Lymph Node (LN) Ratio (LNR) Based Risk Classification (RC) in Stage III Colon Cancer (CC) with Internal and External Validation: Finding from the ACCENT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee
Advertisements

CM A pooled safety & efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in 9 first line treatment trials of 6,286 patients.
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.
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*,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Clinical Relevance of HER2 Overexpression/Amplification in Patients with Small Tumor Size and Node-Negative Breast Cancer Curigliano G et al. J Clin Oncol.
Hot topics in breast radiotherapy Mark Beresford.
References 1.Salazar R, Roepman P, Capella G et al. Gene expression signature to improve prognosis prediction of stage II and III colorectal cancer. J.
1 Efficacy Results NDA (MTP-PE) Laura Lu Statistical Reviewer Office of Biostatistics FDA/CDER.
Tang G et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S4-9.
HERA: KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS, RESULTS AND FUTURE PLANS NSABP 17 SEPTEMBER 2005 Brian Leyland-Jones Minda De Gunzberg Professor of Oncology, McGill University,
Lymphadenectomy in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
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.
Sgroi DC et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-9.
Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer 2005 Daniel G. Haller, M.D. Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA.
Background  Reports of long-term survivors (≥5 years) of locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) have focused mainly on HRQL or GI symptoms  Only.
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.
Capecitabine versus Bolus 5-FU/Leucovorin as Adjuvant Therapy for Colon Cancer: X-ACT Trial Results James Cassidy, MD Colorectal Cancer Update Think Tank.
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,
Adjuvant Matters Richard M Goldberg MD UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Chapel Hill, NC.
Impact of age and comorbidities on treatment effect, tolerance and toxicity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) treated on CALGB
NSABP C08 adjuvant colon cancer Best of ASCO, Beirut, July 2009 Prof Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD Digestive Oncology Leuven, Belgium.
Phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without irinotecan in the front-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in elderly patients. FFCD
Outcomes Following Adjuvant 5-FU based Treatment (AT) for Colon Cancer vs Impact on Recurrence Rate, Time from Recurrence to Death.
Response rate using conventional criteria is a poor surrogate for clinical benefit on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal.
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.
Prof. Francesco Boccardo University and National Cancer Research Institute of Genoa, Italy Prof. Francesco Boccardo University and National Cancer Research.
Trastuzumab plus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Final Planned Joint Analysis of Overall Survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831.
EARLY PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH HIGH-RISK SOFT TISSUE SARCOMAS AN ANALYSIS FROM A PHASE III RANDOMIZED PROSPECTIVE TRIAL (EORTC 62961/ESHO) OF NEOADJUVANT.
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,
Evidence for a Survival Benefit Conferred by Adjuvant Radiotherapy in a Cohort of 608 Women with Early-stage Endometrial Cancer O. Kenneth Macdonald 1,
Ki-67 index cutoff value of 1% is a valuable prognostic biomarker for pulmonary carcinoids based on this large cohort. Our data also provide strong evidence.
Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.
Final results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative 5-fluorouracil (F)/cisplatin (P) to surgery alone in adenocarcinoma of the stomach and lower.
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.
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.
HERA TRIAL: 2 Years versus 1 Year of Trastuzumab After Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Women with HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer at 8 Years of Median Follow-Up.
Results Abstract Analysis of Prognostic Web-based Models for Stage II and III Colon Cancer: A Population-based Validation of Numeracy and Adjuvant! Online.
Microsatellite Instability Predicts Improved Response to Adjuvant Therapy With Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Stage III Colon Cancer In association.
CCO Independent Conference Coverage*: The 2015 Annual Meeting of the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 8-12, 2015 San Antonio, Texas.
Complete pathologic responses in the primary of rectal or colon cancer treated with FOLFOX without radiation A. Cercek, M. R. Weiser, K. A. Goodman, D.
2 years versus 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer (HERA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial Aron Goldhirsch, Richard.
CCO Independent Conference Coverage* of the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting, June 3-7, 2016 GOG0213: Bevacizumab Retreatment of Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian.
