Sorbonne University, Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France
Romain Cohen , Morteza Raeisi , Qian Shi , Benoist Chibaudel , Takayuki Yoshino , John Raymond Zalcberg , Richard Adams , Chiara Cremolini , Eric Van Cutsem , Volker Heinemann , Josep Tabernero , Cornelis J. A. Punt , Dirk Arnold , Herbert I. Hurwitz , Jean-Yves Douillard , Alan P. Venook , Leonard B. Saltz , Timothy S. Maughan , Thierry Andre , Aimery De Gramont
Background: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases (LM). Liver is the most common organ of metastasis of CRC. The ARCAD database contains individual patient data of randomized trials that included CRC pts with initially unresectable metastases treated with systemic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the response and survival outcomes in non-LM (NLM) vs LM across different lines of treatment. Methods: We analyzed survival outcomes of mCRC pts with either single site (SS) or multiple sites (MS) according to LM status in the following treatment groups: A: chemotherapy (CT) alone, B: CT + VEGF-antibodies, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies in KRAS wild-type tumors, within first-line (1L) and second line (2L) of therapy and D: pts enrolled on third line (≥3L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib and placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) which were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox models on ECOG PS, age, and gender. Results: We included 26 trials with 17924 pts. 14066 pts had LM. Pts with LM had a higher rate of colon vs rectum as primary tumor (72 vs 62%; P< .001) and less SS (31 vs 47%; P< .001) than those with NLM. OS and PFS results in subgroups are reported in the table. In groups A and B, we found better OS and PFS outcomes in NLM pts as either SS or MS in 1L and 2L. In group C from 1L, we found better survival outcomes in pts with SS LM. In pts with MS, NLM superiority was observed in OS but not in PFS. However, these results were influenced by primary tumor sidedness. In group D, better OS and PFS was observed in pts without LM than those with LM whether in pts with SS or MS. Response rates were higher in LM than in NLM in most 1L and 2L subgroups. Conclusions: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from the 1L to ≥3L. Survival with CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF according to LM and NLM differs significantly in 1L and 2L but not with CT + anti-EGFR. This data justifies using LM as a stratification factor at least in ≥3L trials.
NLM vs LM (Reference) HR (95% CI) | 1L | 2L | ≥3L | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OS | PFS | OS | PFS | OS | PFS | |||
Group A | All pts | .76 (.68-.84) | .84 (.77-.92) | .64 (.58-.71) | .72 (.66-.79) | Group D - Trifluridine/tipiracil or Regorafenib | .36 (.29-.44) | .52 (.44-.60) |
SS | .79 (.67-.94) | .93 (.80-1.1) | .58 (.48-.69) | .67 (.57-.78) | .33 (.21-.51) | .43 (.31-.59) | ||
MS | .76 (.67-.86) | .81 (.72-.91) | .71 (.63-.81) | .77 (.69-.87) | .39 (.30-.51) | .58 (.48-.71) | ||
Group B | All pts | .81 (.74-.89) | .91 (.84-.98) | .62 (.55-.71) | .75 (.67-.84) | Groupe D - Placebo | .40 (.32-.52) | .60 (.49-.73) |
SS | .88 (.77-1.0) | .99 (.89-1.1) | .55 (.44-.68) | .76 (.63-.91) | .14 (.07-.28) | .43 (.25-.73) | ||
MS | .84 (.73-.96) | .88 (.79-.99) | .81 (.68-.96) | .79 (.68-.91) | .51 (.39-.68) | .62 (.50-.79) | ||
Group C | All pts | .97 (.86-1.1) | 1.0 (.91-1.2) | 1.1 (.84-1.5) | 1.2 (.93-1.6) | |||
SS | 1.2 (1.0-1.5) | 1.1 (.95-1.3) | 1.1 (.44-2.8) | 1.9 (.88-3.9) | ||||
MS | .85 (.72-1.0) | 1.1 (.90-1.3) | 1.1 (.80-1.5) | 1.1 (.82-1.5) |
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 Disclosures
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Shereef Ahmed Elsamany
2021 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Guang Cao
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Benjamin Besse
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Liqun Wu