David Fisher

Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial

Summary Background In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3–29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4–30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87–1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0–12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1–13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82–1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5–27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5–24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5–31·7). Interpretation This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended. Funding Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.

Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial.

Summary Background When cure is impossible, cancer treatment should focus on both length and quality of life. Maximisation of time without toxic effects could be one effective strategy to achieve both of these goals. The COIN trial assessed preplanned treatment holidays in advanced colorectal cancer to achieve this aim. Methods COIN was a randomised controlled trial in patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer. Patients received either continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination (arm A), continuous chemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent (arm C) chemotherapy. In arms A and B, treatment continued until development of progressive disease, cumulative toxic effects, or the patient chose to stop. In arm C, patients who had not progressed at their 12-week scan started a chemotherapy-free interval until evidence of disease progression, when the same treatment was restarted. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and B is described in a companion paper. Here, we compare arms A and C, with the primary objective of establishing whether overall survival on intermittent therapy was non-inferior to that on continuous therapy, with a predefined non-inferiority boundary of 1·162. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to continuous and 815 to intermittent therapy). Median survival in the ITT population (n=815 in both groups) was 15·8 months (IQR 9·4–26·1) in arm A and 14·4 months (8·0–24·7) in arm C (hazard ratio [HR] 1·084, 80% CI 1·008–1·165). In the per-protocol population (arm A, n=467; arm C, n=511), median survival was 19·6 months (13·0–28·1) in arm A and 18·0 months (12·1–29·3) in arm C (HR 1·087, 0·986–1·198). The upper limits of CIs for HRs in both analyses were greater than the predefined non-inferiority boundary. Preplanned subgroup analyses in the per-protocol population showed that a raised baseline platelet count, defined as 400u2008000 per μL or higher (271 [28%] of 978 patients), was associated with poor survival with intermittent chemotherapy: the HR for comparison of arm C and arm A in patients with a normal platelet count was 0·96 (95% CI 0·80–1·15, p=0·66), versus 1·54 (1·17–2·03, p=0·0018) in patients with a raised platelet count (p=0·0027 for interaction). In the per-protocol population, more patients on continuous than on intermittent treatment had grade 3 or worse haematological toxic effects (72 [15%] vs 60 [12%]), whereas nausea and vomiting were more common on intermittent treatment (11 [2%] vs 43 [8%]). Grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (126 [27%] vs 25 [5%]) and hand–foot syndrome (21 [4%] vs 15 [3%]) were more frequent on continuous than on intermittent treatment. Interpretation Although this trial did not show non-inferiority of intermittent compared with continuous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in terms of overall survival, chemotherapy-free intervals remain a treatment option for some patients with advanced colorectal cancer, offering reduced time on chemotherapy, reduced cumulative toxic effects, and improved quality of life. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with normal baseline platelet counts could gain the benefits of intermittent chemotherapy without detriment in survival, whereas those with raised baseline platelet counts have impaired survival and quality of life with intermittent chemotherapy and should not receive a treatment break. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Evaluating Many Treatments and Biomarkers in Oncology: A New Design

There is a pressing need for more-efficient trial designs for biomarker-stratified clinical trials. We suggest a new approach to trial design that links novel treatment evaluation with the concurrent evaluation of a biomarker within a confirmatory phase II/III trial setting. We describe a new protocol using this approach in advanced colorectal cancer called FOCUS4. The protocol will ultimately answer three research questions for a number of treatments and biomarkers: (1) After a period of first-line chemotherapy, do targeted novel therapies provide signals of activity in different biomarker-defined populations? (2) If so, do these definitively improve outcomes? (3) Is evidence of activity restricted to the biomarker-defined groups? The protocol randomizes novel agents against placebo concurrently across a number of different biomarker-defined population-enriched cohorts: BRAF mutation; activated AKT pathway: PI3K mutation/absolute PTEN loss tumors; KRAS and NRAS mutations; and wild type at all the mentioned genes. Within each biomarker-defined population, the trial uses a multistaged approach with flexibility to adapt in response to planned interim analyses for lack of activity. FOCUS4 is the first test of a protocol that assigns all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to one of a number of parallel population-enriched, biomarker-stratified randomized trials. Using this approach allows questions regarding efficacy and safety of multiple novel therapies to be answered in a relatively quick and efficient manner, while also allowing for the assessment of biomarkers to help target treatment.

