ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy versus standard of care adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery in patients with high risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer: a multi-centre, prospective, randomised control trial (TRACC Part C).
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Colorectal cancer
Disease free survival
Randomised
ctDNA
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2023
20 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
26
01
2023
accepted:
02
03
2023
entrez:
21
3
2023
pubmed:
22
3
2023
medline:
23
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) is emerging as a biomarker to predict recurrence in patients with curatively treated early stage colorectal cancer (CRC). ctDNA risk stratifies patients to guide adjuvant treatment decisions. We are conducting the UK's first multi-centre, prospective, randomised study to determine whether a de-escalation strategy using ctDNA to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decisions is non-inferior to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy, as measured by 3-year disease free survival (DFS) in patients with resected CRC with no evidence of MRD (ctDNA negative post-operatively). In doing so we may be able to spare patients unnecessary chemotherapy and associated toxicity and achieve significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). We are recruiting patients with fully resected high risk stage II and stage III CRC who are being considered for ACT into the study which uses results from a plasma-only ctDNA assay to guide treatment decisions. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to receive ctDNA-guided chemotherapy versus SOC chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the difference in DFS at 3 years between the trial arms. Secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients in the ctDNA-guided arm who are ctDNA negative post-operatively and receive de-escalated ACT compared to the standard arm, the difference in overall survival (OS), neurotoxicity and quality of life between the arms, and the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-guided therapy compared to SOC treatment. We hypothesise that using a ctDNA-guided approach to ACT decisions is non-inferior to SOC. Target accrual is 1621 patients over 4 years, which will provide a power of 80% with an alpha of 0.1 to demonstrate non-inferiority with a margin of 1.25 in survival of the ctDNA-guided approach compared to SOC. We anticipate approximately 50 UK centres will participate. The study opened with the Guardant Reveal plasma-only ctDNA assay in August 2022. The trial will determine whether ctDNA guided ACT is non-inferior to SOC ACT in patients with fully resected high risk stage II and stage III resected CRC, with the potential to significantly reduce unnecessary ACT and the toxicity associated with it. NCT04050345.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) is emerging as a biomarker to predict recurrence in patients with curatively treated early stage colorectal cancer (CRC). ctDNA risk stratifies patients to guide adjuvant treatment decisions. We are conducting the UK's first multi-centre, prospective, randomised study to determine whether a de-escalation strategy using ctDNA to guide adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) decisions is non-inferior to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy, as measured by 3-year disease free survival (DFS) in patients with resected CRC with no evidence of MRD (ctDNA negative post-operatively). In doing so we may be able to spare patients unnecessary chemotherapy and associated toxicity and achieve significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS).
METHODS
METHODS
We are recruiting patients with fully resected high risk stage II and stage III CRC who are being considered for ACT into the study which uses results from a plasma-only ctDNA assay to guide treatment decisions. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to receive ctDNA-guided chemotherapy versus SOC chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the difference in DFS at 3 years between the trial arms. Secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients in the ctDNA-guided arm who are ctDNA negative post-operatively and receive de-escalated ACT compared to the standard arm, the difference in overall survival (OS), neurotoxicity and quality of life between the arms, and the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-guided therapy compared to SOC treatment. We hypothesise that using a ctDNA-guided approach to ACT decisions is non-inferior to SOC. Target accrual is 1621 patients over 4 years, which will provide a power of 80% with an alpha of 0.1 to demonstrate non-inferiority with a margin of 1.25 in survival of the ctDNA-guided approach compared to SOC. We anticipate approximately 50 UK centres will participate. The study opened with the Guardant Reveal plasma-only ctDNA assay in August 2022.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The trial will determine whether ctDNA guided ACT is non-inferior to SOC ACT in patients with fully resected high risk stage II and stage III resected CRC, with the potential to significantly reduce unnecessary ACT and the toxicity associated with it.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
NCT04050345.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36941575
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-10699-4
pii: 10.1186/s12885-023-10699-4
pmc: PMC10026439
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04050345']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
257Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Transl Med. 2016 Jul 6;8(346):346ra92
pubmed: 27384348
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;5(12):1710-1717
pubmed: 31621801
Ann Oncol. 2020 Oct;31(10):1291-1305
pubmed: 32702383
Lancet. 2007 Dec 15;370(9604):2020-9
pubmed: 18083404
N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 8;322(6):352-8
pubmed: 2300087
Acta Oncol. 2015 Jan;54(1):5-16
pubmed: 25430983
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2021 Jun 15;5(4):
pubmed: 34350375
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 10;33(35):4176-87
pubmed: 26527776
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33(30):3416-22
pubmed: 26282635
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):562-578
pubmed: 29611518
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jun 16;386(24):2261-2272
pubmed: 35657320
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8664-70
pubmed: 16260700
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv22-iv40
pubmed: 28881920