Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The left versus right colon cancer storyWhat is the truth?
Prof. V. HeinemannCCCLMU, Klinikum GrosshadernLudwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Germany
Three stages of truth (Schopenhauer)• Ridicule• Violent opposition• Acceptance for granted
Conflicts of Interest
● Advisory Boards: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Sanofi, Bayer, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, SIRTEX, MSD, BMS
● Honorary fees: Merck, Amgen, Roche, Servier, SIRTEX, MSD, BMS, Servier
● Scientific grants:Merck, Amgen, Roche, Servier, Boehringer-Ingelheim, SIRTEX, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Shire
Molecular Profile
CT doublet+ moAb
Combination CT + bevacizumab
CT triplet+ bevacizumab
RAS mtRAS wt BRAF mt
Right-sided Left-sided
Sidedness affects treatment decisions
most of the evidence
60-80%
20-40%
Prognostic Relevance of Primary Tumour Sidedness in Clinical Studies
Holch et al. Eur J Cancer 2017Clearly better outcome in LPT: HR 1.5favors RC favors LC
Study Regimen Right-sided location
CRYSTAL FOLFIRI + CetuximabFOLFIRI
19%27%
PRIME FOLFOX + PanitumumabFOLFOX
19%24%
FIRE-3 FOLFIRI + CetuximabFOLFIRI + Bev
19%25%
PEAK FOLFOX + PanitumumabFOLFOX + Bev
29%21%
CALGB Chemo + CetuximabChemo + Bev
30%34%
Prevalence of right-sided tumors in clinical studies
Range: 19-34%
BevacizumabEffect of sidedness on survival
Pooled Analysis: NO16966 and AVF2107
Sidedness was determined in 1590 (72%) of 2214 pts
• 27% right • 73% left
Conclusions:• Incomplete analysis
• Bevacizumab comparably improvesOS in LSP and RSP
• Effect not significant in RSP
Loupakis BJC 2018
Left side
Right side
Cremolini C, et al. Ann Oncol 2018
TRIBE: Impact of Sidedness on OS
Unselected ptsLSP: HR 0.99RSP: HR 0.56
Unselected pts Right-sided Left-sided
FOLFOXIRI + Bev FOLFIRI + Bev FOLFOXIRI + Bev FOLFIRI + Bev
ORR 63.9% 54.6% 64.6% 56.6%
RAS/BRAF-wtLSP: HR 0.88RSP: HR 0.50
FOLFOXIRI + Bev
FOLFIRI + Bev
Cremolini C, et al. Ann Oncol 2018
TRIBE: Impact of Sidedness on OS
Unselected ptsLSP: HR 0.99RSP: HR 0.56
Unselected pts Right-sided Left-sided
FOLFOXIRI + Bev FOLFIRI + Bev FOLFOXIRI + Bev FOLFIRI + Bev
ORR 63.9% 54.6% 64.6% 56.6%
RAS/BRAF-wtLSP: HR 0.88RSP: HR 0.50
FOLFOXIRI + Bev
FOLFIRI + Bev
RSP: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab may be regarded as a preferred option in pts fit for combination and independent of their molecular statusLSP: Doublet plus bevacizumab remains the preferred option
Anti-EGFR agentsEffect of sidedness on survival
• Meta-analysis: chemo doublet +/- EGFR-i (PRIME, CRYSTAL)
• Meta-analysis: head-to-head comparisons: EGFR-i versus bevacizumab(CALGB, FIRE-3, PEAK)
PRIME (FOLFOX +/- Panitumumab): Effect of Sidedness
Boeckx N, et al. Ann Oncol 2017
Clear benefit from Pmab
No benefit from Pmab
Left-sided mCRC
right-sided mCRC
Meta-analysis: addition of an anti-EGFR agent to chemoOverall Survival
Left-sided primaryClear benefit fromanti-EGFR therapy
Right-sided primaryNo benefit fromanti-EGFR therapy
Holch J, Eur J Cancer
PRIME
CRYSTAL
PRIME
CRYSTAL
Head to head comparisonsanti-EGFR agents versus bevacizumab
FIRE-3(FOLFIRI + Cetuximab versus FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab) Effect of Sidedness
Tejpar S, et al. JAMA Oncopl 2016
No significantdifference Cetuximab
superior: Δ=10mo
Meta-Analysis of Head to Head ComparisonsOverall survival
Holch J, Eur J Cancer. 2017
Left-sided primaryClear benefit fromanti-EGFR agentscompared to bevacizumab
Right-sided primaryStrong trend in favor of bevacizumab
Left-sided mCRC
right-sided mCRC
CALGB/SWOG 80405
FIRE-3
PEAK
CALGB/SWOG 80405
FIRE-3
PEAK
Meta-Analysis of Head to Head ComparisonsProgression-free survival
Left-sided mCRC
right-sided mCRC
CommentComparable effectsof sidedness on PFS and OS
H-to-H Comparisons: FIRE-3, PEAK, CALGBOverall Survival according to sidedness
Study
FIRE-3(n=394)
CALGB(n=474)
PEAK(n=234)
Left-Sided Primary Tumours
Chemo +anti-EGFR
Chemo + Bevacizumab
HRP
38.3 mo 28.0 mo 0.630.002
39.2 mo 32.6 mo 0.770.04
43.4 mo 32.0 mo 0.84na
Right-Sided Primary Tumours
Chemo +anti-EGFR
Chemo + Bevacizumab
HRP
18.3 mo 23.0 mo 1.30.28
13.7 mo 29.2 mo 1.360.10
17.5 mo 21.0 mo
Bevacizumab works in LSP
EGFR-i workeven better in LSP
Very poor survival in EGFR-i treated RPT
Anti-EGFR agentsEffect of sidedness on ORR
Holch J....Heinemann V, Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:87-98.
