516P - Characteristics of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with regorafenib (REG) who had progression-free survival (PFS) >...

Date 08 October 2016
Event ESMO 2016 Congress
Session Poster Display
Topics Colon Cancer
Rectal Cancer
Presenter Axel Grothey
Citation Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 149-206. 10.1093/annonc/mdw370
Authors A. Grothey1, A. Falcone2, Y. Humblet3, O. Bouche4, L. Mineur5, A. Adenis6, J. Tabernero7, T. Yoshino8, H. Lenz9, R.M. Goldberg10, L. Huang11, A. Wagner12, E. Van Cutsem13
  • 1Department Of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 55905 - Rochester/US
  • 2Department Of Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa/IT
  • 3Medical Oncology Department, St-Luc University Hospital, Brussels/BE
  • 4Digestive Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Robert Debré, Reims/FR
  • 5Gi And Liver Cancer Unit Oncology And Radiotherapy, Institut Ste Catherine, Avignon/FR
  • 6Department Of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille/FR
  • 7Department Of Medical Oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology, Barcelona/ES
  • 8Department Of Gastroenterology And Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa/JP
  • 9Division Of Medical Oncology, USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles/US
  • 10Department Of Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center and James Cancer Hospital, Columbus/US
  • 11Clinical Statistics Us, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany/US
  • 12Global Clinical Development, Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin/DE
  • 13Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven/BE

Abstract

Background

In CORRECT, REG significantly improved overall survival and PFS vs placebo in pts with treatment-refractory mCRC. We did a retrospective, exploratory subgroup analysis of REG-treated pts in CORRECT with PFS >4 m (long PFS) and ≤4 m (short PFS).

Methods

Pts with pretreated mCRC were randomized 2:1 to REG 160 mg or placebo QD for 3 weeks on/1 week off until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. PFS was the time from randomization to progression or death. Of 505 pts randomized to REG, 98 (19%) had long PFS and 407 (81%) had short PFS.

Results

Compared to short PFS pts, the long PFS group had a higher proportion of patients with ECOG PS0, 1–2 tumor sites, and ≥18 m since diagnosis of metastatic disease (Table). Long PFS pts received a median of 6 (1–12) cycles, short PFS pts a median of 2 (1–11). Mean actual daily doses were 138.7 mg (long PFS) and 149.2 mg (short PFS). Dose modifications occurred in 91% (long PFS) and 72% (short PFS). NCI-CTCAE (v3) grade (Gr) ≥3 REG-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurred in 64% (long PFS) and 53% (short PFS). Most common REG-related Gr ≥3 TEAEs included (long PFS, short PFS) hand–foot skin reaction (20%, 16%), hypertension (17%, 5%), fatigue (13%, 9%), diarrhea (16%, 5%), rash/desquamation (3%, 6%), and hypophosphatemia (5%, 3%). Gr ≥3 laboratory toxicities (long PFS, short PFS) included increased bilirubin (8%, 13%), ALT (6%, 5%), and AST (5%, 6%). Although REG-related TEAEs led to a higher dose modification rate in long PFS pts (71% vs 52% for short PFS), discontinuations due to REG-related TEAEs were similar (long PFS 5%; short PFS 9%).

Long PFS (n = 98) Short PFS (n = 407)
Median age, yrs (range) 61 (34–82) 61 (22–82)
Male, % 64 61
Median body mass index, kg/m2 25.6 24.7
ECOG PS, % 0 1 63 37 50 50
No. of tumor sites, % 1 2 3 ≥4 30 38 16 16 17 35 30 18
KRAS status, % mutant wildtype 47 44 56 40
Primary site of disease, % Colon Rectum Both 52 37 10 67 28 5
No. of prior regimens on or after diagnosis of metastatic disease, % 0–2 3 ≥4 22 22 55 28 25 47
Time since first diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization, %

Conclusions

This exploratory analysis showed that pts with mCRC treated with REG who had PFS >4 m tended to have a better performance status, fewer metastatic tumor sites, and a longer time since diagnosis of metastatic disease, compared to pts with short PFS.

Clinical trial identification

NCT01103323

Legal entity responsible for the study

Bayer

Funding

Bayer

Disclosure

A. Grothey: Advisory board: Bayer. Corporate-sponsored research: Bayer. A. Falcone: Advisory board: Amgen, Roche, Bayer, Lilly, Sanofi, Servier, Merck. Corporate-sponsored research: Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Merck, Sanofi. O. Bouche: Advisory board: Merck Serono, Roche. L. Mineur: Advisory board participation. A. Adenis: Corporate-sponsored research: Bayer, Sanofi Other substantive relationship: Bayer, Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche. J. Tabernero: Advisory board: Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, MSD, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Symphogen, Takeda, Taiho. T. Yoshino: Corporate-sponsored research: GlaxoSmithKline K.K. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH H-J. Lenz: Advisory board: Bayer. Lectures: Bayer. Clinical trial support: Bayer. R.M. Goldberg: Corporate-sponsored research: Bayer. L. Huang: Stock ownership: Bayer Other substantive relationships: Bayer (employee). A. Wagner: Other substantive relationships: Bayer (employee). E. Van Cutsem: Corporate-sponsored research: Bayer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.