4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Key Prognostic Factors Create a Composite Risk Score to Stratify Patients into High- and Low-Treatment Benefit Groups: A Multicenter, Retrospective Data Analysis of 84 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Regorafenib as Part of the CORRECT and CONSIGN Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          In further-line mCRC treatment, median progression-free survival (PFS) is rather short, and many patients do not benefit from any antitumor treatment and should therefore be treated according to best-supportive care. A risk score based on standard laboratory values using markers of tumor inflammation aims to define a patient cohort with high treatment benefit and might offer insights into tumor biology. As regorafenib has been dropped off the German market due to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, patient selection is key for any further-line treatment option.

          Methods

          We used Cox regression analysis to determine laboratory markers that are independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS outcome. The influence of these variables was weighted using an estimator, which was calculated using Cox regression analysis. The estimators were implemented as multiplication factors, resulting in a risk score. A cut-off value for the resulting risk values was then determined via Cox regression analysis resulting in a low- and high-risk subgroup.

          Results

          Using data of 82 patients, a risk score identifying long-term survival in patients with last-line mCRC treatment could be calculated. The following parameters were associated with significantly longer survival in multivariate analysis: NLR ≤5 ( p = <0.001), AP ≤200 U/L ( p = 0.001), CRP ≤3.2 mg/dL ( p = <0.001). The following estimator values were used to calculate a risk score: NLR: 0.132 ( p = 0.046), AP: 0.004 ( p = 0.014), and CRP: 0.032 ( p = 0.039). Implementing the estimators as multiplication factors yielded the following risk score: 0.132*NLR + 0.004*AP + 0.032*CRP = Risk value. Cox regression resulted in low- and high-risk subgroups with risk values below and above 1.4, respectively. In the group with a low-risk score (<1.4), patients had a median OS of 10.5 months after initiating regorafenib. Patients with a high-risk score (>1.4) survived only 3.3 months after starting therapy with regorafenib ( n = 43, p < 0.001, HR = 3.76).

          Conclusions

          The presented composite risk score stratifies patients into two prognostic subgroups characterized by standard laboratory values. Patients with signs of systemic inflammation characterized by elevated NLR, AP, and CRP have a high composite risk score and a significant shorter overall survival. Although this score needs to be prospectively validated in larger cohorts, it may be used to stratify patients suitable for further-line treatment studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

            No treatment options are available for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that progresses after all approved standard therapies, but many patients maintain a good performance status and could be candidates for further therapy. An international phase 3 trial was done to assess the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in these patients. We did this trial at 114 centres in 16 countries. Patients with documented metastatic colorectal cancer and progression during or within 3 months after the last standard therapy were randomised (in a 2:1 ratio; by computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system; preallocated block design (block size six); stratified by previous treatment with VEGF-targeting drugs, time from diagnosis of metastatic disease, and geographical region) to receive best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily, for the first 3 weeks of each 4 week cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01103323. Between April 30, 2010, and March 22, 2011, 1052 patients were screened, 760 patients were randomised to receive regorafenib (n=505) or placebo (n=255), and 753 patients initiated treatment (regorafenib n=500; placebo n=253; population for safety analyses). The primary endpoint of overall survival was met at a preplanned interim analysis; data cutoff was on July 21, 2011. Median overall survival was 6·4 months in the regorafenib group versus 5·0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·77; 95% CI 0·64-0·94; one-sided p=0·0052). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 465 (93%) patients assigned regorafenib and in 154 (61%) of those assigned placebo. The most common adverse events of grade three or higher related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (83 patients, 17%), fatigue (48, 10%), diarrhoea (36, 7%), hypertension (36, 7%), and rash or desquamation (29, 6%). Regorafenib is the first small-molecule multikinase inhibitor with survival benefits in metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed after all standard therapies. The present study provides evidence for a continuing role of targeted treatment after disease progression, with regorafenib offering a potential new line of therapy in this treatment-refractory population. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration

              The REMARK “elaboration and explanation” guideline, by Doug Altman and colleagues, provides a detailed reference for authors on important issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker prognostic studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Oncol Res Treat
                Oncol Res Treat
                ORT
                ORT
                Oncology Research and Treatment
                S. Karger AG (Basel, Switzerland )
                2296-5270
                2296-5262
                22 August 2023
                September 2023
                : 46
                : 9
                : 348-361
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Medicine III, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
                [b ]Munich Municipal Hospital Neuperlach, Munich, Germany
                [c ]Oncological Practice, Landshut, Germany
                [d ]Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology (CCM), Charité-Universtiätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [e ]German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany
                [f ]MVZ Onkologie Tiergarten, Berlin, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Jobst C. von Einem, jobst.von-einem@ 123456charite.de
                Article
                531268
                10.1159/000531268
                10614442
                37607525
                670fe280-9ff2-4e89-be68-1ae26cf40850
                © 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

                This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC) ( http://www.karger.com/Services/OpenAccessLicense). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission.

                History
                : 10 June 2022
                : 4 February 2023
                : 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, References: 19, Pages: 11
                Funding
                The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
                Categories
                Research Article

                metastatic colorectal cancer,regorafenib,neutrophil leukocyte ratio,alkaline phosphatase,c-reactive protein,risk score,consign,correct

                Comments

                Comment on this article