Lindsay A. Renfro1, Axel Grothey2, Leonard B

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CM A pooled safety & efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in 9 first line treatment trials of 6,286 patients.
Advertisements

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors Elizabeth Shurell, M.D., M.Phil. UCLA General Surgery Resident Research Fellow, Division.
MOSAIC Stage ll+lll FOLFOX4 LV5FU2 Randomize. DFS DFS (months) Hazard ratio: 0.77 [0.65 – 0.92] p < 0.01 FOLFOX (n=1123) 77.9% LV5FU2 (n=1123) 72.8% FOLFOX.
A Phase III Trial Comparing FULV to FULV + Oxaliplatin in Stage II or III Carcinoma of the Colon: Results of NSABP-C-07 Norman Wolmark, MD Colorectal Cancer.
Statistical Issues in Incorporating and Testing Biomarkers in Phase III Clinical Trials FDA/Industry Workshop; September 29, 2006 Daniel Sargent, PhD Sumithra.
Multi trial evaluation of longitudinal tumor measurement (TM)-based metrics for predicting overall survival (OS) using the RECIST 1.1 data warehouse Background:
1 N9841: A Randomized Phase III Equivalence Trial of Irinotecan (CPT-11) versus FOLFOX4 in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma Previously Treated.
D. Haller, 1 J. Cassidy, 2 J. Tabernero, 3 J. Maroun, 4 F. de Braud, 5 T. Price, 6 E. Van Cutsem, 7 M. Hill, 8 F. Gilberg, 9 H-J. Schmoll 10 1 University.
Pilot Experience with Adjuvant FOLFIRI +/- Cetuximab in Patients with Resected Stage III Colon Cancer – NCCTG Intergroup N0147 J. Huang*, D. J. Sargent*,
Intergroup trial CALGB 80101
N ational S urgical A djuvant B reast and B owel P roject.
1 Stage III Colon Cancer What Works? Thierry André, MD Medical Oncology Departement, Hôpital Saint Antoine, APHP, Paris, France and University Pierre et.
Oxaliplatin/5FU/LV in adjuvant colon cancer: Updated efficacy results of the MOSAIC trial, including survival, with a median follow-up.
Discussion abstracts Alberto Sobrero MD Ospedale San Martino Genoa, Italy.
Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer 2005 Daniel G. Haller, M.D. Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA.
Abstract 8504: E4697: Phase III Cooperative Group Study of Yeast Derived GM-CSF vs Placebo as Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with Completely Resected Stage.
A Quantitative Multi-Gene RT-PCR Assay for Prediction of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer (CC): Selection of the Genes in 4 Large Studies and Results.
Is surgical resection of an asymptomatic primary colorectal tumor beneficial for patients with incurable Stage IV disease? A Phase II Trial of 5-Fluorouracil,
Greg Yothers, Stephanie R. Land, Clifford Y. Ko, D. Lawrence Wickerham, Louis Fehrenbacher, Jeffrey K. Giguere, Norman Wolmark, and Patricia A. Ganz.
Guanylyl Cyclase C (GCC) Lymph Nodes (LN) Classification as a Prognostic Marker in Patients with Stage II Colon Cancer: A Pooled Analysis Daniel J. Sargent,
Outcomes Following Adjuvant 5-FU based Treatment (AT) for Colon Cancer vs Impact on Recurrence Rate, Time from Recurrence to Death.
Relation of tumor pathologic and molecular features to outcome after surgical resection of localized primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): Results.
T Andre, E Quinaux, C Louvet, E Gamelin, O Bouche, E Achille, P Piedbois, N Tubiana-Mathieu, M Buyse and A de Gramont. Updated results at 6 year of the.
CJ Allegra, G Yothers, MJ O’Connell, MS Roh, RW Beart, NJ Petrelli, S Lopa, S Sharif, and N Wolmark Neoadjuvant Therapy For Rectal Cancer: Mature Results.
