Association between disease-free survival and overall survival when survival is prolonged after recurrence in patients receiving cytotoxic adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: simulations based on the 20,800 patient ACCENT data set

[Is there alternative to FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancer patients?]

Being the second cancer for men and the third cancer for women in France, colorectal cancer represents a serious public health issue. Its incidence has increased these last years and despite new therapeutics being developed, it still has a bad prognostic. Thanks in part to Hemoccult national mass screening program, its diagnosis is made possible at an earlier stage, which makes a surgical curative resection and the carrying out of adjuvant chemotherapy possible. For stage III colic cancer that has been surgically removed, adjuvant chemotherapy by FOLFOX 4 has to be offered. Nevertheless, because of its toxicities, the patient's high age, important comorbidities or post-surgical complications, this chemotherapy occasionally cannot be done. What are the colorectal cancer prognostic factors which would guide the chemotherapy? TNM classification, number of examined lymph nodes, MSI status, and presence or not of a perforation or a perinervous, lymphatic or venous invasion is recognized prognostic factors. Also, what are the alternatives of FOLFOX 4 regimen as colorectal cancer adjuvant treatment?

Survival endpoints in colorectal cancer and the effect of second primary other cancer on disease free survival

Background

In cancer research the selection and definitions of survival endpoints are important and yet they are not used consistently. The aim of this study was to compare different survival endpoints in patients with primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and to understand the effect of second primary other cancer on disease-free survival (DFS) calculations.

Methods

A population-based cohort of 415 patients with CRC, 332 of whom were treated with curative intention between the years 2000-2003, was analysed. Events such as locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, second primary cancers, death, cause of death and loss to follow-up were recorded. Different survival endpoints, including DFS, overall survival, cancer-specific survival, relapse-free survival, time to treatment failure and time to recurrence were compared and DFS was calculated with and without inclusion of second primary other cancers.

Results

The events that occurred most often in patients treated with curative intention were non-cancer-related death (n = 74), distant metastases (n = 66) and death from CRC (n = 59). DFS was the survival endpoint with most events (n = 170) followed by overall survival (n = 144) and relapse-free survival (n = 139). Fewer events were seen for time to treatment failure (n = 80), time to recurrence (n = 68) and cancer-specific survival (n = 59). Second primary other cancer occurred in 26 patients and its inclusion as an event in DFS calculations had a detrimental effect on the survival. The DFS for patients with stage I-III disease was 62% after 5 years if second primary other cancer was not included as an event, compared with 58% if it was. However, the difference was larger for stage II (68 vs 60%) than for stage III (49 vs 47%).

Conclusions

The inclusion of second primary other cancer as an endpoint in DFS analyses significantly alters the DFS for patients with CRC. Researchers and journals must clearly define survival endpoints in all trial protocols and published manuscripts.

Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II colon cancer

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

The authors used the State of California Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) to assess patients ages 18 to 80 years with AJCC stage II colon cancer (ie, T3 or T4 and N0) who underwent surgical resection during 1991 and 2006. Patients who had rectal and rectosigmoid cancers were excluded. The cohort was stratified according to the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, and clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

From the CSP data, 3716 patients were identified who underwent curative-intent surgical resection for stage II colon cancer. When the 2 treatment groups (surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy [n = 916] and surgery alone [n = 2800]) were compared, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to be younger and to have left-sided lesions with ≥ 12 lymph nodes examined. There was no difference in sex or tumor differentiation between the 2 groups. According to a Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy had improved overall survival compared with patients who underwent surgery alone (median survival, 12 years vs 9.2 years, respectively; P < .001). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was identified as an independent predictor of improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99; P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first population-based analysis to identify a survival advantage for adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with AJCC stage II colon cancer. On the basis of the current findings, the authors concluded that the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in select patients with stage II disease.

The influence of micrometastases on prognosis and survival in stage I-II colon cancer patients: the Enroute⊕ Study

Background

The presence of lymph node metastases remains the most reliable prognostic predictor and the gold indicator for adjuvant treatment in colon cancer (CC). In spite of a potentially curative resection, 20 to 30% of CC patients testing negative for lymph node metastases (i.e. pN0) will subsequently develop locoregional and/or systemic metastases within 5 years. The presence of occult nodal isolated tumor cells (ITCs) and/or micrometastases (MMs) at the time of resection predisposes CC patients to high risk for disease recurrence. These pN0_micro+ patients harbouring occult micrometastases may benefit from adjuvant treatment. The purpose of the present study is to delineate the subset of pN0 patients with micrometastases (pN0_micro+) and evaluate the benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy in pN0_micro+ CC patients.

Methods/design

EnRoute+ is an open label, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. All CC patients (age above 18 years) without synchronous locoregional lymph node and/or systemic metastases (clinical stage I-II disease) and operated upon with curative intent are eligible for inclusion. All resected specimens of patients are subject to an ex vivo sentinel lymph node mapping procedure (SLNM) following curative resection. The investigation for micrometastases in pN0 patients is done by extended serial sectioning and immunohistochemistry for pan-cytokeratin in sentinel lymph nodes which are tumour negative upon standard pathological examination. Patients with ITC/MM-positive sentinel lymph nodes (pN0_micro+) are randomized for adjuvant chemotherapy following the CAPOX treatment scheme or observation. The primary endpoint is 3-year disease free survival (DFS).

