Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
Hideaki Bando , Eiji Oki , Yuriko Takeda , Toshihiro Misumi , Motoko Suzuki , Masashi Wakabayashi , Kentaro Yamazaki , Axel Grothey , Robert J. Mayer , Jin Li , Thierry Andre , Qian Shi , Aimery De Gramont , Takayuki Yoshino
Background: Randomized clinical trials provide the best evidence for the effects of a new treatment. However, the use of a placebo control arm may present practical and ethical concerns for enrolled patients and treating providers. The CRC ARCAD global database includes a total of 1,673 individual patient data (IPD) treated with placebo plus best supportive care in a salvage-line setting for refractory mCRC. By using placebo IPD, we have proposed to construct a synthetic control arm for clinical trials (Yoshino T. et al., Nature Medicine 2023). Methods: From 40,889 IPD from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 723 placebo pts were selected from 4 placebo-controlled randomized studies in a salvage-line setting (CORRECT, RECOURSE, CONCUR and TERRA). We analyzed the impact of baseline patient characteristics and various prognostic factors on outcome in the placebo control. Results: The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) were 0.52 (0.40-0.67) for the number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2+), 0.71 (0.59-0.84) for ECOG performance status (PS) (0 vs 1), 0.54 (0.45-0.66) for liver metastases (No vs Yes), 0.54 (0.40-0.71) for peritoneal metastases (No vs Yes), and 0.51 (0.38-0.70) for Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Score (consisting of albumin level, number of metastatic sites, and LDH level) (0-1 vs 2-3). Conclusions: Number of metastatic sites, ECOG PS, liver metastasis, peritoneal metastasis and RMH Score were significant prognostic factors in patients with mCRC receiving placebo in a salvage-line setting. Further prognostic factors should be investigated to increase the accuracy of the proposed synthetic control arm.
OS | PFS | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median (months) | 95% CI | Adjusted HR | 95% CI | Median (months) | 95% CI | Adjusted HR | 95% CI | ||
N of metastatic sites | 1 (n=106) | 8.1 | 7.2, 10.8 | 0.52 | 0.40, 0.67 | 1.8 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.85 | 0.68, 1.05 |
2+ (n=559) | 5.1 | 4.6, 5.6 | - | - | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | - | - | |
ECOG PS | 0 (n=337) | 6.7 | 5.6, 7.3 | 0.71 | 0.59, 0.84 | 1.8 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.87 | 0.75, 1.02 |
1 (n=386) | 4.9 | 4.2, 5.6 | - | - | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | - | - | |
Liver metastases | No (n=257) | 7.4 | 7.1, 8.2 | 0.54 | 0.45, 0.66 | 1.8 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.66 | 0.56, 0.78 |
Yes (n=401) | 4.5 | 4.1, 4.9 | - | - | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.7 | - | - | |
Peritoneal metastases | No (n=591) | 5.8 | 5.3, 6.4 | 0.54 | 0.40, 0.71 | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.75 | 0.58, 0.97 |
Yes (n=67) | 3.2 | 2.4, 4.6 | - | - | 1.6 | 1.2, 1.7 | - | - | |
RMH score | 0-1 (n=98) | 7.6 | 6.6, 11.0 | 0.51 | 0.38, 0.70 | 1.8 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.73 | 0.57, 0.93 |
2-3 (n=246) | 4.5 | 3.8, 5.1 | - | - | 1.7 | 1.6, 1.8 | - | - | |
Previous treatments | Prev Trt 1 (n=92) | 7.3 | 5.9, 8.9 | 0.67 | 0.51, 0.89 | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | 0.92 | 0.71, 1.19 |
Prev Trt 2 (n=42) | 7.1 | 6.0, 11.1 | 0.51 | 0.35, 0.74 | 1.7 | 1.6, 1.8 | 0.90 | 0.64, 1.26 | |
Prev Trt 3 (n=336) | 5.0 | 4.4, 5.8 | 0.94 | 0.78, 1.14 | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | 1.12 | 0.95, 1.33 | |
Prev Trt 4 (n=253) | 5.4 | 4.8, 6.0 | - | - | 1.7 | 1.7, 1.8 | - | - |
Prev Trt 1: FU, OX, IRI; Prev Trt 2: FU, OX, IRI; CET/PANI; Prev Trt 3: FU, OX, IRI, BEV; Prev Trt 4: FU, OX, IRI, CET/PANI, BEV.
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 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Rui-Hua Xu
2023 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Seiichiro Mitani
2019 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Josep Tabernero
2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Marwan Fakih