Risk Stratified Analysis Improves Prediction of Treatment Benefit Over Subgroup Analysis: Findings from Intergroup N9741 HK Sanoff, ME Campbell, HC Pitot,
on behalf of the ACOSOG Z4032 Investigators
How should efficacy of new adjuvant therapies be evaluated in colorectal cancer? Marc Buyse, ScD IDDI, Brussels, Belgium Based on Daniel Sargent’s talks.
0 Adjuvant FOLFIRI +/- Cetuximab in Patients with Resected Stage III Colon Cancer NCCTG Intergroup Phase III Trial N0147 Jocelin Huang, Daniel J Sargent,
Individualizing Adjuvant Therapy on the Basis of Molecular Markers Charles S. Fuchs, MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Harvard Medical School Boston, MA.
14 th Annual Meeting of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society November 13-15, 2008, London, UK Oliver Zivanovic, Mario M. Leitao, Alexia Iasonos, Lindsay.
Lymph Node (LN) Ratio (LNR) Based Risk Classification (RC) in Stage III Colon Cancer (CC) with Internal and External Validation: Finding from the ACCENT.
The impact of smoking on cancer recurrence and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer: findings from CALGB Nadine A. Jackson, Charles S.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer: Where are we now ? Leonard Saltz, MD Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York, NY.
Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology
Age > 50 Abstract Background Limited data exists regarding outcomes and AT benefit/toxicity in Y pts with stage II and III CC. We examined overall survival.
Should database studies effect patient management and clinical trial design? Discussion of abstracts #4010 and #4011 Howard S. Hochster, MD Professor of.
Results Abstract Analysis of Prognostic Web-based Models for Stage II and III Colon Cancer: A Population-based Validation of Numeracy and Adjuvant! Online.
Endpoints in adjuvant trials: a systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials Marc E. Buyse.
Microsatellite Instability Predicts Improved Response to Adjuvant Therapy With Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Stage III Colon Cancer In association.
Results from the International, Randomized Phase 3 Study of Ibrutinib versus Chlorambucil in Patients 65 Years and Older with Treatment-Naïve CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2TM)1.
Mamounas EP et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-10.
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Prognostic significance of tumor subtypes in male breast cancer:
R. Michelle Sarin, MD Mentor: Jeffrey Fowler, MD
Immunoscore Prognostic in Colon Cancer
Definitive Analysis of the Primary Outcomes
Prognostic and Predictive Value of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay in Postmenopausal Women with Node-Positive, Estrogen- Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.
Phase III Trial (MPACT) of Weekly nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Influence of Prognostic Factors of Survival J Tabernero,
(2) - Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, and
Laparoscopic vs Open Colonic Surgery: Long Term Survival
Is there a role for adjuvant oxaliplatin in rectal cancer? - YES! -
Joensuu H et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract LBA1.
Short or long adjuvant treatment: can we use new trials to decide it?
Jordan Berlin Co-Director, GI Oncology Program
Effect of Obesity on Prognosis after Early Breast Cancer
Time-dependent patterns of treatment effect and failure as an explanation for the predictive role of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) in stage II and III.
Meta-analysis of three trials investigating 5-FU and irinotecan.
MJ O’Connell for the ACCENT Collaborative Group
Adjuvant Therapy in Gastric Cancer: Radiation Therapy Adds Nothing!
Five-Year Outcomes after Randomization to Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Final Results of The PARTNER 1 Trial Michael J. Mack, MD.
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
Impact of older age on the efficacy of newer adjuvant therapies in >12,500 patients with stage II / III colon cancer: Findings from the ACCENT Database.
Adjuvant chemotherapy after potentially curative resection of metastases from colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis of two randomized trials E Mitry, A Fields,
HISTOLOGY-SPECIFIC NOMOGRAM FOR PATIENTS AFFECTED BY PRIMARY RSTS
Phase III study of irinotecan/5FU/LV (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5FU/LV (FOLFOX) +/- cetuximab for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the.
Uni- & Multivariate Analysis Sponsored by GERCOR (
Aimery de Gramont Association between 3 year Disease Free Survival and Overall Survival delayed with improved survival after recurrence in patients receiving.
2 or 3 Year DFS is an Appropriate Primary Endpoint in Stage III Adjuvant Colon Cancer Trials with Fluoropyrimidines with or without Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan.
Presentation transcript:

ACCENT-Based Nomograms to Predict Recurrence and Overall Survival in Stage III Colon Cancer Lindsay A. Renfro1, Axel Grothey2, Leonard B. Saltz3, Thierry André4, Roberto Labianca5, Steven R. Alberts2, Charles L. Loprinzi2, Greg Yothers6, Daniel J. Sargent1 for the Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) Group 1Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 2Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 3Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; 4Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris, France; 5Oncology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy; 6National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) Project Biostatistical Center, Pittsburgh, PA Abstract Data Trial Characteristics Survival Nomogram Comparison with AJCC Staging Background: Current prognostic tools and staging systems in colon cancer (CC) use relatively few patient attributes; including additional covariates may improve prediction. Using the large ACCENT database, we constructed clinically based nomograms for overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) in stage III CC that better separate patients into risk groups compared to AJCC v7 staging.  Methods: 15,995 stage III patients accrued to phase III clinical trials since 1989 were used to construct Cox models for TTR and OS, stratified by study.  Variables included age, sex, race, BMI, performance status, tumor grade, tumor stage, ratio of positive lymph nodes to nodes examined, number/location of primary tumors, and treatment class. Missing data (<18%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions included if p < 0.001.  Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping for corrected calibration and C-indices for survival data.  Nomogram-defined risk tertiles were compared to AJCC v7 stage III for observed 3-year TTR and 5-year OS for a subset of 7400 patients with complete data.  Results: All variables were statistically and clinically significant for OS; age and race did not predict TTR.  No meaningful interactions existed.  Nomograms for OS and TTR were well calibrated and associated with C-indices of 0.66 and 0.65, respectively, vs. 0.58 and 0.59 for AJCC.  Nomogram risk tertiles were better separated than AJCC groups.  Removing treatment from the nomograms did not hurt performance (C=0.66 for OS and 0.65 for TTR).  Conclusions: The proposed ACCENT nomgrams are internally valid and have the potential to aid prognostication, patient/physician communication, and decision making in patients with stage III colon cancer. 15, 936 individual patients (with > 50% variables available) from 12 randomized phase III trials conducted since 1989 Endpoints: Overall survival (OS), defined as time from randomization to death from any cause Time to recurrence (TTR), defined as time from randomization to recurrence of primary disease Candidate Variables: Age (years) Sex (Male, Female) Race (White, Black, Asian, Other) Body Mass Index (BMI; continuous) Performance Status (PS; 0, 1, 2+) Tumor Grade (1, 2, 3+) Tumor Stage (T-stage; T1, T2, T3, T4) Ratio of # positive lymph nodes to # examined (continuous) Number/location tumors: single left, right, or transverse; any multiple Treatment (5FU Variations, 5FU+irinotecan, 5FU+oxaliplatin) Trial Years Accrued Treatment Arm(s) N NCCTG 894651 