-
1.
Phase III randomized trial comparing systemic versus intra-arterial oxaliplatin, combined with LV5FU2 +/- irinotecan and a targeted therapy, in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer restricted to the liver (OSCAR): PRODIGE 49.
Pernot, S, Pellerin, O, Mineur, L, Monterymard, C, Smith, D, Lapuyade, B, Gallois, C, Khemissa Akouz, F, De Baere, T, Tougeron, D, et al
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2022;(3):324-330
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRCLM), systemic doublet or triplet chemotherapy and targeted therapy is considered a standard first-line treatment. Hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin (HAI-ox) generates a high response rate, but this still needs to be confirmed in a randomized trial. We incorporated HAI-ox in doublet or triplet + targeted therapy to validate its efficacy. AIM: The OSCAR study is an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing FOLFOX + targeted therapy according to RAS status, or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab in patients eligible for triplet therapy, with the same regimen but with HAI-ox instead of IV-ox as the first-line treatment for CRCLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS Main eligibility criteria are colorectal cancer, unresectable liver metastasis, no extra-hepatic metastases except pulmonary nodules if ≤3 and <10 mm, ECOG performance status 0 or 1. ENDPOINT The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). A difference of 4 months for the median PFS in favor of HAI-ox is expected (HR = 0.73). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, secondary liver resection, safety, and quality of life. CONCLUSION This study is planned to include 348 patients to demonstrate the superiority of HAI-ox over systemic oxaliplatin in first-line CRCLM treatment (NCT02885753).
-
2.
Prospective observational study of the efficacy of oral uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin for stage II colon cancer with risk factors for recurrence using propensity score matching (JFMC46-1201).
Sadahiro, S, Sakamoto, K, Tsuchiya, T, Takahashi, T, Ohge, H, Sato, T, Kondo, K, Ogata, Y, Baba, H, Itabashi, M, et al
BMC cancer. 2022;(1):170
Abstract
BACKGROUND The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage II colon cancer (CC) has not been well established. We compared the effects of surgery with and without oral uracil and tegafur plus leucovorin (UFT/LV) in patients with high-risk stage II CC, adjusting for potential risk factors. METHODS We enrolled patients with histologically confirmed stage II colon adenocarcinoma with at least one of the following conditions: T4 disease, perforation/penetration, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma/mucinous carcinoma, or < 12 dissected lymph nodes. Patients chose to be non-randomized or randomized to undergo surgery alone (NR-Group S or R-Group S) or surgery followed by 6 months of UFT/LV (NR-Group U or R-Group U). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) after adjusting for previously reported risk factors using propensity score matching (1:2) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) in the non-randomized arm. RESULTS Overall, 1,902 (98%) and 36 (2%) patients were enrolled in the non-randomized and randomized arms, respectively. There were too few patients in the randomized arm and these were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the 1,902 patients, 402 in NR-Group S and 804 in NR-Group U were propensity score-matched. The 3-year DFS rate (95% confidence interval) was significantly higher in NR-Group U (80.9% [77.9%-83.4%]) than in NR-Group S (74.0% [69.3%-78.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.64 [0.50-0.83]; P = 0.0006). The 3-year overall survival rate was not significantly different between NR-Group S and NR-Group U. Significantly higher 3-year DFS (P = 0.0013) and overall survival (P = 0.0315) rates were observed in NR-Group U compared with NR-Group S using IPTW. CONCLUSIONS Adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT/LV showed a significant survival benefit over surgery alone in patients with high-risk stage II CC characterized by at least one of the following conditions: T4 disease, perforation/penetration, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma/mucinous carcinoma, or < 12 dissected lymph nodes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Japan Registry of Clinical Trials: jRCTs031180155 (date of registration: 25/02/2019) (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000007783 , date of registration: 18/04/2012).
-
3.
Early weight loss is an independent risk factor for shorter survival and increased side effects in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing first-line treatment within the randomized Phase III trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306).
Liu, L, Erickson, NT, Ricard, I, von Weikersthal, LF, Lerch, MM, Decker, T, Kiani, A, Kaiser, F, Heintges, T, Kahl, C, et al
International journal of cancer. 2022;(1):112-123
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Body weight loss is frequently regarded as negatively related to outcomes in patients with malignancies. This retrospective analysis of the FIRE-3 study evaluated the evolution of body weight in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (ie, wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). The prognostic and predictive relevance of early weight loss (EWL) regarding patient outcomes and treatment side effects were evaluated. Retrospective data on body weight during first 6 months of treatment were evaluated (N = 326). To correlate with efficacy endpoints and treatment side effects, patients were grouped according to clinically significant EWL ≥5% and <5% at Month 3. Age constituted the only significant predictor of EWL following a linear relationship with the corresponding log odds ratio (P = .016). EWL was significantly associated with the incident frequencies of diarrhea, edema, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Further, a multivariate analysis revealed EWL to be an independent negative prognostic factor for overall survival (32.4 vs 21.1 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-2.38; P = .0098) and progression-free survival (11.8 vs 9.0 months; HR: 1.72; 95% CI = 1.18-2.5; P = .0048). In conclusion, EWL during systemic treatment against mCRC is significantly associated with patient age. Patients exhibiting EWL had worse survival and higher frequencies of adverse events. Early preventative measures targeted at weight maintenance should be evaluated, especially in elderly patients being at highest risk of EWL.
-
4.
Talazoparib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Enrolled in Asian Countries: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.
Lee, KH, Sohn, J, Goodwin, A, Usari, T, Lanzalone, S, Im, SA, Kim, SB
Cancer research and treatment. 2021;(4):1084-1095
Abstract
PURPOSE We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population. CONCLUSION In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.
-
5.
FOLFIRINEC: a randomized phase II trial of mFOLFIRINOX vs platinum-etoposide for metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma of gastroenteropancreatic or unknown origin.
Hadoux, J, Afchain, P, Walter, T, Tougeron, D, Hautefeuille, V, Monterymard, C, Lorgis, V, Thuillier, F, Baudin, E, Scoazec, JY, et al
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2021;(7):824-829
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) are rare diseases with a poor prognosis. Platinum-etoposide (PE) has been the recommended first-line treatment for decades. FOLFIRINEC (NCT04325425) is a national multicenter randomized phase II study which aims to challenge this standard regimen. METHODS The primary objective is to compare the median progression-free survival (PFS) under mFOLFIRINOX versus PE. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the objective response rates (ORR), median overall survival (OS), safety and quality of life. The associated real-time translational study will establish a molecular profile for each patient enrolled. MAIN INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE NEC of gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) or unknown origin, metastatic and RECIST 1.1 evaluable disease, tumor sample available and no contraindication to chemotherapy. Patients will be randomized 1:1 between PE every 21 days for 6-8 cycles and mFOLFIRINOX every 14 days for up to 12 cycles and stratified according to center, performance status, Ki67 and pathological subtype. This trial will randomize 218 patients (24 months of follow-up) to have 80% power to detect an improvement of the median PFS from 5 months under PE to 7.5 months under mFOLFIRINOX (HR of 0.67, α =5%, two-sided). An intermediate analysis is planned at 50% of events. Recruitment started on October 20, 2020.
-
6.
Randomized Phase II Study of PET Response-Adapted Combined Modality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Mature Results of the CALGB 80803 (Alliance) Trial.
Goodman, KA, Ou, FS, Hall, NC, Bekaii-Saab, T, Fruth, B, Twohy, E, Meyers, MO, Boffa, DJ, Mitchell, K, Frankel, WL, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2021;(25):2803-2815
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy. RESULTS Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached. CONCLUSION Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.
-
7.
Randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy and safety of SOX versus mFOLFOX6 as neoadjuvant chemotherapy without radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (KSCC1301).
Miwa, K, Oki, E, Enomoto, M, Ihara, K, Ando, K, Fujita, F, Tominaga, M, Mori, S, Nakayama, G, Shimokawa, M, et al
BMC cancer. 2021;(1):23
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), is associated with many radiotherapy (RT)-related side effects. We aimed to evaluate whether S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) or folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) can be as effective as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens for LARC without RT. METHODS Patients with untreated resectable LARC were randomly assigned to receive SOX or mFOLFOX6. The NAC protocol period was 3 months. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoints included pathological effects, surgical completion rate, 3-year survival, and safety. RESULTS From September 2013 to October 2015, 56 and 54 patients were enrolled in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. The 3-year DFS rates were 69.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.9-83.6) and 73.4% (95% CI 58.7-83.6) in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively; no significant differences were found between the arms (log-rank test; P = 0.5315, hazard ratio: 0.808, 95% CI 0.414-1.578). The 3-year survival rates were 92.3 and 91.8% in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. The surgical completion rate was 98.1% overall, 100% in the SOX arm, and 96.0% in the mFOLFOX6 arm. The incidences of pathological response rates ≥grade 1b were 41.5 and 43.8% in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. Both treatments were manageable and tolerable. CONCLUSION We demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of SOX and mFOLFOX6, both of which may be new neoadjuvant treatment candidates in previously untreated LARC cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: 3rd Oct 2013; This study was registered in the UMIN clinical trials registry on 14th Aug, 2013. (Prospectively registered, UMIN-CTR number UMIN000011486). https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=brows&recptno=R000013441&language=J.
-
8.
Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX induction chemotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (NEOLAP-AIO-PAK-0113): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.
Kunzmann, V, Siveke, JT, Algül, H, Goekkurt, E, Siegler, G, Martens, U, Waldschmidt, D, Pelzer, U, Fuchs, M, Kullmann, F, et al
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2021;(2):128-138
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal preoperative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) as multidrug induction chemotherapy regimens in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 2 study, done at 28 centres in Germany, eligible patients were adults (aged 18-75 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and histologically or cytologically confirmed, treatment-naive locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as determined by local multidisciplinary team review. After two cycles of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients without progressive disease or unacceptable adverse events were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either two additional cycles of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group) or four cycles of sequential FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 by intravenous bolus followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 2400 mg/m2 for 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; sequential FOLFIRINOX group). Randomisation was done by the clinical research organisation on request of the trial centre using a permuted block design (block size 2 and 4). Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was surgical conversion rate (complete macroscopic tumour resection) in the randomised population by intention-to-treat analysis, which was assessed by surgical exploration in all patients with at least stable disease after completion of induction chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125136. FINDINGS Between Nov 18, 2014, and April 27, 2018, 168 patients were registered and 130 were randomly assigned to either the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group (64 patients) or the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (66 patients). Surgical exploration after completed induction chemotherapy was done in 40 (63%) of 64 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 42 (64%) of 66 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group. 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 29 in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group had complete macroscopic tumour resection, yielding a surgical conversion rate of 35·9% (95% CI 24·3-48·9) in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 43·9% (31·7-56·7) in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·35-1·45]; p=0·38). At a median follow-up of 24·9 months (95% CI 21·8-27·6), median overall survival was 18·5 months (95% CI 14·4-21·5) in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 20·7 months (13·9-28·7) in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (hazard ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·55-1·36]; p=0·53). All other secondary efficacy endpoints, such as investigator-assessed progression-free survival, radiographic response rate, CA 19-9 response rate, and R0 resection rate, were not significantly different between the two treatment groups except for improved histopathological downstaging in evaluable resection specimens from the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (ypT1/2 stage: 20 [69%] of 29 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group vs four [17%] of 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, p=0·0003; ypN0 stage: 15 [52%] of 29 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group vs four [17%] of 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, p=0·02). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events during induction chemotherapy occurred in 35 (55%) of 64 patients in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and in 35 (53%) of 66 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group. The most common of which were neutropenia (18 [28%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, 16 [24%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group), nausea and vomiting (two [3%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, eight [12%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group), and bile duct obstruction with cholangitis (six [9%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, seven [11%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group). No deaths were caused by treatment-related adverse events during the induction chemotherapy phase. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine is similarly active and safe as nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX as multidrug induction chemotherapy regimens for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Although conversion to resectability was achieved in about a third of patients, additional evidence is required to determine whether this translates into improved overall survival. FUNDING Celgene.
