Abstract 3888
Background
The C-cubed study investigates the optimal treatment strategy in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We tested the superiority of a sequential treatment of FP+BEV followed by OX+FP+BEV (arm A: OX “wait & go”) at first progression to a combination treatment of OX+FP+BEV (arm B: OX “stop & go”), trial information: UMIN000015405.
Methods
The Primary endpoint was time-to-failure of strategy (TFS). A target sample size of 304 patients was considered sufficient to validate an expected Hazard Ratio (HR) for TFS of arm A compared with arm B with 80% power and 2-sided 5% α in case of a true HR value of < 0.69. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and safety.
Results
Between Dec 2014 and Sep 2016, 311 patients were enrolled, and 302 patients were randomized either to receive the arm A (n = 151) or B (n = 151) as a full analysis set (FAS). Superiority of TFS in the arm A was established in this study (HR, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.362–0.623; p < 0.0001). OSs in the arms A and B were not considered significantly different (HR, 0.930; 95% CI, 0.666–1.298). The patient population was predominantly positive for RAS mutant tumors (RAS MT) compared with that for RAS wild-type tumors (RAS WT), but this did not confer any clinical disadvantage in TFS to either arms (see table for details). We will present additional data associated with RAS status and differences between capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil at the meeting.Table:
571P
Table | Endpoint | Arm A, “wait & go” (n = 151) Months (95%CI) | Arm B, “stop & go” (n = 151) Months (95%CI) | p-value (log rank) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TFS (FAS) | 15.2 (12.5 – 17.2) | 7.6 (6.2 – 9.5) | <.0001 | |
OS (FAS) | 27.5 (24.4 – 32.7) | 29.4 (24.1 – 36.0) | 0.6692 | |
Factor | RAS WT (n = 112) Months (95%CI) | RAS MT (n = 167) Months (95%CI) | p-value (log rank) | |
TFS | Arm A | 14.0 (11.2 – 19.0) | 15.3 (12.4 – 17.2) | 0.3126 |
Arm B | 7.8 (7.0 – 10.5) | 7.4 (5.2 – 9.6) | 0.1615 | |
OS | Arm A | 27.5 (22.6 – NC) | 28.0 (23.4 – 32.7) | 0.3143 |
Arm B | 34.7 (24.5 – NC) | 24.3 (19.1 – 32.8) | 0.0265 |
Conclusions
The sequential “wait & go” strategy for OX was superior in TFS compared with the combinational “stop & go” accompanying with the equal survival benefit of nearly 30 months. Thus, the sequential approach with FP+BEV followed by OX is deemed an acceptable treatment strategy for patients with mCRC.
Clinical trial identification
UMIN000015405.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Japan South West Oncology Group (JSWOG).
Funding
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Disclosure
T. Nagasaka: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly Japan. Y. Shindo: Research grant / Funding (institution): Chugai; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Research grant / Funding (self): Ono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Daiichi-Sankyo; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly. A. Tsuji: Honoraria (institution): Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Taiho Pharmaceutical; Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Chugai Pharma; Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Serono; Honoraria (institution), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda Pharmaceutical; Honoraria (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan. Y. Tsuji: Honoraria (institution): Bayer Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Merck Serono Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Eli Lilly Japan; Honoraria (institution): Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd; Honoraria (institution): Medicon Co. Ltd. H. Mishima: Research grant / Funding (institution): Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1058 - Assessment of CPS+EG, Neo-Bioscore and modified Neo-Bioscore in breast cancer patients treated with preoperative systemic therapy: a multicenter cohort study
Presenter: LING XU
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1156 - The concordance of treatment decision guided by Oncotype and the PREDICT tool in early stage breast cancer
Presenter: Hadar Goldvaser
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3447 - Influence of first treatment delay on survival among breast cancer subtypes
Presenter: Irene Zarcos Pedrinaci
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3505 - Clinical features of early-stage (I-III) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients with tumors exhibiting low-overall change in molecular profile after neoadjuvant therapy.
Presenter: Nour Abuhadra
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5442 - Meta-analysis in HER2+ early breast cancer therapies and cost-effectiveness in a Brazilian perspective
Presenter: Marcos Magalhaes
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1570 - Anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels and antral follicle counts (AFC) may predict ovarian reserves before systemic chemotherapy (SC) in women with breast cancer(BC); a prospective clinical study
Presenter: Cetin Ordu
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2698 - Prognosis of selected triple negative apocrine breast cancer patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.
Presenter: Giuseppe Cancello
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3104 - Novel Blood Based Circulating Tumor Cell Biomarker For Breast Cancer Detection
Presenter: Chun-Yu Liu
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4631 - Multi-Gene Prognostic Signatures and Prediction of Pathological Complete Response of ER-Positive HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Patients to Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Presenter: Claudia Mazo
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4632 - Impact of menopause status on breast cancer outcomes and amenorrhea incidence during adjuvant tailored dose dense chemotherapy
Presenter: Andri Papakonstantinou
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract