Colorectal Cancer Survival Gains and Novel Treatment Regimens: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Irfan Jawed, Julia Wilkerson, Vinay Prasad, Austin G. Duffy, Tito Fojo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The past 2 decades have witnessed progress in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with more effective agents and better surgical, medical, and supportive care. While substantial progress has been made, much more must be achieved to prolong the lives of patients.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to ascertain what percentage of the life expectancy gain in locally advanced and mCRC over the past 2 decades is due to novel therapies vs improvements in supportive care or secular trends and to thus inform treatment development strategies.

EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CancerLit, and Healthstar electronic databases for trials covering the period 1993 to 2015, scanned reference lists of articles, and searched recent conference abstracts. Ninety-six phase 3 trials and large (>50 patients) phase 2 trials in mCRC were examined. Outcomes evaluated in the experimental arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included overall response rate, stable disease, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

FINDINGS: Over the period covered by the studies, the OS in EAs increased at a mean (95% CI) rate of 0.80 (0.67-0.93) mo/y. Importantly, OS in the CAs improved 0.63 (0.51-0.75) mo/y, reflecting in part the use of experimental regimens in subsequent studies. Chemotherapy contributed only partly to the gains in OS, given that (1) mean (95% CI) improvements in PFS were only 0.31 (0.22-0.39) mo/y in the EAs and 0.23 (0.15-0.31) mo/y in CAs; (2) gains in survival not directly attributable to the protocol were greater than gains in PFS (0.46 [0.36-0.57] mo/y in EAs and 0.39 [0.29-0.49] mo/y in CAs; and (3) effects on OS were much lower in second-line trials (median [interquartile range] response rates, 8.6% [0%-11.0%] in EAs and 7.5% [3.8%-12.8%] in CAs) compared with first-line trials (39.5% [24.0%-50.2%] for EAs and 29.4% [16.4%-39.4%] for CAs).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The OS of patients with mCRC has improved gradually over the past 2 decades, with gains from chemotherapy occurring alongside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care. Gains from first-line therapies have been modest but consistent; however, gains from second-line therapies have been disappointing. We believe that future progress will be greater if emphasis is placed on enrolling patients in experimental trials to explore and develop alternative first-line regimens and better second-line therapies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)787-795
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA oncology
Volume1
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Colorectal Neoplasms
Survival
Disease-Free Survival
Therapeutics
Drug Therapy
Life Expectancy
Disease Progression
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Colorectal Cancer Survival Gains and Novel Treatment Regimens : A Systematic Review and Analysis. / Jawed, Irfan; Wilkerson, Julia; Prasad, Vinay; Duffy, Austin G.; Fojo, Tito.

In: JAMA oncology, Vol. 1, No. 6, 01.09.2015, p. 787-795.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jawed, Irfan ; Wilkerson, Julia ; Prasad, Vinay ; Duffy, Austin G. ; Fojo, Tito. / Colorectal Cancer Survival Gains and Novel Treatment Regimens : A Systematic Review and Analysis. In: JAMA oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 1, No. 6. pp. 787-795.
@article{e635f6b837804044ba7fd73714307950,
title = "Colorectal Cancer Survival Gains and Novel Treatment Regimens: A Systematic Review and Analysis",
abstract = "IMPORTANCE: The past 2 decades have witnessed progress in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with more effective agents and better surgical, medical, and supportive care. While substantial progress has been made, much more must be achieved to prolong the lives of patients.OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to ascertain what percentage of the life expectancy gain in locally advanced and mCRC over the past 2 decades is due to novel therapies vs improvements in supportive care or secular trends and to thus inform treatment development strategies.EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CancerLit, and Healthstar electronic databases for trials covering the period 1993 to 2015, scanned reference lists of articles, and searched recent conference abstracts. Ninety-six phase 3 trials and large (>50 patients) phase 2 trials in mCRC were examined. Outcomes evaluated in the experimental arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included overall response rate, stable disease, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).FINDINGS: Over the period covered by the studies, the OS in EAs increased at a mean (95{\%} CI) rate of 0.80 (0.67-0.93) mo/y. Importantly, OS in the CAs improved 0.63 (0.51-0.75) mo/y, reflecting in part the use of experimental regimens in subsequent studies. Chemotherapy contributed only partly to the gains in OS, given that (1) mean (95{\%} CI) improvements in PFS were only 0.31 (0.22-0.39) mo/y in the EAs and 0.23 (0.15-0.31) mo/y in CAs; (2) gains in survival not directly attributable to the protocol were greater than gains in PFS (0.46 [0.36-0.57] mo/y in EAs and 0.39 [0.29-0.49] mo/y in CAs; and (3) effects on OS were much lower in second-line trials (median [interquartile range] response rates, 8.6{\%} [0{\%}-11.0{\%}] in EAs and 7.5{\%} [3.8{\%}-12.8{\%}] in CAs) compared with first-line trials (39.5{\%} [24.0{\%}-50.2{\%}] for EAs and 29.4{\%} [16.4{\%}-39.4{\%}] for CAs).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The OS of patients with mCRC has improved gradually over the past 2 decades, with gains from chemotherapy occurring alongside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care. Gains from first-line therapies have been modest but consistent; however, gains from second-line therapies have been disappointing. We believe that future progress will be greater if emphasis is placed on enrolling patients in experimental trials to explore and develop alternative first-line regimens and better second-line therapies.",
author = "Irfan Jawed and Julia Wilkerson and Vinay Prasad and Duffy, {Austin G.} and Tito Fojo",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1790",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "787--795",
journal = "JAMA oncology",
issn = "2374-2437",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Colorectal Cancer Survival Gains and Novel Treatment Regimens

T2 - A Systematic Review and Analysis

AU - Jawed, Irfan

AU - Wilkerson, Julia

AU - Prasad, Vinay

AU - Duffy, Austin G.

AU - Fojo, Tito

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - IMPORTANCE: The past 2 decades have witnessed progress in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with more effective agents and better surgical, medical, and supportive care. While substantial progress has been made, much more must be achieved to prolong the lives of patients.OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to ascertain what percentage of the life expectancy gain in locally advanced and mCRC over the past 2 decades is due to novel therapies vs improvements in supportive care or secular trends and to thus inform treatment development strategies.EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CancerLit, and Healthstar electronic databases for trials covering the period 1993 to 2015, scanned reference lists of articles, and searched recent conference abstracts. Ninety-six phase 3 trials and large (>50 patients) phase 2 trials in mCRC were examined. Outcomes evaluated in the experimental arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included overall response rate, stable disease, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).FINDINGS: Over the period covered by the studies, the OS in EAs increased at a mean (95% CI) rate of 0.80 (0.67-0.93) mo/y. Importantly, OS in the CAs improved 0.63 (0.51-0.75) mo/y, reflecting in part the use of experimental regimens in subsequent studies. Chemotherapy contributed only partly to the gains in OS, given that (1) mean (95% CI) improvements in PFS were only 0.31 (0.22-0.39) mo/y in the EAs and 0.23 (0.15-0.31) mo/y in CAs; (2) gains in survival not directly attributable to the protocol were greater than gains in PFS (0.46 [0.36-0.57] mo/y in EAs and 0.39 [0.29-0.49] mo/y in CAs; and (3) effects on OS were much lower in second-line trials (median [interquartile range] response rates, 8.6% [0%-11.0%] in EAs and 7.5% [3.8%-12.8%] in CAs) compared with first-line trials (39.5% [24.0%-50.2%] for EAs and 29.4% [16.4%-39.4%] for CAs).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The OS of patients with mCRC has improved gradually over the past 2 decades, with gains from chemotherapy occurring alongside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care. Gains from first-line therapies have been modest but consistent; however, gains from second-line therapies have been disappointing. We believe that future progress will be greater if emphasis is placed on enrolling patients in experimental trials to explore and develop alternative first-line regimens and better second-line therapies.

AB - IMPORTANCE: The past 2 decades have witnessed progress in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with more effective agents and better surgical, medical, and supportive care. While substantial progress has been made, much more must be achieved to prolong the lives of patients.OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to ascertain what percentage of the life expectancy gain in locally advanced and mCRC over the past 2 decades is due to novel therapies vs improvements in supportive care or secular trends and to thus inform treatment development strategies.EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CancerLit, and Healthstar electronic databases for trials covering the period 1993 to 2015, scanned reference lists of articles, and searched recent conference abstracts. Ninety-six phase 3 trials and large (>50 patients) phase 2 trials in mCRC were examined. Outcomes evaluated in the experimental arms (EAs) and control arms (CAs) included overall response rate, stable disease, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).FINDINGS: Over the period covered by the studies, the OS in EAs increased at a mean (95% CI) rate of 0.80 (0.67-0.93) mo/y. Importantly, OS in the CAs improved 0.63 (0.51-0.75) mo/y, reflecting in part the use of experimental regimens in subsequent studies. Chemotherapy contributed only partly to the gains in OS, given that (1) mean (95% CI) improvements in PFS were only 0.31 (0.22-0.39) mo/y in the EAs and 0.23 (0.15-0.31) mo/y in CAs; (2) gains in survival not directly attributable to the protocol were greater than gains in PFS (0.46 [0.36-0.57] mo/y in EAs and 0.39 [0.29-0.49] mo/y in CAs; and (3) effects on OS were much lower in second-line trials (median [interquartile range] response rates, 8.6% [0%-11.0%] in EAs and 7.5% [3.8%-12.8%] in CAs) compared with first-line trials (39.5% [24.0%-50.2%] for EAs and 29.4% [16.4%-39.4%] for CAs).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The OS of patients with mCRC has improved gradually over the past 2 decades, with gains from chemotherapy occurring alongside gains from lead-time bias and improved locoregional approaches and supportive care. Gains from first-line therapies have been modest but consistent; however, gains from second-line therapies have been disappointing. We believe that future progress will be greater if emphasis is placed on enrolling patients in experimental trials to explore and develop alternative first-line regimens and better second-line therapies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84965091712&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84965091712&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1790

DO - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1790

M3 - Article

C2 - 26181239

AN - SCOPUS:84965091712

VL - 1

SP - 787

EP - 795

JO - JAMA oncology

JF - JAMA oncology

SN - 2374-2437

IS - 6

ER -