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
4732 - Progesterone Receptor Isoform Ratio Dictates Antiprogestins/Progestins Effects on Metastatic Breast Cancer Models
Presenter: Maria Abascal
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5737 - PAM50 and CGH-array genomic characterization of HER2-Equivocal Breast Cancers defined by the 2018 ASCO/CAP recommendations.
Presenter: Carine Ngo
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1096 - OncotypeDX® predictive nomogram for recurrence score output: a machine learning system based on quantitative immunochemistry analysis - ADAPTED01
Presenter: Fabio Marazzi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5426 - Geriatric parameters predict both disease-related and patient-reported outcomes in older patients with breast cancer
Presenter: Willeke van der Plas-Krijgsman
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5865 - Patients with a 21-gene assay in South East London differ from the TAILORx trial population
Presenter: Charalampos Gousis
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1312 - Predictive tools in adjuvant breast cancer – what is the standard of evidence supporting their utility? A literature review examining validation of Adjuvant!, Cancermath and NHS Predict
Presenter: Alice Loft
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2445 - Oncologic outcome of invasive lobular carcinoma: Is it different from that of invasive ductal carcinoma?
Presenter: Hee Jun Choi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2476 - Pathologic response and survival efficacy in patients with initial nodal involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer
Presenter: SERAFIN MORALES Murillo
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3761 - Chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea: prognostic impact on premenopausal Egyptian patients with breast cancer
Presenter: Khaled Abdel Karim
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4687 - Predicting the presence of breast cancer using circulating small RNA in the serum
Presenter: Yumiko Koi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract