Dataset Information

Association of post-operative CEA with survival and oxaliplatin benefit in patients with stage II colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer (CC) can be proposed to patients with high-risk disease. Recently, 2.35 ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was identified as the best cut-off value. This post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial assessed post-operative CEA prognostic value for survival outcomes and predictive value for the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment.

Methods

Prognostic and predictive values of post-operative CEA in patients with stage II CC were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox model with interaction terms. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated.

Results

Among 899 stage II CC patients, post-operative CEA was available in 867 (96.4%); and 434 (48.65%) had a high-risk stage II disease. The 3-year DFS rate was 88.5% and 78.7% in the ≤ 2.35 ng/mL and > 2.35 ng/mL group, respectively (P = 0.006). Use of oxaliplatin showed survival benefit only in patients with high-risk stage II CC and post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/ml (interaction term P = 0.09 and 0.03 for DFS and OS).

Conclusion

CEA is a strong prognostic factor for DFS and OS in stage II CC. In the MOSAIC trial, only high-risk stage II CC patients with post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/mL benefited from the addition of oxaliplatin to LV5FU2.

Trial registration

NCT00275210 (January 11, 2006).

SUBMITTER: Auclin E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) improves survival of patients with stage III colon cancer in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, RCT participants are younger, healthier, and less racially diverse than the general cancer population. Thus, the benefit of oxaliplatin outside RCTs is uncertain.Subjects and methodsPatients younger than 75 years with stage III colon cancer who received chemotherapy within 120 days of surgical resection were identified from five observational data sources-the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare), the New York State Cancer Registry (NYSCR) linked to Medicaid and Medicare claims, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database, and the Cancer Care Outcomes Research & Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS). Overall survival (OS) was compared among patients treated with oxaliplatin vs non-oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall survival for 4060 patients diagnosed during 2004-2009 was compared with pooled data from five RCTs (the Adjuvant Colon Cancer ENdpoinTs [ACCENT] group, n = 8292). Datasets were juxtaposed but not combined using Kaplan-Meier curves. Covariate and propensity score adjusted proportional hazards models were used to calculate adjusted survival hazard ratios (HR). Stratified analyses examined effect modifiers. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsThe survival advantage associated with the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5-FU was evident across diverse practice settings (3-year OS: RCTs, 86% [n = 1273]; SEER-Medicare, 80% [n = 1152]; CanCORS, 88% [n = 129]; NYSCR-Medicaid, 82% [n = 54]; NYSCR-Medicare, 79% [n = 180]; and NCCN, 86% [n = 438]). A statistically significant improvement in 3-year overall survival was seen in the largest cohort, SEER-Medicare, and in the NYSCR-Medicare cohort (non-oxaliplatin-containing vs oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant therapy, adjusted HR of death: pooled RCTs: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.92, P = .002; SEER-Medicare: HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.82, P < .001; NYSCR-Medicare patients aged ?65 years: HR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.90, P = .02). The association between oxaliplatin treatment and better survival was maintained in older and minority group patients, as well as those with higher comorbidity.ConclusionThe addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU appears to be associated with better survival among patients receiving adjuvant colon cancer treatment in the community.

Project description:BackgroundOxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin.MethodsPatients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups.FindingsDisease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26).InterpretationCombination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference.FundingGenentech Inc.

Project description:Background Surgical resection is not usually recommended for lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients with bone metastases. However, the criteria for surgery are constantly being adjusted and there is a need to focus on the prognostic role of cancer-directed surgery (CDS) for bone metastatic LUAD patients investigate the factors influencing survival of CDS. We determined the survival benefit of CDS for LUAD patients with bone metastases and to develop a prognostic nomogram to predict overall survival (OS) for patients after surgery. Methods LUAD patients with bone metastases from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010–2015 were included and divided into CDS and non-CDS groups. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests to compare cancer-specific survival (CSS) and OS between the two groups. Patients underwent CDS were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts to develop and validate a nomogram model to predict postoperative prognosis outcome–OS. Results Patients who underwent CDS had a better OS and CSS than those who did not underwent CDS (e.g., 1-year OS rate: 56.9% vs. 30.1%). Independent prognostic factors were selected by Cox regression analysis for CDS patients including age, sex, race, histological grade, N stage, and chemotherapy, and a nomogram was constructed to predict 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS after surgery according to the prognostic factors. The calibration curve and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the nomogram showed the model had a high predictive accuracy. [Area under the curve (AUC) at 1, 2, and 3 years in the training cohort were 0.735, 0.756 and 0.782, and in the validation cohort were 0.703, 0.758 and 0.836, respectively]. In addition, patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups based on prognostic scores, and Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in prognosis between the two groups. Conclusions These results indicated that patients with bone metastasis of LUAD received survival benefit from CDS. The prognostic nomograms could assist clinicians in specifying individualized assessments, but further research is needed.

Project description:Background: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the most common serum tumor marker in colorectal cancer (CRC). Nevertheless, few previous studies demonstrated the impacts of postoperative CEA and post-preoperative CEA increment on prognosis of CRC. Methods: Patients with stage II and III CRC were included from January 2009 to December 2015. All clinical and follow-up data were collected. Patients were divided into four different groups according to the levels of postoperative serum CEA and post-preoperative CEA trends. Chi-square test was used to analyze the relationship between clinical variables and categorized postoperative CEA and CEA increment. Cox proportional hazard regression was used for univariate and multivariable analyses. The log-rank test was performed to compare PFS and OS among groups. Results: Patients, 1,008, who underwent radical surgery, were enrolled. Our results showed that positive postoperative CEA and CEA increment were related to clinical stage, T stage, N stage, tumor differentiation, and lymphatic invasion (p < 0.05). Univariate and multivariable analysis results suggested that positive postoperative CEA and CEA increment were independent prognostic factors for PFS (HR = 3.149, 95% CI, 2.426-4.088, p = 0.000 for postoperative CEA; HR = 2.708, 95% CI, 2.106-3.482, p = 0.000 for CEA increment) and OS (HR = 3.414, 95% CI, 2.549-4.574, p = 0.000 for postoperative CEA; HR = 2.373, 95% CI, 1.783-3.157, p = 0.000 for CEA increment). The survival analyses revealed positive postoperative CEA, and CEA increment predicted worse prognosis. Furthermore, our results indicated that the 3- and 5-year PFS rates were 86.6 and 78.4% in group A, but decreased to 25.3 and 7.2% in group D (p < 0.001). Similarly, the 3- and 5-year OS rates for group A were 92.5 and 83.9%, much higher than group D (p < 0.001). In other words, patients with both postoperative CEA elevation and CEA increment had the worst prognosis. Conclusions: Positive postoperative CEA and CEA increment were independent prognostic factors for stage II and III CRC. Additionally, postoperative CEA and CEA increment had significant impacts on PFS and OS of CRC.