J Clin Oncol 30: R2 윤경한 / Prof. 김시영 Huan Jin, Dongsheng Tu, Naiqing Zhao, Lois E. Shepherd, and Paul E. Goss.
Mamounas EP et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-10.
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
CCO Independent Conference Coverage
Prognostic significance of tumor subtypes in male breast cancer:
Immunoscore Prognostic in Colon Cancer
Lindsay A. Renfro1, Axel Grothey2, Leonard B
Short or long adjuvant treatment: can we use new trials to decide it?
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.
MJ O’Connell for the ACCENT Collaborative Group
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,
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:

Lymph Node (LN) Ratio (LNR) Based Risk Classification (RC) in Stage III Colon Cancer (CC) with Internal and External Validation: Finding from the ACCENT Database Q. Shi 1, J.M. Hubbard 1, G. Yothers 2, T. Andre 3, L. Saltz 4, G. Francini 5, B. M. Bot 1, C. Twelves 6, M. Buyse 7, A. Grothey 1, and D. J. Sargent 1, The Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) Collaborative Group Purpose: The degree of LN involvement is one of the most important prognostic factors in CC. Current staging does not consider the number of total LN examined (TLN) and its predictive ability of nodal associated disease RC. Our aim was to develop a RC model based on LNR and other key prognostic factors (e.g. T stage) with internal and external validation. Methods: Individual patient (pt) data from 17 randomized clinical trials were used. LNR is defined as number of positive LNs divided by number of TLN. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). The development dataset consisted of pts receiving 5FU based chemotherapy only. This dataset was randomly split into a training set (6822 pts) and an internal validation set (5047 pts). Pts receiving surgery alone (1001 pts) and 5FU plus other agents (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or oral-based) (3688 pt) comprised two external validation populations. Optimal cutoffs were selected based on Cox model goodness of fit. Validation was based on two key aspects of a predication model - discrimination and calibration. In addition, the Area under the Curve (AUC) was used to assess the accuracy of 3 and 5 year prediction. All analyses were stratified by study. Results: Overall 54% of pts were male with median age of 61. Median follow-up was 8 yrs pts had recurrence or died, with 5 yr DFS of 58.6% (95% CI: 57.8%, 59.4%). The optimal RC based on LNR was identified with the same discrimination (c statistics = 0.62) but improved prediction at 3 and 5 years (AUC = 0.65) over AJCC N staging. The hazard ratios comparing higher risk subgroups to reference group for LNR based RCs range from 1.5 to 5.4 (all p <.0001). Conclusions: LNR, especially combined with T stage can aid risk classification of DFS and provides better prognostic prediction of DFS in stage III CC than AJCC N and T staging. ABSTRACT To assess the prognostic values of LNR in stage III colon cancer To establish optimal risk group classifications based on LNR alone or combination of LNR and T stage OBJECTIVES Patients: Stage III CC patients from 18 trials with available LN related measurements (LN+ and TLN) Treatments including: surgery only, 5FU-based, 5FU plus other (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or oral-based) chemotherapy Outcomes: Disease-Free Survival (DFS): defined as the time from the first occurrence of recurrence or death due to all cause Statistical analyses Stratified Cox PH model was used to assessing association between LN RCs and DFS Optimal cutoffs searching was based on lowest AIC of the model fitting on training set Internal validation – optimism-corrected performance External validation – predicted performance Comparisons between candidate LNR RCs and AJCC RCs were based on the model performances measures below from internal and external validations: C statistics – the ability of discriminating high vs. low risk patients (range from 0 to 1, close to 1 the better) Calibration slop – the reliability of the predicted effect based on the risk