Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Visceral fat and clinical outcome in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Visceral fat produces angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor that promote tumoral growth. However, its influence on outcome for patients with advanced cancer treated with anti-angiogenic agents is controversial. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether visceral fat volume, visceral fat area and body mass index are associated with outcome in patients receiving first-line bevacizumab-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included 103 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy. Computed tomography was used to measure visceral fat volume and visceral fat area. Endpoints were tumoral response at 2 months, progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Visceral fat volume and visceral fat area, but not body mass index, were significantly associated with better outcome. Using sex-specific median values progression free survival was significantly longer in patients with high visceral fat volume (13.2 versus 9.4 months; p = 0.0043). In the same way, high visceral fat volume and visceral fat area were associated with a significantly better overall survival: 31.3 versus 20.5 months (p = 0.0072) and 29.3 versus 20.5 months (p = 0.0078), respectively. By multivariate analysis, visceral fat volume was associated with longer progression free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a high visceral fat volume is associated with better outcome in patients receiving first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Multi-Institutional Randomized Phase II Trial of Gefitinib for Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two doses of gefitinib (Iressa [ZD1839]; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), a novel epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter phase II trial. Two hundred ten patients with advanced NSCLC who were previously treated with one or two chemotherapy regimens (at least one containing platinum) were randomized to receive either 250-mg or 500-mg oral doses of gefitinib once daily. RESULTS: Efficacy was similar for the 250- and 500-mg/d groups. Objective tumor response rates were 18.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5 to 27.3) and 19.0% (95% CI, 12.1 to 27.9); among evaluable patients, symptom improvement rates were 40.3% (95% CI, 28.5 to 53.0) and 37.0% (95% CI, 26.0 to 49.1); median progression-free survival times were 2.7 and 2.8 months; and median overall survival times were 7.6 and 8.0 months, respectively. Symptom improvements were recorded for 69.2% (250 mg/d) and 85.7% (500 mg/d) of patients with a tumor response. Adverse events (AEs) at both dose levels were generally mild (grade 1 or 2) and consisted mainly of skin reactions and diarrhea. Drug-related toxicities were more frequent in the higher-dose group. Withdrawal due to drug-related AEs was 1.9% and 9.4% for patients receiving gefitinib 250 and 500 mg/d, respectively. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib showed clinically meaningful antitumor activity and provided symptom relief as second- and third-line treatment in these patients. At 250 mg/d, gefitinib had a favorable AE profile. Gefitinib 250 mg/d is an important, novel treatment option for patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC.

Toward Improved Outcomes for Patients With Lung Cancer Globally: The Essential Role of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine.

PURPOSE: Key to achieving better population-based outcomes for patients with lung cancer is the improvement of medical imaging and nuclear medicine infrastructure globally. This paper aims to outline why and spark relevant health systems strengthening. METHODS: The paper synthesizes the global lung cancer landscape, imaging referral guidelines (including resource-stratified ones), the reliance of TNM staging upon imaging, relevant multinational health technology assessments, and precisely how treatment selection and in turn patient outcomes hinge upon imaging findings. The final discussion presents data on current global gaps in both diagnostics (including imaging) and therapies and how, informed by such data, improved population-based outcomes are tangible through strategic planning. RESULTS: Imaging findings are central to appropriate lung cancer patient management and can variably lead to life-prolonging interventions and/or to life-enhancing palliative measures. Early-stage lung cancer can be treated with curative intent but, unfortunately, most patients with lung cancer still present at advanced stages and many patients lack access to both diagnostics and therapies. Furthermore, half of lung cancer cases occur in low- and middle-income countries. The role of medical imaging and nuclear medicine in lung cancer management, as outlined herein, may help inform strategic planning. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer worldwide. The essential role that medical imaging and nuclear medicine play in early diagnosis and disease staging cannot be overstated, pivotal in selecting the many patients for whom measurably improved outcomes are attainable. Prevention synergized with patient-centered, compassionate, high-quality lung cancer management provision mandate that strategic population-based planning, including universal health coverage strategies, should extend well beyond the scope of disease prevention to include both curative and noncurative treatment options for the millions afflicted with lung cancer.

Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ≥ 70 years.

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.

BRAF V600E Mutation in First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Individual Patient Data From the ARCAD Database.

BACKGROUND: First-line therapeutic strategies for patients with BRAFV600E-mutated (BRAFmt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) mainly rely on subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive impact of BRAFmt on the efficacy of targeted therapies with first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Individual patient data from first-line RCTs with BRAF and KRAS status data in the ARCAD database were pooled. Progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models. Outcomes were compared between treatment groups that were concurrently randomly assigned whenever possible. RESULTS: A total of 6391 patients from 10 RCTs were included: 573 BRAFmt (9.0%), 2059 KRASmt (32.2%), and 3759 double wild type (58.8%). BRAFmt mCRC patients experienced statistically significantly poorer OS than those with KRASmt (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30 to 1.64) and patients with double wild-type tumors (HRadj = 2.14, 95% CI = 1.94 to 2.36). Anti-EGFR agents did not improve progression-free survival or OS of BRAFmt mCRC patients, based on 4 RCTs testing chemotherapy with or without anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) (HRadj = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.30; and HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.14, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy is ineffective as first-line treatment for BRAFmt mCRC patients.

The Global Landscape of Treatment Standards for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability for women worldwide. There is substantial variation in treatment outcomes, which is function of multiple variables, including access to treatment. Treatment standards can promote quality and improve survival; thus, their development should be a priority for the cancer-control planning. METHODS: We extracted the guidelines for the treatment of BC from a systematic review of the literature. We evaluated the development process, the methodology, and the recommendations formulated and surveyed the country resource stratification. Metrics of health-system capacity were selected to study the guidelines context appropriateness. RESULTS: We analyzed 49 distinct guidelines for BC, mostly in English language (n = 23), developed in upper-middle and high-income countries of the European and American regions (n = 39). A resource-stratified approach was identified in a quarter of the guidelines (n = 11), mostly from resource-constrained settings. Only one-half of the guidelines reached a gender balance of the authorship, and 10.2% were based on a multidisciplinary steering committee. A number of efforts and solutions of resource adaptations were recognized, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the national guidelines appeared not sensitive enough of the local health-system capacity in formulating recommendations, with possible exception for the radiation therapy availability. CONCLUSION: This global landscape of treatment standards for BC demonstrates that the majority is not context appropriate. Research on the formulation of cancer treatment standards is highly warranted, along with novel platforms for developing and disseminating resource-appropriate guidance.

Efficacy and safety of panitumumab in a cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in France: PANI OUEST, a post-EMA-approval descriptive study with a geriatric oncology focus.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Bretagne-Pays de la Loire cancer observatory, an oncology network created by the French Ministry of Health, is specifically dedicated to assess the use of new targeted anticancer therapies in routine practice. In line with the French National Cancer III program, our cancer network set up a real-life cohort, which is independent of the pharmaceutical industry, for patients with colorectal cancer to monitor patient safety and quality of care and promote pharmacovigilance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panitumumab monotherapy was assessed in 243 patients with wild-type Kirsten rat sarcoma who were treated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between July 2008 and December 2010 after prior chemotherapy using oxaliplatine and irinotecan. This was a post-European medicine agency marketing (EMA-M) study Results: This study shed light on the best practices, strategic adaptations, clinical results (treatment objective responses, 13%; progression free survival, 2.99 months [2.73-3.15]; and overall survival, 6.8 months [5.49-8.38]) as well as expected or unexpected (grade 3 or 4: 11.5%) secondary effects in the phase IV panitumumab treatment of mCRC. CONCLUSION: Our results are similar to those by Amado whose phase III study led to obtaining EMA-M for panitumumab and tend to confirm the antitumor activity of this antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the treatment of mCRC. In addition, our results opened avenues to further assessment of panitumumab use as monotherapy as well as its benefit-risk ratio while taking into account the patients' general and clinical characteristics. In 2012, the French National Authority for Health appended these data to the panitumumab transparency committee report.

Lessons learnt from scoring adjuvant colon cancer trials and meta-analyses using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.1.

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments. METHODS: Adjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming. CONCLUSION: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies.

ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO): improving the efficiency of clinical research through rationalisation of bureaucracy.

During the last years, there has been a dramatic increase in the administrative and bureaucratic burden associated with clinical research, which has clearly had an impact on its overall efficiency and on the activity of clinical investigators and research teams. Indeed, the supervision of the adherence of clinical research to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and legal regulations is of the utmost importance. Yet, while such regulations have remained largely unchanged during recent years, the number of administrative tasks and their complexity have grown markedly, as supported by the results of a survey performed among 940 clinical investigators that we report in this manuscript. Therefore, many investigators believe that it has become necessary to undertake a rigorous analysis of the causes and consequences of this issue, and to create a conduit to channel the advice from experienced investigators regarding clinical research procedures, in order to improve them. Based on these premises, ESMO has launched the ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO), a task force that will analyse different aspects of clinical research. ECRO will aim to provide the views of ESMO on clinical research procedures based on the feedback from clinical investigators, under complete adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki, the GCP guidelines and any other applicable legal regulations, while at the same time showing profound respect for all the stakeholders involved in clinical research. This manuscript provides the background and rationale for the creation of ECRO, its planned activity and an analysis of the current administrative burden in clinical research with recommendations to rationalise it. Indeed, we expect that this effort shall lead to a relevant improvement in the care of patients and in the development of clinical research.

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Pancreatic Cancer.

The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging the capacities of health systems in many countries. National healthcare services have to manage unexpected shortages of healthcare resources that have to be re-allocated according to the principles of fair and ethical prioritisation, in order to maintain the highest levels of care to all patients, ensure the safety of patients and healthcare workers, and save as many lives as possible. Also, cancer care services have to pursue restructuring, following the same evidence-based dispositions. In this article, we propose a guidance to the management of pancreatic cancer during the pandemic, prioritised according to a three-tiered framework, and based on expert clinical judgement and magnitude of benefit expected from specific interventions. Since the availability of resources for diagnostic procedures, surgery and postoperative care, systemic therapy and radiotherapy may differ, the authors have separated the prioritisation analyses. The impact of postponing or abrogating cancer interventions on outcomes according to a high, medium or low priority scale is outlined and discussed. The implementation of healthcare services using telemedicine is explored; it reveals itself as functional and effective for limiting patients' need to travel to centres and thereby has the potential to reduce diffusion of SARS-CoV-2. Pancreatic cancer demands a considerable amount of medical resources. Therefore, the redefinition of its diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms with a rigorous method is crucial in order to ensure the highest quality of continuum of care in the broader context of the pandemic and the challenged healthcare systems.

ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: colorectal cancer.

COVID-19 pandemic challenges health system capacities in many countries. National healthcare services have to manage unexpected shortage of healthcare resources that have to be reallocated according to the principles of fair and ethical prioritisation, in order to maintain the highest levels of care to all patients, ensure the safety of patients and healthcare workers and save as many lives as possible. Beyond that, cancer care services have to pursue restructuring, following the same evidence-based dispositions. In this article, we propose guidance to the management of colorectal cancer during the pandemic, prioritised according to a three-tiered framework, based on expert clinical judgement and magnitude of benefit expected from specific interventions. Since the availability of resources for diagnostic procedures, surgery and postoperative care, systemic therapy and radiotherapy may differ, authors did separate prioritisation analyses. The impact of postponing or abrogating cancer interventions on outcomes according to a high, medium or low priority scale, is outlined and discussed. The implementation of healthcare services using telemedicine is explored: it reveals itself as functional and effective for limiting patients' need to travel to centres and thereby has the potential to reduce diffusion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Colorectal cancer demands a considerable amount of medical resources. Therefore, the redefinition of its diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms with a rigorous method is crucial in order to ensure the highest quality of continuum of care in the broader context of the pandemic and the challenged healthcare systems.

Threshold Change in CEA as a Predictor of Non-Progression to First-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients With Elevated CEA.

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.