Does anti-EGFR therapy improve outcome in advanced colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDnRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) have reported conflicting results.nnnMETHODSnA systematic review of RCTs comparing standard treatments±anti-EGFR MAbs was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were derived for patients with wild-type (WT) and mutant KRAS. Prespecified analyses were conducted for line of treatment, MAb used, chemotherapy regimen, and choice of fluouropyrimidine. Trials using bevacizumab on both arms were included in a sensitivity analysis.nnnRESULTSnFourteen eligible RCTs were identified, with results by KRAS status available for ten RCTs. For third line treatment, the effect of anti-EGFR MAbs depended on KRAS status (interaction p<0.00001), with a PFS benefit for patients with WT KRAS only (HR=0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.52, p<0.00001). For first and second line treatment, the effect also appeared to depend on KRAS status (interaction p=0.0003), again with the PFS benefit only for patients with WT KRAS (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, p<0.0001). Differences between trial results (heterogeneity p=0.02, I(2)=62%) were best explained by the fluouropyrimidine used, with PFS benefits confined to trials combining MAbs alongside 5FU-based chemotherapy (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.85, p<0.00001). There was no evidence of a PFS benefit when MAbs were given with bevacizumab.nnnCONCLUSIONSnFor aCRC patients with WT KRAS, there are clear benefits of anti-EGFR MAbs in the third line and in the first and second line, when used alongside infusional 5FU-based regimens. However, there is no benefit for patients with KRAS mutations.

A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners

OBJECTIVEnTreatments may be more effective in some patients than others, and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials provides perhaps the best method of investigating treatment-covariate interactions. Various methods are used; we provide a comprehensive critique and develop guidance on method selection.nnnSTUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGnWe searched MEDLINE to identify all frequentist methods and appraised them for simplicity, risk of bias, and power. IPD data sets were reanalyzed.nnnRESULTSnFour methodological categories were identified: PWT: pooling of within-trial covariate interactions; OSM: one-stage model with a treatment-covariate interaction term; TDCS: testing for difference between covariate subgroups in their pooled treatment effects; and CWA: combining PWT with meta-regression. Distinguishing across- and within-trial information is important, as the former may be subject to ecological bias. A strategy is proposed for method selection in different circumstances; PWT or CWA are natural first steps. The OSM method allows for more complex analyses; TDCS should be avoided. Our reanalysis shows that different methods can lead to substantively different findings.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe choice of method for investigating interactions in IPD meta-analysis is driven mainly by whether across-trial information is considered for inclusion, a decision, which depends on balancing possible improvement in power with an increased risk of bias.

Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?

Identifying which individuals benefit most from particular treatments or other interventions underpins so-called personalised or stratified medicine. However, single trials are typically underpowered for exploring whether participant characteristics, such as age or disease severity, determine an individual’s response to treatment. A meta-analysis of multiple trials, particularly one where individual participant data (IPD) are available, provides greater power to investigate interactions between participant characteristics (covariates) and treatment effects. We use a published IPD meta-analysis to illustrate three broad approaches used for testing such interactions. Based on another systematic review of recently published IPD meta-analyses, we also show that all three approaches can be applied to aggregate data as well as IPD. We also summarise which methods of analysing and presenting interactions are in current use, and describe their advantages and disadvantages. We recommend that testing for interactions using within-trials information alone (the deft approach) becomes standard practice, alongside graphical presentation that directly visualises this.

Investigating the poor outcomes of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer: Analysis from 2530 patients in randomised clinical trials

BackgroundnTo improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types.nnnPatients and methodsn2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status.nnnResultsn231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted ORu2009=u20090.76, Pu2009=u20090.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HRu2009=u20091.14, Pu2009=u20090.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HRu2009=u20091.69, Pu2009<u20090.001). Fewer BRAF-mutant patients received second-line treatment (33% versus 51%, Pu2009<u20090.001), but BRAF-mutation was not associated with inferior second-line outcomes (RR adjusted ORu2009=u20090.56, Pu2009=u20090.45; PFS adjusted HRu2009=u20091.01, Pu2009=u20090.93). Significant clinical heterogeneity within the BRAF-mutant population was observed: a proportion (24.3%) had good first-line PFS and P-PS (bothu2009>6 months; OSu2009=u200924.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OSu2009=u20094.7 months.nnnConclusionsnBRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression.

Should Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Be Considered for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Wild Type EGFR? Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

Guidance concerning tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with wild type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line treatment is unclear. We assessed the effect of TKIs as second-line therapy and maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy in two systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on patients without EGFR mutations. Systematic searches were completed and data extracted from eligible randomized controlled trials. Three analytical approaches were used to maximize available data. Fourteen trials of second-line treatment (4388 patients) were included. Results showed the effect of TKIs on progression-free survival (PFS) depended on EGFR status (interaction hazard ratio [HR], 2.69; P = .004). Chemotherapy benefited patients with wild type EGFR (HR, 1.31; P < .0001), TKIs benefited patients with mutations (HR, 0.34; P = .0002). Based on 12 trials (85% of randomized patients) the benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .014). Six trials of maintenance therapy (2697 patients) were included. Results showed that although the effect of TKIs on PFS depended on EGFR status (interaction HR, 3.58; P < .0001), all benefited from TKIs (wild type EGFR: HR, 0.82; P = .01; mutated EGFR: HR, 0.24; P < .0001). There was a suggestion that benefits of TKIs on PFS decreased with increasing proportions of patients with wild type EGFR (P = .11). Chemotherapy should be standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC and wild type EGFR. TKIs might be unsuitable for unselected patients. TKIs appear to benefit all patients compared with no active treatment as maintenance treatment, however, direct comparisons with chemotherapy are needed.

Common genetic variation and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis: a genome-wide analysis

Genome-wide association studies have identified several germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) significantly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. Common germline genetic variation may also be related to CRC survival. We used a discovery-based approach to identify SNPs related to survival outcomes after CRC diagnosis. Genome-wide genotyping arrays were conducted for 3494 individuals with invasive CRC enrolled in six prospective cohort studies (median study-specific follow-up = 4.2-8.1 years). In pooled analyses, we used Cox regression to assess SNP-specific associations with CRC-specific and overall survival, with additional analyses stratified by stage at diagnosis. Top findings were followed-up in independent studies. A P value threshold of P < 5×10(-8) in analyses combining discovery and follow-up studies was required for genome-wide significance. Among individuals with distant-metastatic CRC, several SNPs at 6p12.1, nearest the ELOVL5 gene, were statistically significantly associated with poorer survival, with the strongest associations noted for rs209489 [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.8, P = 7.6×10(-10) and HR = 1.8, P = 3.7×10(-9) for CRC-specific and overall survival, respectively). No SNPs were statistically significantly associated with survival among all cases combined or in cases without distant-metastases. SNPs in 6p12.1/ELOVL5 were associated with survival outcomes in individuals with distant-metastatic CRC, and merit further follow-up for functional significance. Findings from this genome-wide association study highlight the potential importance of genetic variation in CRC prognosis and provide clues to genomic regions of potential interest.

Meta-analysis of Gaussian individual patient data: two-stage or not two-stage?

Quantitative evidence synthesis through meta‐analysis is central to evidence‐based medicine. For well‐documented reasons, the meta‐analysis of individual patient data is held in higher regard than aggregate data. With access to individual patient data, the analysis is not restricted to a “two‐stage” approach (combining estimates and standard errors) but can estimate parameters of interest by fitting a single model to all of the data, a so‐called “one‐stage” analysis. There has been debate about the merits of one‐ and two‐stage analysis. Arguments for one‐stage analysis have typically noted that a wider range of models can be fitted and overall estimates may be more precise. The two‐stage side has emphasised that the models that can be fitted in two stages are sufficient to answer the relevant questions, with less scope for mistakes because there are fewer modelling choices to be made in the two‐stage approach. For Gaussian data, we consider the statistical arguments for flexibility and precision in small‐sample settings. Regarding flexibility, several of the models that can be fitted only in one stage may not be of serious interest to most meta‐analysis practitioners. Regarding precision, we consider fixed‐ and random‐effects meta‐analysis and see that, for a model making certain assumptions, the number of stages used to fit this model is irrelevant; the precision will be approximately equal. Meta‐analysts should choose modelling assumptions carefully. Sometimes relevant models can only be fitted in one stage. Otherwise, meta‐analysts are free to use whichever procedure is most convenient to fit the identified model.