study (exact simulation) was conducted to calculate the efficacy signal probability. One-sample study designs yielded higher probability of determining an efficacy signal than the two-sample setting; however, sampling variation must be accounted for. A 68% score confidence interval is recommended for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As cancer treatment development has shifted its attention to targeted therapies, it is becoming increasingly important to provide tools for selecting the right treatment for an individual patient to achieve optimal clinical benefit. Biomarkers, identified and studied in the process of understanding the nature of the disease at the molecular pathogenesis level, have been increasingly recognized as a critical aspect in more accurate diagnosis, prognosis assessment, and therapeutic targeting. Predictive biomarkers, which can aid treatment decisions, require extensive data for validation. In this article, we discuss the definition, clinical usages, and more extensively the clinical trial designs for the validation of predictive biomarkers. Predictive biomarker validation methods can be broadly grouped into retrospective and prospective designs. Retrospective validation utilizes data from previously conducted prospective randomized controlled trials. Prospective designs include enrichment designs, treatment-by-marker interaction designs, marker-based strategy designs, and adaptive designs. We discuss each design with examples and provide comparisons of the advantages and disadvantages among the different designs. We conclude that the combination of scientific, clinical, statistical, ethical, and practical considerations provides guidance for the choice of the clinical trial design for validation of each proposed predictive biomarker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have reshaped therapeutic strategies for cancer patients. The development of ICI for early stage colorectal cancer is accompanied by specific challenges: (i) the selection of patients who are likely to benefit from these treatments, i.e., patients with tumors harboring predictive factors of efficacy of ICI, such as microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency (MSI/dMMR), or other potential parameters (increased T cell infiltration using Immunoscore® or others, high tumor mutational burden, POLE mutation), (ii) the selection of patients at risk of disease recurrence (poor prognostic features), and (iii) the choice of an accurate clinical trial methodological framework. In this review, we will discuss the ins and outs of clinical research of ICI for early stage MSI/dMMR CC patients in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. We will then summarize data that might support the development of ICI in localized colorectal cancer beyond MSI/dMMR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96–1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08–1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70–0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60–0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58–1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63–1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided 'only' tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83–1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97–1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67–1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28–0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28–0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy. • Older patients with colorectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials. • Investigated effect of age in patients treated with chemotherapy and anti-EGFR agents. • No significant difference in the risk for G3+ toxicity between over and under 70s. • Comparable efficacy outcomes for younger and older patients receiving anti-EGFR agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• This is a comprehensive summary from the third annual Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Myeloma Intergroup Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) and Immune Profiling (IP) workshop. • MRD is not yet established as a surrogate endpoint but is a prognostic biomarker. • Incorporation of IP as an exploratory endpoint in trial design is recommended. The third annual Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Myeloma Intergroup Workshop on Minimal Residual Disease and Immune Profiling was held on November 29, 2018, at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. This workshop featured the latest research focused on minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment and immune profiling (IP) in myeloma as well as discussion of the statistical and regulatory issues intrinsic to the development of MRD as a surrogate endpoint. In this report, we provide a summary of the workshop and focus on the integration of MRD and IP assessment into trial design and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Local excision is an organ-preserving treatment alternative to transabdominal resection for patients with stage I rectal cancer. However, local excision alone is associated with a high risk of local recurrence and inferior survival compared with transabdominal rectal resection. We investigated the oncological and functional outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and local excision for patients with stage T2N0 rectal cancer.Methods: We did a multi-institutional, single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial of patients with clinically staged T2N0 distal rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy at 26 American College of Surgeons Oncology Group institutions. Patients with clinical T2N0 rectal adenocarcinoma staged by endorectal ultrasound or endorectal coil MRI, measuring less than 4 cm in greatest diameter, involving less than 40% of the circumference of the rectum, located within 8 cm of the anal verge, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 2 were included in the study. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy consisted of capecitabine (original dose 825 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and 22-35), oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5), and radiation (5 days a week at 1·8 Gy per day for 5 weeks to a dose of 45 Gy, followed by a boost of 9 Gy, for a total dose of 54 Gy) followed by local excision. Because of adverse events during chemoradiotherapy, the dose of capecitabine was reduced to 725 mg/m(2) twice-daily, 5 days per week, for 5 weeks, and the boost of radiation was reduced to 5·4 Gy, for a total dose of 50·4 Gy. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival for all eligible patients (intention-to-treat population) and for patients who completed chemotherapy and radiation, and had ypT0, ypT1, or ypT2 tumours, and negative resection margins (per-protocol group). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00114231.Findings: Between May 25, 2006, and Oct 22, 2009, 79 eligible patients were recruited to the trial and started neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Two patients had no surgery and one had a total mesorectal excision. Four additional patients completed protocol treatment, but one had a positive margin and three had ypT3 tumours. Thus, the per-protocol population consisted of 72 patients. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 46-63) for all patients. The estimated 3-year disease-free survival for the intention-to-treat group was 88·2% (95% CI 81·3-95·8), and for the per-protocol group was 86·9% (79·3-95·3). Of 79 eligible patients, 23 (29%) had grade 3 gastrointestinal adverse events, 12 (15%) had grade 3-4 pain, and 12 (15%) had grade 3-4 haematological adverse events during chemoradiation. Of the 77 patients who had surgery, six (8%) had grade 3 pain, three (4%) had grade 3-4 haemorrhage, and three (4%) had gastrointestinal adverse events.Interpretation: Although the observed 3-year disease free survival was not as high as anticipated, our data suggest that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by local excision might be considered as an organ-preserving alternative in carefully selected patients with clinically staged T2N0 tumours who refuse, or are not candidates for, transabdominal resection.Funding: National Cancer Institute and Sanofi-Aventis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Identification and Standardization of data elements used in clinical trials may control and reduce the cost and errors during the operational process, and enable seamless data exchange between the electronic data capture (EDC) systems and Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems. This study presents a methodology to comprehensively capture the clinical trial data element needs.Materials and Methods: Case report forms (CRF) for clinical trial data collection were used to approximate the clinical information need, whereby these information needs were then mapped to a semantically equivalent field within an existing FHIR cancer profile. For items without a semantically equivalent field, we considered these items to be information needs that cannot be represented in current standards and proposed extensions to support these needs.Results: We successfully identified 62 discrete items from a preliminary survey of 43 base questions in four CRFs used in colorectal cancer clinical trials, in which 28 items are modeled with FHIR extensions and their associated responses for colorectal cancer. We achieved promising results in the data population of the CRFs with average Precision 98.5 %, Recall 96.2 %, and F-measure 96.8 % for all base questions. We also demonstrated the auto-filled answers in CRFs can be used to discover patient subgroups using a topic modeling approach.Conclusion: CRFs can be considered as a proxy for representing information needs for their respective cancer types. Mining the information needs can serve as a valuable resource for expanding existing standards to ensure they can comprehensively represent relevant clinical data without loss of granularity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]