Concurrent losses of skeletal muscle mass, adipose tissue and bone mineral density during bevacizumab / cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Changes in skeletal muscle mass (SMM), total adipose tissue mass (TAT) or bone mineral density (BMD) have been described in patients with cancer undergoing various treatments; simultaneous variations of all 3 tissues has not been reported. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in a clinical study (NCT00489697) including patients with liver metastases of colorectal cancer who received 4 cycles of bevacizumab in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Computerized tomography (CT) at baseline and after chemotherapy was used to quantify skeletal muscle and adipose tissue cross-sectional areas, and mean lumbar spine BMD using validated approaches. RESULTS: After exclusion of patients lacking adequate CT images or missing data, 72 subjects were included. Patients were 63% male, aged 63.2 ± 10.3 years, 100% had liver metastases and 54%, 24% and 22% respectively has 0, 1 and ≥2 extrahepatic metastases. 100% tolerated 4 cycles of treatment and none showed progressive disease at the end of treatment. The scan interval was 70 days (95% CI, 62.3 to 80.5). Thresholds for loss of tissue were defined as loss ≥ measurement error. 10% of patients showed no loss of any tissue and a further 43% lost one tissue (SMM, TAT or BMD); 47% of patients lost 2 tissues (16.5% lost SMM + TAT, 8% lost SMM + BMD, 10% lost TAT + BMD) or all 3 tissues (12.5%). Catabolic behavior (2 or 3 tissue loss vs 0 or 1 tissue loss) associated with disease burden, including unresectable primary tumor (p = 0.010), presence of extrahepatic (EH) metastases (p = 0.039) and number of EH metastases (p = 0.004). No association was found between the number of tissues lost and treatment response, which was uniformly high, or treatment toxicity, which was uniformly low. CONCLUSION: Multiple tissues can be measured in routine CT images and these show considerable inter-individual variation. Substantial losses in some individuals appear to associate with disease burden.

Design and Conduct of Early Clinical Studies of Immunotherapy: Recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies 2019 (MDICT).

PURPOSE: To review key aspects of the design and conduct of early clinical trials (ECT) of immunotherapy agents. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies Task Force 2019 included experts from academia, nonprofit organizations, industry, and regulatory agencies. The review focus was on methodology for ECTs testing immune-oncology therapies (IO) used in combination with other IO or chemotherapy. RESULTS: Although early successes have been seen, the landscape continues to be very dynamic, and there are ongoing concerns regarding the capacity to test all new drugs and combinations in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of drug development methodology is required, taking into account early, late, and lower grade intolerable toxicities, novel response patterns, as well as pharmacodynamic data.

EHA evaluation of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for haematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVE: Value frameworks in oncology have not been validated for the assessment of treatments in haematological malignancies, but to avoid overlaps and duplications it appears reasonable to build up experience on existing value frameworks, such as the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). METHODS: Here we present the results of the first feasibility testing of the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 for haematological malignancies based on the grading of 80 contemporary studies for acute leukaemia, chronic leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. The aims were (1) to evaluate the scorability of data, (2) to evaluate the reasonableness of the generated grades for clinical benefit using the current version and (3) to identify shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 that require amendments to improve the efficacy and validity of the scale in grading new treatments in the management of haematological malignancies. RESULTS: In general, the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was found to be widely applicable to studies in haematological malignancies, generating scores that were judged as reasonable by European Hematology Association (EHA) experts. A small number of studies could either not be graded or were not appropriately graded. The reasons, related to the differences between haematological and solid tumour malignancies, are identified and described. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, ESMO and EHA are committed to develop a version of the ESMO-MCBS that is validated for haematological malignancies. This development process will incorporate all of the usual stringencies for accountability of reasonableness that have characterised the development of the ESMO-MCBS including field testing, statistical modelling, evaluation for reasonableness and openness to appeal and revision. Applying such a scale will support future public policy decision-making regarding the value of new treatments for haematological malignancies and will provide insights that could be helpful in the design of future clinical trials.

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

Importance: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). Objective: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size-weighted coefficients of determination (R2), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS. Results: For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R2 value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti-epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.