classification (range from - ∞ to + ∞, close to 1 the better) AUC of 3 & 5 year rate prediction – the accuracy of prediction based on the risk classification at 3 and 5 year for individual patients (range from 0 to 1, close to 1 the better) METHODS Statistical Analysis Flow Chart Characteristics Training set Internal Validation set External validation sets P 5FU or variation of 5FUsurgery only * 5FU + other No. patients (%) 6822 (41.2)5047 (30.5)1001 (6.0)3688 (22.3)NA Age, years Median Range to to to to 84.0 <.0001 † Gender, n (%) Female Male 3135 (49.9) 3687 (54.1) 2344 (46.5) 2702 (53.5) 469 (46.9) 532 (53.1) 1680 (45.5) 2008 (54.5) # TLN Median Range to to to to 97.0 <.0001 ‡ Number of positive LN Median Range to to to to ‡ LNR Median Range to to to to 1.00 <.000 ‡ T stage, n (%) T1/2/is T3 T4/Perforation 821 (12.2) 5034 (74.6) 892 (13.2) 651 (14.8) 3556 (80.9) 190 (4.3) 82 (10.1) 696 (86.0) 31 (3.8) 418 (11.3) 2828 (76.8) 438 (11.9) <.0001 # Patient Characteristics Abbreviations: TLN: total number of lymph node examined; LN: lymph nodes; * Regimens include FLOFOX4, FOLOX, IFL, FOLFIRI and Uracil/tegafur; † ANOVA; ‡ Kruskal-Wallis test; # Chi-square test; AJCC N & T StageLNR & T Stage Nodal Risk Classification Permanence Measures Internal validation External validation 1 External validation 2 With T Stage AJCC N and T stage N1, T1/2 N1, T3/4 N2a, T1 N2a, T2/3 N2a, T4 N2b, T1/2 N2b, T3/4 C statistics Calibration slop 3 year rate pred. 5 year rate pred LNR and T stage T1/2/is lnr ≤ 0.4 lnr > 0.4 T3 lnr ≤ < lnr ≤ < lnr ≤ 0.67 lnr > 0.67 T4 lnr ≤ 0.3 lnr > 0.3 C statistics Calibration slop 3 year rate pred. 5 year rate pred Comparisons of Performance among RC Models LNR is a significant prognostic factor of DFS in stage III colon cancer patients. Strong non-linear relationship between LNR and DFS p <.0001 for quadratic effect HR = 1.49, 95% CI = [1.43, 1.55] for LNR = 0.3 vs. 0.1 Significant non-linear relationship remains after adjusting for age, gender, T stage, PS, grade and treatment. Based on LN data only, LNR RC achieves similar performance as AJCC N staging. Comparing to AJCC N & T RC, the LNR & TRC achieves same overall performance in discriminating high vs. low risk patients, and predicting DFS (C stat = 0.61 to 0.63, Calibration slop = 0.87 to 0.98) predicts 3 and 5 year DFS rates more accurately (AUC = 0.62 to 0.69) Two RCs agree on 85% of the patients. Among the patients whose risk differs between classifications, the discrepancy within ‘high risk’ patients is greater than low or intermediate risk group. KEY FINDINGS This is a large scale risk classification analysis with internal and external validations. LNR based RC discriminate patient regarding long-term adverse outcome risk well. The RC based on LNR which take account of TLN provide more accurate prediction in DFS than the RC based on number of LN+ alone. DISCUSSIONS Each of the rectangle of area is proportional to % of patients Blue, red, and green boxes represent low, intermediate, and high risk pts classified as by AJCC N and T stage, respectively. Columns of “Low”, “Intermediate”, and “High” represent 3 risk groups classified by LNR and T stage. Low, Intermediate, and High risk groups consist pts who belong to different shades of blue, red and green lines in the K-M curves on the left. Comparison of Patient Risk Classifications based on Two RCs ACCENT Initially established in 2003, to validate DFS as an endpoint in adjuvant colon cancer Individual patient data from 24 large adjuvant randomized clinical trails, 33,574 pts Jointly owned by all contributors This study was funded by NIH Grant CA Authors Affiliation 1. Mayo Clinic, USA; 2. NSABP Biostatistical Center, USA; 3. Gr Hospitalier Pitie-Salpetriere, France; 4. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, USA; 5. University of Siena, Italy; 6. University of Bradford, UK; 7. International Drug Development, Belgium;  Two RC classify 84.6% patients into the same risk groups.  LNR based RC classified  15.1% AJCC-low risk pts into intermediate risk group  8.6% AJCC-intermediate risk pts into high/low risk group  49.6% AJCC-high risk pts into intermediate risk group