1989-1991 FU/LV +/- LEV for 6 or 12 months 754 INT 0089 1990-1992 FU/LEV vs. FU/LV (HD/LD) vs. FU/LV/LEV 2,704 NSABP C05 1991-1994 FU/LV vs. FU/LV + IFN 1,191 NCCTG 914653 1993-1998 FU/LV + HD or standard LEV 648 SWOG 9415 1994-1999 Bolus vs. infusional FU/LEV/LV 795 GERCOR 1996-1999 Bolus vs. infusional FU/LV 512 MOSAIC 1998-2001 FU/LV vs. FOLFOX 1,344 X-ACT FU/LV vs. Cap 1,982 NSABP C06 1997-1999 IFU/LV vs. UFT+LV 829 NSABP C07 2000-2002 1,733 CALGB 89803 1999-2001 FU/LV vs. FU/LV + Iri 1,239 PETACC-3 FU/LV (AIO or LVFU2) vs. +/- Iri 2,264 Total Original ACCENT 15,995 AJCC v7 Staging Nomogram OS C-index = 0.58 C-index = 0.66 TTR C-index = 0.59 C-index = 0.65 Age Sex Race BMI PS Grade T-Stage Nratio Location Treat Total 3-Yr OS 5-Yr OS Patient A 58 M White 35 2 T3 0.20 Left Oxali Points 3 11 5 37 119 86% 78% Patient B 82 45 1 3+ 0.65 Right 5FU 12 15 8 80 14 251 32% 15% Recurrence Nomogram Final Models   OS TTR Variable Coef Std. Err HR Factor P-value Age* -0.0004 0.0149 0.0025 0.0028 < 0.0001 Sex Female Male - 0.1740 0.0271 1.190 0.0866 0.0265 1.090 0.0011 Race White Black Asian Other 0.1869 0.1220 0.0361 0.0580 0.1080 0.1038 1.205 1.130 1.037 0.0094 BMI* -0.0310 0.0370 0.0069 0.0077 -0.0365 0.0418 0.0066 0.0074 PS 1 2+ 0.1330 0.3514 0.0318 0.1021 1.142 1.421 0.1110 0.2850 0.0315 0.1129 1.117 1.330 0.0002 Grade 2 3+ 0.0725 0.2262 0.0468 0.0519 1.075 1.254 0.1069 0.2008 0.0451 0.0507 1.113 1.222 T-Stage T1 T2 T3 T4 0.3748 0.9086 1.3469 0.0951 0.0945 0.0993 1.455 2.481 3.845 0.5317 1.1514 1.5682 0.1044 0.1030 0.1072 1.702 3.163 4.798 Node Ratio* 2.9665 -2.7422 0.1870 0.3306 2.8326 -2.5617 0.1822 0.3235 Location Left Right Trans Multi 0.2297 0.1907 0.2380 0.0306 0.0377 0.0813 1.258 1.210 1.269 0.0796 0.0578 0.1627 0.0298 0.0371 0.0788 1.083 1.059 1.177 0.0178 Treatment 5FU 5FU+Ox 5FU+Iri -0.1718 -0.0571 0.0661 0.0608 0.842 0.944 0.0219 -0.2866 -0.0697 0.0626 0.0554 0.751 0.933 <0.0001 Methods Continuous Predictor Effects Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were created for TTR and OS, stratified by study All statistically and clinically significant variables and pairwise interactions were included in the final models Continuous variables were modeled with nested splines Models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected discrimination (C-index) and calibration plots 7,400 patients with complete data were used to compare nomogram-defined risk tertiles versus AJCC v7 (A,B,C) Age Sex Race BMI PS Grade TStage Nratio Location Treat Total 3-Yr RF 5-Yr RF Patient A 58 M White 35 2 T3 0.20 Left Oxali Points - 6 5 7 73 126 78% 73% Patient B 82 45 1 3+ 0.65 Right 5FU 15 13 77 18 214 38% 30% Calibration Conclusions Objectives Results The proposed stage III colon cancer nomograms: Involve more patient characteristics than existing tools Are internally valid (good discrimination and calibration) In the future, these nomograms may be used for: Stratified randomization in clinical trials to balance risk across treatment arms Treatment decision-making Enhanced physician/patient communication To create internally valid nomograms for predicting overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) in stage III colon cancer using widely available patient characteristics To compare outcomes by nomogram-defined risk tertiles against AJCC v7 staging (IIIA, IIIB, IIIIC) among patients where both classifications are available All variables were included in the final OS model All variables except age and race included in TTR model No relevant two-way interactions existed for OS or TTR Both models are internally valid with good calibration and better discrimination than AJCC The OS and TTR models showed improved discrimination (correct ordering of pairs of patients by risk) relative to AJCC v7 staging