Stage II disease, elderly patients, secondary neoplasms, and the MOSAIC trial.
M. Gallén,R. Gallego,J. Bellmunt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.47.1854
IF: 45.3
2013-03-18
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:TO THE EDITOR: We congratulate Tournigand et al on the publication of the results of the post hoc exploratory study of patients with stage II disease and elderly patients in the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer (MOSAIC). However, we would like to make some comments on certain aspects of the article. First and foremost, we are intrigued at the relevant delay in the publication of the results in 2012, taking into account that the cutoff date for analysis of survival was January 16, 2007. This suggests a follow-up that was not updated when compared to the previous publication. In fact, the publications present median follow-ups of 81.9 months and 80 months, respectively. Furthermore, when examining the 2010 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting abstracts (abstracts 3522 and 3524) in detail, both the number of patients alive with relapse and the number of second cancers are identical to the data that were provided in the current report. Therefore, one could interpret that the current results were already available, at least when the 2009 article was published, and probably even before. Interestingly, in their report, the authors raise a relevant concern regarding chemotherapy-induced secondary neoplasms. To supplement this evidence, we want to add our personal experience with 139 patients with stage II or III disease who received adjuvant infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) at our institution. With a median follow-up of 36 months, eight patients developed a second neoplasm. One of them, a 56-year-old man, developed an aggressive acute myeloblastic leukemia (therapy related [monosomy 7]), 18 months after initiation of FOLFOX4 as adjuvant chemotherapy. Another point of discussion is to what extent the change in age rangesisjustifiedintheauthors’mostrecentreport.Wethinkthattheage classificationshouldhavebeenthesameasitappearsinthetwopreviously published articles. As was shown, the survival hazard ratio was approximately 1.0 in patients with stage III disease and patients older than age 64 years inbotharticles.Thus, ifdatafromthe2009publicationdidnotshow a benefit from FOLFOX4 in patients older than age 65 years, and the results have not been updated, then it is difficult to argue that patients between age 65 and 69 years can obtain a benefit from oxaliplatin. Furthermore, we do not find justification for the inclusion of death as a result of other causes at time point 0 in the post–disease-free survival curves. If the idea is to consider the survival of patients after relapse, the fact that the curves have different starting points (because of this inclusion of death as a result of other causes) does not add anything. What is relevant is whether, once a patient presents with a relapse, his survival expectations differ from that of the other group. The fact that there is a 20% offset does not lead to solid conclusions. Finally, one third of patients with stage II disease had fewer than 10 nodes retrieved, which, according to the recommendations, is insufficient. Therefore, a certain self-criticism regarding surgical quality is lacking. Furthermore, we have observed heterogeneity in the definition of high risk in stage II disease according to the number of lymphatic nodes examined. In an American Society of Clinical Oncology 2010 meeting presentation, the limit of 12 nodes to define high-risk stage II disease was chosen; now the criterion has been changed to nine or fewer nodes.