Upload
profnickjames
View
22
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Overview of bladder preservation plus background to TUXEDO trial looking at cetuximab in MIBC
Citation preview
Bladder preservation in muscle invasive disease
Nick James
University of Warwick and University Hospitals Birmingham
@Prof_Nick_James
#NJBladderCancer
*
*
Chemoradiation vs radiotherapy alone
Synchronous Chemo-radiotherapy
Numerous phase I/II studies showing feasibility and safetyThree phase III studiesRT vs RT + Cisplatinum (NCIC)RT vs RT + nicotinamide/carbogen (BCON)RT vs RT + 5FU/MMC (BC2001)BC2001: Trial design
Reduced high
dose volume RT
+ synchronous chemotherapy
Reduced high
dose volume RT
Standard volume RT
+ synchronous chemotherapy
Standard volume RT
Patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer
RANDOMISE
Pragmatic design: Centres could offer double or either single randomisation
CT
No CT
sRT
RHDV RT
Chemotherapy regimen
Target volume tumour + bladder + 1.5-2cm
Chemotherapy via peripherally inserted central
line as outpatient therapy
5FU 500mg/m2/d
MMC 12mg/m2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Weeks
RT 55 Gy/20 f or
64 Gy/32 f
*
Patient demographics
Mean (SD) 70.5 (8.2) yearsMedian (IQR) 71.9 (64.1 - 76.2) yearsOlder than patients in previously published trials including SWOG 87101(median 63 y) and BA062 (median 64 y)Performance status
Male = 289/360 (80%)
Age at randomisation
Grossman et al NEJM 2003 Volume 349:859-866 Lancet 1999; 354: 533-40Acute toxicity
Proportions with a grade 3/4 at any time on treatment: 62/179 (34.6%) CT vs. 49/172 (28.5%) No CT (% of pts with data) Stratified Chi-square test p=0.19Worst grade of on-treatment toxicity by week
*
Toxicity: stratified chi-square (grade 0-2 vs. 3-4)
1% significance level to account for multiple testing
Includes tox blood counts, not liver, bilirubin and creatinine
Chart5111112222233333444445555566666777771111122222333334444455555666667777701234CT No CT% of non-missingRT 64Gy/32F0.19811320750.48113207550.21698113210.103773584900.10377358490.48113207550.30188679250.113207547200.04629629630.51851851850.2870370370.12962962960.01851851850.02777777780.49074074070.33333333330.13888888890.00925925930.01886792450.45283018870.33018867920.18867924530.00943396230.05660377360.40566037740.3207547170.18867924530.02830188680.050.370.360.190.030.31683168320.41584158420.14851485150.0990099010.01980198020.20588235290.42156862750.22549019610.12745098040.01960784310.12621359220.47572815530.26213592230.10679611650.02912621360.10784313730.47058823530.30392156860.08823529410.02941176470.1456310680.39805825240.27184466020.1456310680.03883495150.09803921570.48039215690.23529411760.14705882350.03921568630.17346938780.39795918370.24489795920.14285714290.0408163265OverallPercentweekctrandcount0count1count2count3count4Total non-missingweekctrand012341CT398834161771CT22.0%49.7%19.2%9.0%0.0%2CT168754191762CT9.1%49.4%30.7%10.8%0.0%3CT878692221793CT4.5%43.6%38.5%12.3%1.1%4CT677643111794CT3.4%43.0%35.8%17.3%0.6%5CT248362011075CT1.9%44.9%33.6%18.7%0.9%6CT643342131076CT5.6%40.2%31.8%19.6%2.8%7CT537361931007CT5.0%37.0%36.0%19.0%3.0%1No CT6065251431672No CT3970411821701No CT35.9%38.9%15.0%8.4%1.8%3No CT2475501931712No CT22.9%41.2%24.1%10.6%1.2%4No CT1676561831693No CT14.0%43.9%29.2%11.1%1.8%5No CT1641281541044No CT9.5%45.0%33.1%10.7%1.8%6No CT1149241541035No CT15.4%39.4%26.9%14.4%3.8%7No CT183924144996No CT10.7%47.6%23.3%14.6%3.9%7No CT18.2%39.4%24.2%14.1%4.0%Overall01234CT No CT% of non-missingWorst on-treatment toxicity by week64gy32FPercentweekctrandcount0count1count2count3count4Total non-missingweekctrand012341CT215123111061CT19.8%48.1%21.7%10.4%0.0%2CT115132121062CT10.4%48.1%30.2%11.3%0.0%3CT556311421083CT4.6%51.9%28.7%13.0%1.9%4CT353361511084CT2.8%49.1%33.3%13.9%0.9%5CT248352011065CT1.9%45.3%33.0%18.9%0.9%6CT643342031066CT5.7%40.6%32.1%18.9%2.8%7CT537361931007CT5.0%37.0%36.0%19.0%3.0%1No CT3242151021012No CT2143231321021No CT31.7%41.6%14.9%9.9%2.0%3No CT1349271131032No CT20.6%42.2%22.5%12.7%2.0%4No CT114831931023No CT12.6%47.6%26.2%10.7%2.9%5No CT1541281541034No CT10.8%47.1%30.4%8.8%2.9%6No CT1049241541025No CT14.6%39.8%27.2%14.6%3.9%7No CT173924144986No CT9.8%48.0%23.5%14.7%3.9%7No CT17.3%39.8%24.5%14.3%4.1%64gy32F01234CT No CT% of non-missingRT 64Gy/32F55gy20FPercentweekctrandcount0count1count2count3count4Total non-missingweekctrand012341CT1837115711CT25.4%52.1%15.5%7.0%0.0%2CT536227702CT7.1%51.4%31.4%10.0%0.0%3CT322388713CT4.2%31.0%53.5%11.3%0.0%4CT3242816714CT4.2%33.8%39.4%22.5%0.0%1No CT28231041662No CT1827185681No CT42.4%34.8%15.2%6.1%1.5%3No CT1126238682No CT26.5%39.7%26.5%7.4%0.0%4No CT528259673No CT16.2%38.2%33.8%11.8%0.0%4No CT7.5%41.8%37.3%13.4%0.0%weekctrandcount0count1count2count3count41CT18371152CT5362273CT3223884CT32428161No CT282310412No CT18271853No CT11262384No CT52825955gy20F01234CT No CT% of non-missingRT 55Gy/20FRTOG 6 month toxicity outcomes
n= 291, 145 RT only, 146 chemo-radiotherapy
*
Loco-regional disease free survival in chemotherapy randomisation
Loco-regional control
(invasive and non-invasive)
Invasive loco-regional control
James et al, Radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy for invasive bladder cancer.
NEJM 2012 366, 1477-1488
EGFR
Overexpression correlates with poor prognosisSome evidence RT responses worse in EGFR+ tumoursIn vitro, EGFR targeting radio-sensitisesCetuximab
IgG1 Mab targeting the EGFRProven role as radiosensistiser in head and neck cancerTargets immune cells to the tumourPossible anti-angiogenic roleTUXEDO
Multi-stage trialPhase I: can we combine Cetximab with chemo-RT?Phase IIa single arm: expanded safety and efficacy with phase I regimenPhase IIb: randomise ChemoRT vs. CRT+ CetuximabTUXEDO
Multi-stage trialPhase I: can we combine Cetximab with chemo-RT?Phase IIa single arm: expanded safety and efficacy with phase I regimenPhase IIb: randomise ChemoRT vs. CRT+ CetuximabPhase I regimen
Phase 1 patients
No. of patients7Sex7 male, 0 femaleMedian age70 yrs (range 60-75)Tumour stageT2a: 2; T2b: 2; T3b: 3Reduced dosage1 pt had reduced dosage of cetuximab (missed wks 3 and 4 of treatment due to skin toxicity)Withdrawals1 pt withdrew from RT due to relocationDose intensity:CetuximabMitomycin C5-FU99%98.3%100%Phase 1 toxicity
TUXEDO summary
7/7 phase 1 pts had CR at 3mDelivery of core chemoRT excellentDelivery of cetuximab near 100%Protocol amended to make neoAd chemo optionalDMC approved progression to phase IIa Open to new centres0
50
100
150
200