Trends in the design and interpretation of metastatic colorectal cancer phase III clinical trials.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 692-692
Author(s):  
Sunil Parimi ◽  
Soundouss Raissouni ◽  
Yongtao Lin ◽  
Jose Gerard Monzon ◽  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Over Time

692 Background: Increasing use of subsequent lines of therapy and crossover in phase III randomized clinical trials (P3 RCTs) has shifted how we perceive the effectiveness of treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study aims to characterize the evolution of P3 RCTs in mCRC with respect to clinical trial design and result interpretation. Methods: Abstracts of P3 RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC conducted between 1980 and 2014 were identified by searching PubMed, Medline, and ASCO abstracts. Data regarding trial design, agent(s) investigated, primary endpoint, secondary endpoint(s), primary endpoint significance and interpretation of the study results (conclusions) were extracted. Results: A total of 422 trials were identified by the search strategy, and 132 eligible trials were included. Over time the sample size of P3 RCTs in mCRC has been increasing and there has been a steady increase in trials studying targeted therapy (see table below for detailed results by decade). A trend towards a smaller percentage of P3 RCTs sponsored by co-operative groups has been observed in recent decades. The most common primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) which was used in 35% of the trials. A decreasing trend in the use of OS was observed since the 1990s. Other common primary endpoints include: progression-free survival (PFS) in 28% and response rate (RR) in 20% of the P3 RCTs. The primary endpoint was met in 45% of the trials. There was discordance between the primary endpoint significance and the authors’ conclusions in 14% of the trials. Conclusions: The design and interpretation of P3 RCTs for mCRC has changed over time from 1980 to present. The use of OS as the primary endpoint is decreasing, while the use of PFS is increasing. [Table: see text]

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

Effect of subsequent chemotherapy on overall survival in first-line chemotherapy with targeted agents for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 782-782
Author(s):  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Toshihiro Kudo ◽  
Aya Kato ◽  
Toshinori Sueda ◽  
Hidekazu Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

782 Background: One of recent standard first line chemotherapies for metastatic colorectal cancer is doublet of cytotoxic agents, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin or irinotecan, in combination with target agent, bevacizumab, or anti-EGFR antibody as cetuximab or panitumumab for KRAS or RAS wild type (WT). In this decade, nevertheless progression free survival (PFS) of clinical trials was little improved, overall survival (OS) had been increased. Methods: We analyzed data from 14 recently published phase III randomized clinical trials in mCRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving subsequent chemotherapy with the reported OS. Results: Median PFS and OS were 10.3 and 25.0 months, respectively. In all comer trials, median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received subsequent chemotherapy after first line chemotherapy of their disease [regression coefficient (R2) = 0.85 p = 0.0018]. In trials with KRAS WT, a correlation between OS and the rate of subsequent therapy was modest [r2 = 0.605, p = 0.0637]. Median PFS and RR were not correlated with median OS. Conclusions: Our results support the strategy of making salvage chemotherapy available to all patients with advanced CRC to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, PFS might no longer be regarded as the appropriate surrogate end point of OS by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

scholarly journals Systemic therapy for colorectal cancer

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borut Stabuc
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oral Fluoropyrimidines ◽  
Significant Difference

Colorectal cancer alone accounts for around 200,000 deaths in Europe and represents a significant health problem. Although about fifty percent of patients are cured by surgery alone, the other half will eventually die due to metastatic disease, which includes approximately 25% of patients who have evidence of metastases at the time of diagnosis. Surgical resection of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes is the only curative therapy for colorectal cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III for colon cancer following curative resection has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence by 19-40% and of death by 16-33%. Today, 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin given for six months may represent the best adjuvant treatment available The contribution of levamisole to adjuvant treatment seems to be marginal, if any. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for the patients with Dukes B colon cancer is less clear. A meta-analysis of 1,381 patients with advanced colorectal cancer showed a significant increase in response rate with the bolus 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin versus 5-fluoroUracil alone but no significant difference in median survival. Continuous infusion allows higher doses of 5-FU than rapid bolus infusion and improves response rate survival and time to progression. Oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine and Uracil/Tegafur [UFT]) are as active as intravenous fluoropyrimidines. Compared to intravenous 5FU, oral fluoropyrimidines have safety advantages clinical benefits, and are more convenient for patients. Phase III randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer demonstrate the significant superiority of combining irinotecan with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin or oxaliplatin with 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin over the same 5-fluoroUracil and Leucovorin alone. Several phase II studies have shown that the combination of the oral fluoropyrimidines plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin is very active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials with agents acting on novel targets in colorectal cancer are progressing rapidly, including doxifluridine, new inhibitors of thymidylate synthase (ZD9331), oral camptothecins (Rubitecan), multitarget antifolate antimetabolite (Premetrexet), inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (Cetuximab), COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib) and farnesyltransferaze inhibitors (Zarnestra). However, a few randomized trials failed to show a survival advantage compared with placebo in patients with advanced refractory colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size–Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. e1911750
Author(s):  
Tomasz Burzykowski ◽  
Elisabeth Coart ◽  
Everardo D. Saad ◽  
Qian Shi ◽  
Dirkje W. Sommeijer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
End Points

The impact of data errors on the outcome of randomized clinical trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 499-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Buyse ◽  
Pierre Squifflet ◽  
Elisabeth Coart ◽  
Emmanuel Quinaux ◽  
Cornelis JA Punt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Age Related ◽  
The Impact

Background/aims Considerable human and financial resources are typically spent to ensure that data collected for clinical trials are free from errors. We investigated the impact of random and systematic errors on the outcome of randomized clinical trials. Methods We used individual patient data relating to response endpoints of interest in two published randomized clinical trials, one in ophthalmology and one in oncology. These randomized clinical trials enrolled 1186 patients with age-related macular degeneration and 736 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The ophthalmology trial tested the benefit of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration and identified a statistically significant treatment benefit, whereas the oncology trial assessed the benefit of adding cetuximab to a regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and failed to identify a statistically significant treatment difference. We simulated trial results by adding errors that were independent of the treatment group (random errors) and errors that favored one of the treatment groups (systematic errors). We added such errors to the data for the response endpoint of interest for increasing proportions of randomly selected patients. Results Random errors added to up to 50% of the cases produced only slightly inflated variance in the estimated treatment effect of both trials, with no qualitative change in the p-value. In contrast, systematic errors produced bias even for very small proportions of patients with added errors. Conclusion A substantial amount of random errors is required before appreciable effects on the outcome of randomized clinical trials are noted. In contrast, even a small amount of systematic errors can severely bias the estimated treatment effects. Therefore, resources devoted to randomized clinical trials should be spent primarily on minimizing sources of systematic errors which can bias the analyses, rather than on random errors which result only in a small loss in power.

Clinical benefit rate (CBR) of panitumumab monotherapy among patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14176-e14176
Author(s):  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Howard John Lim ◽  
Balvindar Singh Johal ◽  
Muhammad Zulfiqar ◽  
Caroline Speers
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Clinical Benefit Rate ◽  
Previous Therapy ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Third Line

e14176 Background: Panitumumab (Pmab) improves progression free survival as first-, second- and third-line therapy for KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Only in the third-line setting is there evidence of benefit of Pmab monotherapy. In this analysis of an exploratory biomarker study of Pmab monotherapy, the clinical benefit rate of Pmab according to previous lines of therapy is described. Methods: Patients (pts) with KRAS non-mutated, measurable MCRC previously treated with or ineligible for oxaliplatin/5-FU and irinotecan were treated with Pmab 6mg/kg IV q2w until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint is clinical benefit rate (complete (CR) or partial response (PR) + prolonged stable disease (PSD) > = 24 weeks) by RECIST criteria. Results: The study completed accrual and (40) evaluable patients were treated between September 2009 and December 2011 of which 32 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median follow-up was 8.8 months, median age was 64.5 years and 90% were ECOG 0/1. Previous therapy was: 5-FU/Capecitabine(C) only in 12 pts, Irinotecan/5-FU/C only in 2 patients, Oxaliplatin/5-FU/C only in 3 pts, Oxaliplatin/Irinotecan/5-FU/C in 23 pts. 22 patients received prior Bevacizumab. Median number of cycles was 8 and 6 pts required a dose modification. There were 7 (22%) PRs and 7 (22%) pts experienced PSD >=24 weeks. Clinical benefit rate (PR+PSD) according to previous therapy was 33% (3/9) for 5FU/C only, 100% (2/2) Oxaliplatin/FU/C only, 0% (0/2) Irinotecan/FU/C only, and 47% (9/19) for Oxaliplatin/Irinotecan/5FU/C. Conclusions: Pmab monotherapy is well tolerated and response rates vary according to previous lines of therapy. Patients ineligible for irinotecan and/or oxaliplatin experience a high clinical benefit rate with single agent Panitumumab and should be considered for such therapy. Updated study results will be presented.

