The role of Systemic Inflammation Score (SIS) in BRAF(V600) mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Authors

null

Nieves Martinez Lago

Medical Oncology Deparment-University Hospital A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

Nieves Martinez Lago , Marta Covela Rúa , Elena Brozos , Ana Fernandez Montes , Juan de La Camara Gomez , Carlos Méndez Méndez , Mónica Jorge Fernández , Antia Cousillas Castiñeira

Organizations

Medical Oncology Deparment-University Hospital A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain, Medical Oncology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Ourense, Ourense, Spain, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ferrol, Ferrol, Spain, Centro Oncológico de Galicia, A Coruña, Spain, Hospital Universitario A, Vigo, Spain, Complejo Hospitalario de Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Spain

Research Funding

No funding received
None

Background: Multiple studies have reported prognostic association of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLT) and albumin levels in patients (pts) with colorectal cancer. However, it is unknown the prognostic impact in patients with BRAF(V600) mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Observational, retrospective, multicentric study pts with BRAF V600mt mCRC treated at 9 university Spanish hospitals in NW Spain, belonging to GITuD Group. Demographic, clinic, pathological characteristics, overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were retrospectively collected and analyzed. We calculated a Systemic Inflammation Score (SIS) summing the number of risk factors that each patient had: albumin levels <3.6 g/dL, Hemoglobin levels <12.5, Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >3 and Platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) >175. Results: We recorded data from 71 pts between November 2010 to June 2018. Median age was 62.0 years (range 31-83y), 54.9% female, 73.2% ECOG PS0-1, 49.3% right-sided, 37.3% high grade, 70.4% synchronous presentation, 64.8% primary tumor resection. Median OS was 11.9 months (m) (95% CI, 9.7-14.0 (m)). Pts with higher NLR (>3) had a significantly lower OS: 7.8 vs 13.7 (m) HR 1.934 (95% CI 1.2-3.3) p = 0.014, which was also true for pts with low Hb (<12.5g/dL): OS 9.0 vs 13.0 (m) (HR 1.767,95% CI 1.1-3.0 p = 0.035) and low albumin (<3.6 g/dL): OS 4.9 vs 12.5 (m) (HR 2.142; 95% CI 1.1-4.5, p = 0.040). Pts. with higher PLR (>175) was associated with a non-significant trend worse OS: 5.7 vs 13.5 (m) (HR 1.555; 95% CI 0.9-2.7, p = 0.102). SIS was associated with a worse prognosis: median OS 0/1/2/3/4 factors were 16.7 vs. 11.0 vs. 11.4 vs. 4.8 vs. 4.0 (m) (p = 0.006). Pts with SIS = 0 had significantly higher OS: 16.7 vs 9.0 (m) (HR 0.357; 95% CI 0.3-0.9; p = 0.027). First-line PFS was 4.4 (m) (95% CI, 3.2-5.7 months). First line PFS according type of treatment: Bev+Triplet-CT/Bev+Doublet-CT/antiEGFR+Doublet-CT/Doublet-CT: 8.0 vs 4.8 vs 2.9 vs 2.1 (m) (p = 0.091). BEV based CT was associated with a prolonged first line PFS: median 5.2 vs. 2.3 (m) (HR 0.562; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; p = 0.033). BEV based CT was associated with prolonged first-line PFS in SIS Score 1-4: 4.8 vs. 2.3 (m) (HR 0.426; 95% CI 0.2-0.8; p = 0.009). Nevertheless, we don’t identify differences in first-line PFS in SIS Score 0: 7.0 vs 2.1 (m) (HR 0.803; 95% CI 0.3-2.5; p = 0.700). Conclusions: SIS identifies a population with a worse prognosis and subsidiary of improvement in First-line PFS with BEV based CT.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Publication Only: Gastrointestinal Cancer—Colorectal and Anal

Track

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Colorectal and Anal

Sub Track

Colorectal Cancer–Advanced Disease

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38: 2020 (suppl; abstr e16051)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e16051

Abstract #

e16051

Abstract Disclosures