Dataset Information

Phase III trial assessing bevacizumab in stages II and III carcinoma of the colon: results of NSABP protocol C-08.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-08 trial was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; ie, infusional/bolus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) for the adjuvant treatment of patients with stages II to III colon cancer.

Methods

Patients received mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks for 26 weeks alone or modified as FOLFOX6 + bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks for 52 weeks [ie, experimental group]). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

Among 2,672 analyzed patients, demographic factors were well balanced by treatment. With a median follow-up of 35.6 months, the addition of bevacizumab to mFOLFOX6 did not result in an overall significant increase in DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; P = .15). The point estimates for 3-year DFS for the overall population were 77.4% and 75.5% for the experimental and control arms, respectively. For patients with stages II and III diseases, these same estimates were 87.4% and 84.7%, respectively, for stage II and 74.2% and 72.4%, respectively, for stage III. Exploratory analyses found that the effect of bevacizumab on DFS was different before and after a 15-month landmark (time-by-treatment interaction P value < .0001). Bevacizumab had a strong effect before the landmark (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.78; P < .001) but no significant effect after (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.52; P = .076).

Conclusion

Bevacizumab for 1 year with mFOLFOX6 does not significantly prolong DFS in stages II and III colon cancer. However, a significant but transient effect during bevacizumab exposure was observed in the experimental arm. We postulate that this observation reflects a biologic effect during bevacizumab exposure. Given the lack of improvement in DFS, the use of bevacizumab cannot be recommended for use in the adjuvant treatment of patients with colon cancer.

SUBMITTER: Allegra CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3055856 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract BACKGROUND EORTC study 26091 showed that addition of bevacizumab (BEV) to temozolomide (TMZ) does not improve overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in recurrent grade II and III 1p/19q intact gliomas; regardless of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutational status. This abstract reports the neurocognitive functioning (NCF) outcomes. METHODS NCF was evaluated before randomization and at every 12 weeks during treatment using Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (Free Recall, Delayed Recall, and Delayed Recognition), Trail Making Test (TMT A/B); and Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWA). RESULTS 148/155 patients had at least one NCF assessment. Compliance was 91.5% at baseline and dropped to 61.9% at week 60. Primary analysis (at 5% significance level) compared NCF at the last disease assessment before or at week 60 in patients who had at least one NCF assessment after baseline. Patients in the temozolomide+bevacizumab arm did not differ from patients in the temozolomide only arm. Except for Delayed Recognition, all NCF outcomes were positively associated with WHO performance status. TMT A (p=0.03), TMT B (p=0.006) and COWA (p<0.0001) were significantly worse in patients receiving steroids at study entry. Furthermore, delayed recognition was worse in patients with larger tumors (>26.5 vs <=26.5 mm; p=0.04). Memory performance was poorer in patients with tumors in the left hemisphere (Free Recall; p=0.0002), Delayed Recall; p<0.0001, Delayed Recognition; p=0.004). Except for Free Recall and Delayed Recognition, all other baseline raw scores were associated with OS in univariate analyses. In a multivariate Cox regression model, TMT B and tumor size were identified as independent OS prognostic factors while baseline WHO performance status and steroids use were not included. CONCLUSION At the group level patients in the temozolomide+bevacizumab arm do not differ from patients with temozolomide only, individual patients’ verbal memory capacity might negatively be affected by tumor volume and tumor location.

Project description:BackgroundGo/no-go decisions after phase II and sample size chosen for phase III are usually based on phase II results (e.g., the treatment effect estimate of phase II). Due to the decision rule (only promising phase II results lead to phase III), treatment effect estimates from phase II that initiate a phase III trial commonly overestimate the true treatment effect. Underpowered phase III trials are the consequence. Optimistic findings may then not be reproduced, leading to the failure of potentially expensive drug development programs. For some disease areas these failure rates are described to be quite high: 62.5%.MethodsWe integrate the ideas of multiplicative and additive adjustment of treatment effect estimates after go decisions in a utility-based framework for optimizing drug development programs. The design of a phase II/III program, i.e., the "right amount of adjustment", the allocation of the resources to phase II and III in terms of sample size, and the rule applied to decide whether to stop or to proceed with phase III influences its success considerably. Given specific drug development program characteristics (e.g., fixed and variable per patient costs for phase II and III, probable gain in case of market launch), optimal designs with respect to the maximal expected utility can be identified by the proposed Bayesian-frequentist approach. The method will be illustrated by application to practical examples characteristic for oncological studies.ResultsIn general, our results show that the program set-ups with adjusted treatment effect estimate used for phase III planning are superior to the "naïve" program set-ups with respect to the maximal expected utility. Therefore, we recommend considering an adjusted phase II treatment effect estimate for the phase III sample size calculation. However, there is no one-fits-all design.ConclusionIndividual drug development planning for a specific program is necessary to find the optimal design. The optimal choice of the design parameters for a specific drug development program at hand can be found by our user friendly R Shiny application and package (both assessable open-source via [1]).

Project description:Abstract BACKGROUND Optimal treatment and role of O6-methylguanine DNA-methyl transferase (MGMT) status in elderly patients is still not defined. METHODS This is the long-term update (LT) of the NOA-08 trial (NCT01502241) that compared efficacy and safety of RT to TMZ in elderly patients with anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) or glioblastoma (GB) using overall survival (OS) as primary endpoint and event-free survival (EFS) as well as efficacy according to MGMT status as major secondary endpoints. FINDINGS: In the LT with a data cut-off Apr 1 2018 median OS was 8·2 [7·0–10·0] months for TMZ treatment versus 9·4 [8·1–10·4] months for RT; hazard ratio (HR)=0·93 (95% CI: 0·76-1·15)] of TMZ versus RT did not differ between both arms. Also, median EFS [3·4 [3·2–4·1] months versus 4·6 [4·2–5·0] months 3did not differ with a HR=1·02 (0·83-1·25)]. MGMT promoter methylation tested in tumor tissue (82/221 patients, 37·1%) was associated with prolonged OS [13·6 [10·1–16·5] versus 8·0 [6·9-9·9] months; HR=0·53 (0·40-0·70), p<0·0001]. Patients with MGMT promoter methylation had longer OS and EFS when treated with TMZ (18·4 [13·9–24·4] months and 8·5 [6·9–13·3] months) versus RT (9·6 [6·4–13·7] months and 4·8 [4·3–6·2] months, HR 0·44 [0.27–0.70], p<0·001 for OS and 0·46 [0.29–0.73], p=0·001 for EFS). Patients without MGMT promoter methylation had shorter EFS and a shorter OS with the usual testing not significant when treated with TMZ (6·7 [5·6–8·2] months and 3·0 [2·6-3·3] months) versus with RT (10·2 [8·0–12·0] months and 4·6 [3·7-6·4] months), HR 1·33 [0·95-1·87], p=0·099 for OS and 1·86 [1·32-2·62], p<0·001 for EFS). INTERPRETATION: LT of NOA-08 confirms the non-inferiority of TMZ compared with RT in the treatment of elderly patients with AA or GB. To improve OS and EFS, MGMT promoter methylation is a strong predictive biomarker for the choice between RT and TMZ and offers unexpectedly favorable long-term outcome with initial TMZ monotherapy.