No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

58 Background: Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) are the only therapeutic options for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with demonstrated benefit in overall survival (OS). However, they are not accessible worldwide. In Brazil, they have been recently approved, but they have not yet been provided by public health system or private health insurances. We aimed to describe the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of that population in a setting with limited access to those drugs. Methods: Retrospective study evaluating 510 patients with mCRC who were treated at five Oncoclinicas centers in Brazil from January 2011 to December 2019. Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. The median OS was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic factors were evaluated via multivariable Cox Regression, calculating the Hazard Ratio (HR) and the confidence interval (CI95%). Results: A total of 163 patients (33% of the overall population) received third-line and 73 (15%) fourth-line systemic therapy. Median age was 62 years, 59% were male. Tumors were right-sided in 19%, RAS mutated 44%, BRAF mutated 3%, and high-frequency microsatellite instability 3%. Metastasectomy prior to third-line was performed in 62% of the patients. From the start of third-line therapy, median follow-up was 9.0 months, with 67% of deaths, and median OS was 13.7 months (CI95% 11.8m–20.0m). Most adopted regimens in third-and fourth-line were (1) rechallenge with oxaliplatin-based therapy (39% and 26%, respectively); (2) rechallenge with irinotecan-based therapy (32% and 34%); (3) rechallenge with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (20% and 29%); (4) regorafenib (13% and 25%); and (5) TAS-102 (2% and 4%). In multivariable model including clinical and molecular variables, prior metastasectomy was the only significant prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.51, CI95% 0.31–0.83, p=0.007). Conclusions: In real-world, a meaningful proportion of patients with mCRC are eligible for third and later lines of therapy. Rechallenge with chemotherapy and anti-EGFR agents is overused in a setting of limited access to therapies with demonstrated OS benefit, such as regorafenib and TAS-102. Barriers to drug access impair the adoption of the best evidence-based continuum of care and strategies to overcome them are urgently needed. Refractory patients in later lines of therapy derive survival benefit from prior metastasectomy.

e18830 Background: Incidence of EOCRC has been sharply rising in the past decades in the US and present distinct clinical features when compared to late-onset CRC (LOCRC). Data from other countries are scarce. We compared clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes between patients ≤45y (EOCRC) and ≥60y (LOCRC). Methods: Retrospective study evaluating 510 patients with metastatic CRC treated at 5 Oncoclinicas centers in Brazil from January 2011 to December 2019. Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. The median OS was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic factors were evaluated via multivariate Cox Regression. Results: After excluding patients with ages between 46 and 59, 326 patients were identified. EOCRC was represented by 72 (22%) patients (median age 39) and LOCRC by 254 patients (median age 69). Median follow-up was 39.5m, with 231 deaths (71%). Median OS was 33.2m and 40.9m (p = 0.971), respectively. Likewise, stage IV at presentation was similar between the groups (68% vs 58%, p = 0.215), as well as the rate of dMMR status (4% vs 6%, p = 0.655). Clinical and treatment characteristics that were statistically different between the groups are described in Table 1. In multivariate analysis, presence of RAS mutations (HR:1.83), and undergoing triplet chemotherapy (HR:3.24), primary tumor resection (HR:0.40), and metastasectomy (HR:0.45) were the variables with prognostic effect on OS. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis of mCRC, EOCRC patients presented similar clinical presentation and OS, but they were more aggressively treated compared to the older patients. There is no evidence that more intensive treatments translate into superior clinical outcomes in young patients. Real-world data have been progressively adopted in clinical practice and should be considered before clinical decision making in order to offer treatments with minimal toxicity burden to the patients. Future studies with larger population are needed and may bring additional data. [Table: see text]