8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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

          3554

          Background: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases (LM). Liver is the most common organ of metastasis of CRC. The ARCAD database contains individual patient data of randomized trials that included CRC pts with initially unresectable metastases treated with systemic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the response and survival outcomes in non-LM (NLM) vs LM across different lines of treatment. Methods: We analyzed survival outcomes of mCRC pts with either single site (SS) or multiple sites (MS) according to LM status in the following treatment groups: A: chemotherapy (CT) alone, B: CT + VEGF-antibodies, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies in KRAS wild-type tumors, within first-line (1L) and second line (2L) of therapy and D: pts enrolled on third line (≥3L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib and placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) which were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox models on ECOG PS, age, and gender. Results: We included 26 trials with 17924 pts. 14066 pts had LM. Pts with LM had a higher rate of colon vs rectum as primary tumor (72 vs 62%; P < .001) and less SS (31 vs 47%; P < .001) than those with NLM. OS and PFS results in subgroups are reported in the table. In groups A and B, we found better OS and PFS outcomes in NLM pts as either SS or MS in 1L and 2L. In group C from 1L, we found better survival outcomes in pts with SS LM. In pts with MS, NLM superiority was observed in OS but not in PFS. However, these results were influenced by primary tumor sidedness. In group D, better OS and PFS was observed in pts without LM than those with LM whether in pts with SS or MS. Response rates were higher in LM than in NLM in most 1L and 2L subgroups. Conclusions: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from the 1L to ≥3L. Survival with CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF according to LM and NLM differs significantly in 1L and 2L but not with CT + anti-EGFR. This data justifies using LM as a stratification factor at least in ≥3L trials. [Table: see text]

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Oncology
          JCO
          American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
          0732-183X
          1527-7755
          June 01 2023
          June 01 2023
          : 41
          : 16_suppl
          : 3554
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Sorbonne University, Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France
          [2 ]Statistical Unit, Fondation A.R.CA.D - Aide et Recherche en CAncérologie Digestive, Levallois-Perret, France
          [3 ]Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
          [4 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Fondation Cognacq-Jay, Franco-British Hospital, Levallois-Perret, France
          [5 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan
          [6 ]Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Department of Medical Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
          [7 ]Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom
          [8 ]Department of Translational Research and New Technologies, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
          [9 ]Department of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Digestive Oncology Unit, University Hospitals Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
          [10 ]Department of Medicine III, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
          [11 ]Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
          [12 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands
          [13 ]Asklepios Tumorzentrum Hamburg, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany
          [14 ]Duke University, Durham, NC
          [15 ]Medical Oncology Department, Integrated Centers for Oncology Nantes, Nantes, France
          [16 ]Department of Medicine, The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
          [17 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
          [18 ]MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
          [19 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital, Levallois-Perret, France
          Article
          10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.3554
          d90ed6e4-e873-4077-abb9-64ee7cf30d83
          © 2023
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article