MABp1 to improve clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Per-protocol population analysis of phase III study (PT026).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3530-3530
Author(s):  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
Mark P. Saunders ◽  
Thierry Andre ◽  
Tomasz Sarosiek ◽  
Radim Nemecek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Population Analysis ◽  
Interleukin 1 ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Protocol Population ◽  
Toxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients

3530 Background: Refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients derive minimal benefit from further exposure to toxic agents. MABp1 is an anti-interleukin 1 alpha antibody that is shown to prolong survival (NCT01767857) and improves outcomes when assessed with a primary endpoint based on a constellation of objective and patient self-reported measures (NCT02138422) (Hickish T. et al Lancet Oncology 2017). In the latter study, clinically advanced patients were enrolled (symptomatic, ECOG 1,2), and 18% of patients progressed prior to reaching the endpoint assessments. Here we present the outcomes in per-protocol population (PP), those patients completing week 8 assessments. Methods: 309 patients randomized 2:1 to receive MABp1 versus placebo. Patients were ECOG 1-2, with mCRC refractory to chemotherapy, any degree of weight loss, and cancer-associated symptoms. The composite primary endpoint assessed the rate of patients achieving stabilization or improvement in lean body mass (LBM) and two of three symptom measures (pain, fatigue, appetite loss) from screening to the week 8 assessment. The study was designed for placebo cross-over, thus OS analysis for MABp1 vs placebo was not possible. Results: 57 patients (38 MABp1 [18%] and 19 placebo [19%]) discontinued study prior to the week 8 assessment due to disease progression, including 17 (8%) and 11 (11%) deaths in MABp1 and placebo respectively. 62% of placebo patients received MABp1 after 8 weeks. 252 patients, 40% in MABp1 (68/169) vs 23% in placebo (19/83) met the primary endpoint (p = 0.003). 139 patients were available for PP survival analysis (90 MABp1 vs 49 Placebo). Median OS of those achieving the primary endpoint was 11.7 months vs 5.7 months for those that did not (HR 0.39; p < 0.0001). Radiographic stable disease was improved (42% vs 12%; p < 0.001) and incidence of SAEs (6% vs 15%; p = 0.11) reduced in those achieving the primary endpoint. Conclusions: Achieving the primary endpoint was associated with improvement in outcomes, RECIST stabilization, SAEs and survival. Further study should confirm the effect of MABp1 on survival in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT02138422.

scholarly journals Clinical Calculator for Early Mortality in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Patients From 28 Clinical Trials in the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive Database

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1929-1937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay A. Renfro ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Alberto Sobrero ◽  
Richard Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Early Mortality ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancérologie Digestive ◽  
The Impact

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

Nomograms for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Construction from 19,678 ARCAD patients.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 659-659
Author(s):  
Katrin Marie Sjoquist ◽  
Lindsay A. Renfro ◽  
John Simes ◽  
Niall C. Tebbutt ◽  
Stephen John Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Survival Prediction ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Cox Models ◽  
Pairwise Interactions

659 Background: Prospective survival prediction of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is difficult. Prognosis estimation based on readily available clinicopathologic factors has the potential to inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for OS and PFS in mCRC using the multi-trial ARCAD database. Methods: Data from 19,678 mCRC pts accrued to 24 first line randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models for PFS and OS, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included age, gender, BMI, performance status, colon vs. rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, sites of metastases (liver, lung, lymph nodes), and baseline bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (dNLR). Missing data (<11%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions considered if p<0.001. Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices, and externally validated using a 10% holdout sample from each trial. Results: Nomograms for OS and PFS including remaining variables were well calibrated with C-indices of 0.66 and 0.60, respectively. Evaluation of external validity revealed good concordance; 71% and 67% respectively between predicted (> vs. <50% probability) and actual (yes/no) 1-year OS and 6-month PFS, and median 1-year OS and 6-month PFS predictions fell within the actual 95% Kaplan-Meier intervals. Gender, liver and lung metastases, and dNLR were not prognostic for OS; prior chemo, colon vs. rectum, dNLR, liver and lymph node metastases, and gender did not predict for PFS. No clinically relevant pairwise interactions were identified. Conclusions: The proposed nomograms are well calibrated and internally and externally valid. These tools have the potential to aid prognostication and patient/physician communication, and balance risk in randomized trials in mCRC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document