Discussion

The EnRoute+ study is designed to improve prognosis in high-risk stage I/II pN0 _micro+ CC patients by reducing disease recurrence by adjuvant chemotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01097265

Two or three year disease-free survival (DFS) as a primary end-point in stage III adjuvant colon cancer trials with fluoropyrimidines with or without oxaliplatin or irinotecan: data from 12,676 patients from MOSAIC, X-ACT, PETACC-3, C-06, C-07 and C89803

BACKGROUND

The ACCENT group previously established disease-free survival (DFS) with 2 or 3 years median follow-up to predict 5 year overall survival (5 year OS) in stage II and III colon cancer. ACCENT further proposed (1) a stronger association between DFS and OS in stage III than II, and (2) 6 or 7 years necessary to demonstrate DFS/OS surrogacy in recent trials. The relationship between end-points in trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan is unknown.

METHODS

Associations between the treatment effect hazard ratios (HRs) on 2 and 3 years DFS, and 5 and 6 years OS were examined in 6 phase III trials not included in prior analyses from 1997 to 2002. Individual data for 12,676 patients were analysed; two trials each tested oxaliplatin, irinotecan and oral treatment versus 5-FU/LV.

FINDINGS

Overall association between 2/3 year DFS and 5/6 year OS HRs was modest to poor (simple R² measures: 0.58-0.76, model-based R²: 0.17-0.49). In stage III patients, the association increased (model-based R² ≥ 0.79). Observed treatment effects on 2 year DFS accurately 5/6 year OS effects overall and in stage III patients.

INTERPRETATION

In recent trials of cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 or 3 years DFS HRs are highly predictive of 5 and 6 years OS HRs in stage III but not stage II patients. In all patients the DFS/OS association is stronger for 6 year OS, thus at least 6 year follow-up is recommended to assess OS benefit. These data support DFS as the primary end-point for stage III colon cancer trials testing cytotoxic agents.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer

PURPOSE

This multicenter, randomized trial compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage III colon cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for 24 weeks) or a standard bolus FU/FA adjuvant regimen (Mayo Clinic for 24 weeks or Roswell Park for 32 weeks). The primary study end point was disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 1,886 patients; 944 patients were randomly assigned to XELOX and 942 to FU/FA (Mayo Clinic, n = 664; Roswell Park, n = 278). After 57 months of follow-up for the primary analysis, 295 patients (31.3%) in the XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new primary colon cancer, or died compared with 353 patients (37.5%) in the FU/FA group (hazard ratio [HR] for DFS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93; P = .0045). The 3-year DFS rate was 70.9% with XELOX and 66.5% with FU/FA. The HR for overall survival (OS) for XELOX compared to FU/FA was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .1486). The 5-year OS for XELOX and FU/FA were 77.6% and 74.2%, respectively. Follow-up is ongoing. Preplanned multivariate and subgroup analyses supported the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

The addition of oxaliplatin to capecitabine improves DFS in patients with stage III colon cancer. XELOX is an additional adjuvant treatment option for these patients.

Adjuvant colon cancer chemotherapy: where we are and where we'll go

Many patients with early-stage colon cancer are cured with surgery alone, even if the standard of care remains an uniform approach to adjuvant chemotherapy based primarily on tumour stage. Consequently, it is important to individualize decision-making in this subset of patients with the aim to identify potential prognostic and predictive markers in colon cancer. While 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin are widely known as gold treatment in the post-operative of stage III, well-validated molecular markers might help define which patients with stage II disease are likely to benefit from adjuvant therapy as well. Herein we review the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer and analyzed the date on the clinical development of molecular markers to individualize another therapeutic approach in colon cancer.

Feasibility of oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX-4) in cirrhotic or liver transplant patients: experience in a cohort of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients

PURPOSE

The only drug that improves survival in hepatocellular carcinoma is sorafenib. FOLFOX-4 regimen is safe and widely used in patients with colorectal cancer, yielding interesting results with little toxicity. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and the effectiveness of FOLFOX-4 in cirrhotic or liver transplanted patients with hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for sorafenib.

METHODS

Thirty seven patients were enrolled in the study. The medical record of either cirrhotic patients or liver transplanted patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving FOLFOX-4 regimen between November 1999 and March 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion on day one, and leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion followed by bolus 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) and a 48-hours infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2). Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable adverse effects occurred.

RESULTS

Patients had a Child-Pugh class A (n = 16), class B cirrhosis (n = 10) or a liver transplant (n = 11) and received 2 to 37 cycles of chemotherapy (total of 310 cycles). Two (5.4%) cirrhotic patients developed neutropenic sepsis and one (2.7%) toxic death occurred. At first assessment, five patients from Child-Pugh class A (33%) and two from Child-Pugh class B group (20%) achieved a radiological response and/or alpha foeto-protein decrease, and no patient achieved a complete response.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, with a manageable toxicity profile in cirrhotic Child-Pugh class A-B or liver transplanted patients, the FOLFOX-4 regimen appears to be a feasible treatment option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma unfit for sorafenib. These data need to be confirmed in a prospective study.

Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma: understanding their impact on survival

Within the past 5 years, the United States Food and Drug Administration have approved six targeted agents for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). While this offers great potential to patients afflicted with this disease, oncologists are faced with the challenge of applying each agent in the appropriate clinical setting. Doing so requires an intricate understanding of the pivotal trials evaluating these agents. Herein, we have provided a detailed analysis of the study design employed in these trials. Use of appropriate comparator arms for targeted therapies (i.e., interferon-alpha or placebo) is addressed. Furthermore, we discuss the relative merits of using progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint-importantly, the two endpoints may not be precisely correlated. Strategies to appropriately interpret OS in the context of post-study therapies and crossover designs are described. Ultimately, head-to-head trials comparing targeted therapies are necessary to resolve clinical equipoise. Several ongoing efforts juxtaposing the approved agents for mRCC are discussed.