-
9.
Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MAIA): overall survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Facon, T, Kumar, SK, Plesner, T, Orlowski, RZ, Moreau, P, Bahlis, N, Basu, S, Nahi, H, Hulin, C, Quach, H, et al
The Lancet. Oncology. 2021;(11):1582-1596
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA trial (median follow-up 28·0 months), a significant improvement in progression-free survival was observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in transplantation-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Here, we report the updated efficacy and safety results from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival. METHODS MAIA is an ongoing, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that enrolled patients at 176 hospitals in 14 countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2, and were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation because of their age (≥65 years) or comorbidities. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomly permuted blocks (block size 4) by an interactive web response system to receive 28-day cycles of intravenous daratumumab (16 mg/kg, once per week during cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) plus oral lenalidomide (25 mg on days 1-21 of each cycle) and oral dexamethasone (40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle; daratumumab group) or lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified by International Staging System disease stage, geographical region, and age. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally assessed, and a secondary endpoint was overall survival (both assessed in the intention-to-treat population). The safety population included patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The results presented here are from a prespecified interim analysis for overall survival, for which the prespecified stopping boundary was p=0·0414. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02252172. FINDINGS Between March 18, 2015, and Jan 15, 2017, 952 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 737 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the daratumumab group (n=368) or the control group (n=369). At a median follow-up of 56·2 months (IQR 52·7-59·9), median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI 54·8-not reached) in the daratumumab group versus 34·4 months (29·6-39·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·43-0·66]; p<0·0001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (daratumumab group, 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group, 95% CI 55·7-not reached; HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·53-0·86]; p=0·0013). The most common (>15%) grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (197 [54%] patients in the daratumumab group vs 135 [37%] patients in the control group), pneumonia (70 [19%] vs 39 [11%]), anaemia (61 [17%] vs 79 [22%]), and lymphopenia (60 [16%] vs 41 [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 281 (77%) patients in the daratumumab group and 257 (70%) patients in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (4%) patients in the daratumumab group and ten (3%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone increased overall survival and progression-free survival in patients ineligible for stem-cell transplantation with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. There were no new safety concerns. Our results support the frontline use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for transplantation. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.
-
10.
Patients' Preferences for 3 Months vs 6 Months of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer.
Blinman, P, Martin, A, Jefford, M, Goldstein, D, Boadle, D, Morris, M, Tebbutt, N, Aiken, C, Harkin, A, Segelov, E, et al
JNCI cancer spectrum. 2021;(1)
Abstract
BACKGROUND SCOT was an international, randomized phase 3 trial of 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in patients with colorectal cancer. We sought patients' preferences for 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the SCOT trial. METHODS SCOT participants from Australia and New Zealand completed a validated questionnaire (at 3 and 18 months) to elicit the minimum survival benefits judged necessary to make an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile, based on their experience. Standardized hypothetical scenarios used the following baseline survivals (with 3 months of chemotherapy): life expectancies (LE) of 5 years and 15 years and 5-year survival rates (5YS) of 65% and 85%. RESULTS Of the 160 participants, 82 were assigned 3 months adjuvant chemotherapy, and 78 were assigned 6 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was FOLFOX in 121 (75.6%) and XELOX in 39 (24.4%). Preferences varied substantially and did not differ according to treatment group. The median survival benefits judged necessary to make the extra 3 months of chemotherapy worthwhile were an extra 3 years beyond a LE of 5 years; 3 years beyond a LE of 15 years; 15% beyond a 5YS of 65%; and 5% beyond a 5YS of 85%. Preferences were similar at 3 months and 18 months. Preferences were not predicted by participants' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION Preferences varied substantially, and the benefits many required to warrant an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy were larger than the benefits of an extra 3 months of chemotherapy calculated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) meta-analysis.