Meta-analysis: addition of an anti-EGFR agent to chemoORR: Left- and right-sided mCRC
Left-sided mCRC
right-sided mCRC
Left-sided primaryClearly favorsanti-EGFR treatment
Right-sided primaryTrend in favor of anti-EGFR treatment
PRIME
CRYSTAL
PRIME
CRYSTAL
Holch J....Heinemann V, Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:87-98.
Meta-analysis: Head to head comparisonsORR: Left- and right-sided mCRC
Left-sided primaryClearly favorsanti-EGFR treatment
Right-sided primaryTrend in favor of anti-EGFR treatment
CALGB/SWOG 80405
FIRE-3
PEAK
CALGB/SWOG 80405
FIRE-3
PEAK
Left-sided mCRC
right-sided mCRC
ORR (primary objective)
N FOLFOXIRI + Pmab
FOLFOXIRI P
Full analysis set 96 87.3% 60.6% 0.004
Left 78 90.6% 68.0% 0.02
Right 18 70.0% 37.5% 0.34
VOLFI(FOLFOXIRI + Panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI)
Effect of intensified treatment in RPT vs LPT
ConclusionIn RPT there is a discordant effect of Pmab on ORR and PFS
Geissler M, et al. ASCO #3509, 2018
Later treatment linesEffect of sidedness on OS
Brulé SY, et al. Eur J Cancer 2015
NCIC CO.17: Relevance of sidedness in pretreated patients**KRAS wild-type
Conclusions• Highly selected patient
population
• BRAF V600 mutation RC 4.7% LC 0.8%
• Cetuximab is effective compared to BSC
• Effects smaller in right-sided than left-sided mCRC
*Patients who had previously been treated with a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatinor had contraindications to treatment with these drugs
HR = 0.66p=0.18
HR = 0.73p=0.26
HR = 0.49p=0.002
HR = 0.28p <0.0001
What is the truth?
Continuum of DNA Alterations
According to Yamauchi M. et al., Gut 2012;61:847-54*CIMP: CPG-island methylation phenotype; MSI, microsatellite instability
50
40
30
20
10
0Caecum
(n = 243)Colon
ascendens(n = 295)
Hepatic flexur
(n = 46)
Colon transversum
(n = 91)
Splenic flexur
(n = 33)
Colon descendens
(n = 83)
Colon sigmoideum(n = 314)
Recto-sigmoid
(n = 106)
Rectum(n = 232)
CIMP-high MSI-high BRAF MutationAnt
eilp
ositiv
e Fä
lle(%
)
right-sided left-sided
Prevalence of CMS According to Sidedness
Loree JM, et al. Clin Cancer Res 2018;
608 patients with stage I-IV CRCFIRE-3
FIRE-3
HR for OS According to Primary Tumor Location
Loree JM,.... Kopetz S; Clin Cancer Res 2018
FIRE-3: Greater DpR correlates with longer OS
Stintzing S, et al. Lancet Oncology 2016
Depth of response correlated significantly with OS (two-sided Bravais Pearson test)
FOLFIRI + Cetuximab
FOLFIRI + BevacizumabR
N = 400
Prim. Endpoint = ORR
Δ = 8.1 months
DpR is predictor of OSin left-sided mCRC
Sidedness differentially affects the relation betweenEGFR-i induced ORR and OS
Discordance of ORR and OSin right-sided mCRC
?
T + EGFR-i
if ORR is a primary goal
D + Bev
if EGFR-i are not accepted/tolerated
RAS wt
Left-sided
Left versus right colon cancer story: My Take
D + EGFR-i
if OS is a primary goal
Right-sided
D/T + Bev
if OS is a primary goal
default recommendation
default recommendationD: chemo doublet
T: chemo triplet
Clinical Practice Recommendation:LPT RAS-wt mCRC:
● Define RAS- and BRAF mutation status upfront
● Prefer an anti-EGFR agent in 1st-line treatmentif prolongation of OS is a primary goal (most patients)
● If anti-EGFR agents are not accepted or toleratedswitch to a doublet plus bevacizumab
● Focus on exploration of family history● Define BRAF mutation and MSI status upfront
● Prefered 1st-line treatment option: triplet plus bevacizumab
● Alternative option: triplet plus anti-EGFR agent if tumor reduction or conversion therapy is a primary goal
if you are willing to evaluate early tumor response(e.g. after 6-8 weeks)
in case of insufficient response: immediately switch to bev-based therapy
Clinical Practice Recommendation:RPT RAS-wt mCRC: