Upload
nelson-snow
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Upper GI Cancers: Risk Stratification and Treatment Selection
David H. Ilson, MD, PhDGastrointestinal Oncology ServiceMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Disclosure
Research Funding
– Roche-Genentech
– Bayer
– sanofi-aventis
– BMS-Imclone
UGI Cancers, Risk Stratification and Therapy
Staging of Gastric and Esophageal Cancer for treatment selection
Benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy
Appropriate selection of chemotherapy for Stage IV disease
Pancreatic Cancer adjuvant and advanced disease therapy
Esophageal and Gastric CarcinomaUS Incidence in 2011
38,500 new cases
Decline in Gastric Cancer Incidence
Increase in Esophageal , GE JX, cardia adeno
OS improvement, 1975-77, 1984-86, 1999-2006
– Gastric: 16% 18% 27%
– Esophageal: 5% 10% 19%
Highly virulent diseases with poor outcome
Jemal et al, CA 61: 212-236; 2011
New AJCC Staging: Survival in over 13,000 pts with gastric cancer, SEER database
McGhan J Gastro Surg 16: 53; 2012
Gastric Cancer Preop therapy:T3 or N+T1A: EMRT1B, T2: Primary resection
New AJCC Staging: Survival in over 4600 pts with esophageal and GEJ cancer
Rice Cancer 2010
Esophagus, GEJ Preop therapy:T2-3 or N+T1A: EMRT1B: Primary resection
PET SCAN:Staging (15% occult mets), and Determine Response to
Preop Chemo
SUV = 10.6 SUV = 2.2
Laparoscopy in Gastric Cancer
CT and PET scan may miss small volume liver or peritoneal disease
For gastric cancer, laparoscopy detects peritoneal or liver disease in 20-30% of patients
– Not mandated for GEJ cancers: < 5% positive lap findings
A positive cytology = Stage IV disease
– Patients do not benefit from immediate gastrectomy
– They should be treated with palliative chemotherapy
– ? Reassess response and consider selective surgery
No long term survivors with + cytology
Adjuvant Therapy in Gastric Cancer Improves OS Pre and post op chemo (U.K.)
– ECF, MAGIC:
13% 5 yr OS, HR 0.75
Post op chemo (Asia): 2 trials, 2000 pts, D2 resection
– S-1, ACTS-GC:
13% 5 yr OS, HR 0.67 (2011 update)
– Post op Cape-Oxali , CLASSIC Trial:
14% 3 yr DFS, HR 0.56
Post op RT + chemo (U.S.), less than a D1-2 resection
– 5FU-LV + RT, INT 116:
10% 5 yr OS, HR 0.65
Cunningham NEJM 355: 11; 2006 Sasako JCO 29: 4387; 2011 Bang LBA 4002, Proc ASCO 2011 Macdonald NEJM 345:725; 2001
Optimal Surgery for Gastric Cancer? D2 resection is the standard of care in Asia
Increasingly in the West D2 resection is considered the standard
Update of Dutch D1 vs D2 resection at 15 years supports D2:
Songun I et al Lancet Oncol 11: 439; 2010
Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy? Support of 5-FU monotherapy
– ACTS-GC: S-1
– CALGB 80101:
ECF no better than 5-FU/LV, when given post op with FU + RT
Support for 5-FU + platinum agent
– CLASSIC: Capecitabine-Oxaliplatin
– FNCLCC-FFCD and MAGIC: CF and ECF
Fuchs Abs 4003, Proc ASCO 2011 Bang LBA 4002, Proc ASCO 2011 Ychou J Clin Oncol 29: 1715; 2011
Surgically (D2) resected Stage II, IIIA, or IIIB GC, 6 weeks prior to randomization
No prior chemotherapy or
radiotherapy
n=1035
Capecitabine: 1,000mg/m2 bid, d1–14, q3wOxaliplatin: 130mg/m2, d1, q3w
RANDO MIZATION
1:1†
n=520
n=515
• Primary endpoint: 3-year DFS‡
• Secondary endpoints: overall survival and safety profile
†Stratified by stage and country with age, sex, and nodal status as covariates‡GASTRIC project: 3-year DFS and 5-year overall survival are strongly associated, Burzykowski et al. ASCO 2009
CLASSIC study design
8 cycles of XELOX (6 months)
Observation: No adjuvant therapy
Primary endpoint (3-year DFS) met at interim analysis
ITT population; DFS = disease-free survivalMedian follow-up 34.4 months (range 16–51)
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
3-year DFS
74%
60%
HR=0.56 (95% CI 0.44–0.72)P<0.0001
Time (months)
Observation, n=515
XELOX, n=520
520 410 333 246 166 74 30 10443515 352 286 209 147 58 22 6414
XELOXObservation
No. left
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48
Regional Therapies as Adjuvant?
Role of post op RT
– U.S. INT 116: < D1-2 resection, RT reduced local recurrence
– ARTIST (Korea, JCO in press), D2 resection
Cape-Cis vs Cape-Cis + RT
DFS benefit in node + patients for adding RT
5% improvement in 3 year DFS, HR 0.69
Ongoing Trials
– CRITICS:
Preop ECX, post op ECX + / - RT
– TOPGEAR:
Preop ECX + / - RT
Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Adjuvant Therapy Improves OS
T2-3 or N1: Something more than surgery alone should be done
Preoperative chemotherapy ECF, CF improves overall survival in some but not all trials
– MAGIC (ECF): 13% ↑ OS at 5 yr (75% gastric, 25% esophageal)
– FFCD / FNLC (CF): 14% ↑ OS at 5 yr (gastric and esophageal cancer) same as MAGIC, no epirubicin
– MRC 0E0-2 (CF): Esophageal
5 year update: 6%, no impact on distant recurrence
– U.S. INT 113 (CF): no impact on OS
– EORTC 40954 (CF): no impact on OSMRC Lancet 359: 1727; 2002 Cunningham NEJM 355: 11; 2006 Schumacher JCO 28: 5210; 2010
Meta Analysis of Preop Chemo: Overall Survival (Thirion, ASCO 2007)
Patients at risk
Control 1054 321 144 74 38 20Chemo pre-op 1047 361 153 90 52 31
Su
rviv
al
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Absolute benefit at 5 years:4.3 %
Patients at risk
Control 1054 321 144 74 38 20Chemo pre-op 1047 361 153 90 52 31
Su
rviv
al
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Absolute benefit at 5 years:4.3 %
Squamous: 4% Adeno: 7%
CROSS Active Treatment Arm
Paclitaxel 50mg/m2 + Carboplatin AUC=2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29
Concurrent radiotherapy of 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy
Surgery within 6 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy
(THE/TTE)
Major eligibility: Adeno- or squamous histology; N1 or >T2, PS < 2
Primary objective: Median overall survival 22 months (versus 16)
2020
CROSS: Major Results• EUS staged patients
• T3N0-1 75%, median age 60
• 74% Adenocarcinoma
• 93% received all courses chemotherapy
– 23% had > = grade 3 toxicity from pre-op therapy
• Post-operative morbidity and mortality almost identical (mortality 3.7-3.8%)
• Path CR rate of nearly 30% with chemo RT
Resection rate and resection margins
Resection rate of all randomised patients
Surgery alone CRT + surgery
162/188 (86%) 157/175 (90%)
Resection margins
Surgery alone CRT + surgery
R0 110 (67%) 145 (92.3%) p<0.002
R1 52 (33%) 12 (7.6%)
R0 = no tumor within 1 mm of the resection margins
CROSS study21
HR 0.67 95% CI (.49 - .91) P=0.012
CROSS: Overall Survival
HR 0.67 95% CI (0.49 - 0.91)
CRTx
Surgery
Adapted van der Gaast
•1-year survival 82 versus 70%
•2-year survival 67 versus 52%
•3-year survival 59 versus 48%
•Median survival 49 versus 26 months, HR 0.67, p = 0.011)
•Squamous HR 0.24, Adeno HR 0.82
Preop Chemo vs ChemoRT
Preop Chemo vs Chemo RT: Stahl
Arm Pts R0 pCR N0 Median Survival
3 yr OS Local Control
Chemo 59 70% 2% 37% 21 mos 28% 59%
Chemo RT
60 72% 16% 64% 33 mos 47%P = 0.07
77%P = 0.06
Stahl J Clin Oncol: 27: 836; 2009
•EUS, laparoscopy staged pts•Siewert I-III, T3-4 adenocarcinoma
MUNICON-1 trial: PET scan response during Induction Chemo
AEGtype I-II
AEGtype I-II
CTx
ResectionResection
ResectionResection
Non-Responder
Responder
CTx: 3 monthsCTx: 3 monthsPET d0PET d0
PET d14PET d14
Response definition: Decrease of the SUVmean PETd14 / PETbaseline > 35% Weber et al. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058-65 Ott et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692-8
Response definition: Decrease of the SUVmean PETd14 / PETbaseline > 35% Weber et al. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3058-65 Ott et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692-8
Comparison with historic cohort
Ott et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4692-8CTx for 12 weeks in all patients
Survival (median)Responders: not reachedNon-Responders: 18 months
MUNICON-1 study; 2007 CTx stopped after 2wks in Non-Responders
Survival (median)Responders: not reachedNon-Responders: 26 months
PET-Responder
PET-Non-Responder
Su
rviv
al
Survival time [months]
PET Scan Directed Therapy Trial Design: CALGB / RTOG 80803
T3/4 or N1 Esophageal
Adenoca
PET/CT: Induction Chemo: modified FOLFOX6 days
1,15, 22 or Carbo/Taxol days
1,8,22,29
PET-responders: ≥ 35% SUV decrease: continue
same chemo + concurrent RT (5040cGy in 180cGy fx)
PET Scan day 29-35
Surgical resection 6 weeks post-RT
PET- nonresponders: < 35% SUV decrease:
Cross over to alternate chemo + RT (5040cGy in
180cGy fx)
Hypothesis: changing chemo in PET non responding patients will improve pCR
during chemo + RT
Best Supportive Care vs Chemotherapy
Wagner J Clin Oncol 24: 2903; 2006
Advanced Gastric Cancer Chemotherapy: What regimen to use?
Oxali:
EOX or EOF
Cape:
ECX or EOX
XP FLO FUFIRI S-1 Cis
DCF ECF
Pts 489 513 160 109 170 305 221 126
%RR 44% 45% 41% 34% 32% 54% 36% 45%
TTP, mos 6.7 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.0 6.0 5.6 7.4
OS, mos 10.9 10.4 10.5 -- 9.0 13.0 9.2 8.9
Patient Selection for Chemotherapy
Assess age, functional status, comorbidites
Combination chemotherapy preferred over single agents
– Monotherapy with 5-FU, capecitabine, taxanes in elderly, poor PS patients
3 drug regimens (DCF, mDCF)
– High functional status, younger patients without comorbidities
– Willingness to tolerate side effects
– Access to frequent follow up and toxicity assessment
CALGB 80403 / ECOG E1206: Comparison of ECF, FOLFOX, Irino/Cis
Stratification:ECOG 0-1 vs 2ADC vs. SCC
ARM A: (ECF + cetuximab); 1 cycle = 21 days
Cetuximab 400 250mg/m2 IV, weeklyEpirubicin 50 mg/m2 IV, day 1Cisplatin 60mg/m2 IV, day 1Fluorouracil 200mg/m2/day, days 1-21
ARM B: (IC + cetuximab); 1 cycle = 21 days
Cetuximab 400 250mg/m2 IV, weeklyCisplatin 30 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8Irinotecan 65 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8
ARM C: (FOLFOX + cetuximab); 1 cycle = 14 days
Cetuximab 400 250mg/m2 IV, weeklyOxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV, day 1Leucovorin 400 mg/m2, day 1Fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 IV bolus, day 1Fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 IV over 46hrs (days 1-2)
CALGB 80403/ECOG 1206: Response
ECF-C N=64
IC-C N=68
FOLFOX-C N=69
Response CR 0 1 ( 1%) 2 ( 3%)
PR 37 (58%) 30 (44%) 35 (51%)
SD 15 (23%) 23 (34%) 19 (28%)
PD 4 ( 6%) 10 (15%) 8 (12%)
Not eval / unknown 5 / 3 (8% /5%) 2 / 2 (3% /3%) 3 / 2 (4% /3%) Objective Response Rate*
(CR+PR)/total 57.8 45.6 53.6
(90% C.I.) 46.8 68.3 35.2 56.3 43.1 64.0
p vs. H0<0.25 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Response duration (mos) median 6.1 5.3 5.7
range 0.5 - 22.7 0.5 - 20.1 2.4 - 18.2
*RECIST - confirmed; restaging every 6 weeks
ECF-C IC-C FOLFOX-C Total N=67 N=71 N=72 N=210
Mos 95% c.i. Mos 95% c.i. Mos 95% c.i. Mos 95% c.i. OS median 11.5 (8.1,12.5) 8.9 (6.2,13.1) 12.4 (8.8,13.9) 11.0 (8.8,12.3) # dead 51 52 51 154 PFS median 5.9 (4.5,8.3) 5.0 (3.9,6.0) 6.7 (5.5,7.4) 5.8 (5.1,6.8) # dead/pd 57 64 63 184 TTF median 5.5 (3.9,7.2) 4.5 (3.6,5.6) 6.7 (4.8,7.2) 5.5 (4.5,5.9)
#dead/pd/ off forAE 58 66 64 188
CALGB 80403/ECOG 1206: Survival
CALGB 80403: Esophageal, GE Junction Cancers
Phase II trial of Chemo + Cetuximab
FOLFOX behaved as well as ECF with less toxicity
– Irinotecan and cisplatin had lowest efficacy and highest toxicity
Optimal irinotecan combination?
– Irinotecan + cisplatin; significant second line activity
– First Line: Irinotecan + infusional 5-FU preferred
Colorectal Style Chemotherapy and Gastric Cancer
Both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI like regimens have acceptable activity in gastric cancer
– Can be considered first line therapy
Toxicity profiles favor these regimens over conventional high dose cisplatin + 5 day infusion 5-FU
Molecular Targets: Gastric Cancer
KRAS mutation: < 5-10%
BRAF mutation: < 5%
EGFr IHC over expression: 50-80%
– EGFr mutation: < 5%
CMET amplification: < 10%
– IHC over expression 40%
HER2 over expression: 10-25%
– Trastuzumab + chemo improves OS in HER2+ disease
Galizia W J Surg 31: 1458; 2007 Mammano Anticancer Res 26: 3547; 2006 Lee Oncogene 22: 6942; 2003 Yano Oncol Rep 15: 65; 2006 Gold GI CA
Symp 2008 Abs 96
Targeted Agents Phase III: Met Disease
REAL 3: ECX + / - Panitumumab (U.K.)
EXPAND: Cape-Cis + / Cetuximab
LOGIC: Cape-Ox + / - Lapatinib (HER2+)
TYTAN: second line, paclitaxel + / - Lapatinib (HER2+)
Paclitaxel + / - Everolimus– GRANITE: Single agent Everolimus inactive, no
improvement in OS, 656 patients
Resected Pancreatic Cancer OS (MSK)1983- 2001, N= 618
• 5- year OS N= 75, 12%
• 10-year OS N= 18, 5%
• Predictors of SurvivalNegative marginsAJCC stage
Ferrone, et al. J Gast Surg, 2008
Adjuvant Chemoradiation TrialsRandomized Phase III
Trial Therapy N Med Surv2-Yr Surv
5-Yr Surv
GITSG 1985 FU+RT+FU 21 20 mths 43% 19%
Observation 22 11 mths 18% 5%
EORTC 1999 FU + RT 60 17.1 mths 37% 20%
Observation 54 12.6 mths 26% 10%
Kalser. GITSG. Arch Surg, 1985. Klikenbilj. EORTC. Ann Surg, 1999.
ESPAC-1 Update (NEJM, 2004)
• 289 pts (53% of all enrollee’s)• 237 deaths (82%); median follow-up 47 mths
Med Surv 5-Yr Surv P-Value
Chemo 20.1 mths 21% 0.09
No chemo 15.5 mths 8% HR 0.71
ChemoRT 15.9 mths 10% 0.05
No chemoRT 17.9 mths 20% HR 1.28
Neuhaus, et al. ASCO, 2008 (Abst #4504)
Resected Pancreatic
CancerN= 368
ObservationD1 q 4 weeks
CONKO-001 Randomized Phase III
GemcitabineD 1, 8, 15 q 28 x 6 cycles
Stratification₋ R0 vs R1 resection; T stage; N(+) vs N(-)₋ Ca 19-9 < 2.5x ULN (eligibility)
Primary Endpoint: Disease-Free SurvivalSecondary Endpoints: Overall Survival, Toxicity
RANDOMIZE
Neuhaus, et al. ASCO, 2008 (LBA #4504)
CONKO-001: Efficacy Results
Gemcitabine
(N= 179)
Observation
(N= 175)P-value
Median DFS 13.4 mths 6.9 mths < 0.001
Median OS 22.8 mths 20.2 mths 0.005
1-Year OS 72% 72.5% -
3-year OS 36.5% 19.5% -
5-Year OS 21% 9% -
ESPAC-3 (v2)
Neoptolemos, et al. JAMA, 2010
Resected PCR0/R1
N= 1,0305-FU + LV
ObservationRANDOMIZE
Gemcitabine
Primary Endpoint: 10% improvement in 2-year OS
LCTU
Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit
ESPAC-3 Overall Survival
Median OS= 23 monthsMedian OS= 23.6 months
2LR=0.74, p=0.39, HRGEM VS 5FU/FA=0.94 (95%CI: 0.81, 1.08)
ESPAC-4: Phase III(recruiting)
Primary Endpoint: Overall Survival
Resected PCN= 1,080
Gemcitabine + Capecitabine
GemcitabineRANDOMIZE
Neoptolemos, J (PI)
Resected PCN= 518R0/R1 5-FU infusion
↓5-FU + RT
↓5-FU infusion
US Intergroup RTOG 97-04
Gemcitabine↓
5-FU + RT↓
Gemcitabine
RANDOMIZE
Regine, et al. JAMA, 2008
Regine, et al. JAMA, 2008
Pancreatic Head Tumors (N= 388)
Gemcitabine Arm 5-FU Arm
Median OS 20.5 mths 16.9 mths
3-Year Survival 31% 21%
HR 0.82 (CI 0.65- 1.03), p= 0.09
Survival trend for gemcitabine, but not significant
Body/tail tumors included (N= 451, p= 0.013)
Resected Pancreas CancerN= 952 Gemcitabine
+ Erlotinib x 4
US Intergroup/RTOG 0848
Gemcitabine x 4 cycles
Stratification₋ R0 vs R1 resection; T stage; N(+) vs N(-)
Primary Endpoint: Overall Survival +/- Erlotinib, +/- RTSecondary Endpoints: DFS +/- Erlotinib, +/- RT, toxicityTissue acquistion/ correlative science
RANDOMIZE
2nd Randomization
+/-ChemoRT
Burris, et al. J Clin Oncol, 1997
Gemcitabine vs 5-FU, Advanced pancreatic cancer
Log-Rank Testp = 0.0009
Median Survival
Gemcitabine 5.6 months
5-FU 4.3 months
Randomized Phase III Trials: Gemcitabine
Drug N RR Med Surv (mths)
1-Yr Surv (% )
Reference
Gem + Cisplatin 201 13% 7.2 mos 31% - Colucci 2010 Gemcitabine 199 10% 8.3 mos 34% - Gem + Cisplatin 98 10% 7.5 mos 30% Heinemann 2006 Gemcitabine 97 8% 6.0 mos 30% Gem + Irinotecan 173 16% 6.3 mos 20% Rocha Lima 2004 Gemcitabine 169 4% 6.6 mos 20% Gem + DX-8951f 175 7% 6.7 mos 23% Abou-Alfa 2006 Gemcitabine 174 5% 6.2 mos 21% Gem + Pemetrexed 273 15% 6.2 mos 21% Richards 2006 Gemcitabine 273 7% 6.3 mos 20% Gem + Oxaliplatin 157 27% 9.0 mos 35% Louvet 2005 Gemcitabine 156 17% 7.1 mos 28% p= 0.13 Gem + Xeloda 267 19% 7.1 mos 24% Cunningh. 2009 Gemcitabine 266 12% 6.2 mos 22% p= 0.08
Gemcitabine vs Gemcitabine + Another Drug?
Heinemann, BMC Cancer 8:82;2008: Meta Analysis
HR
Survival
P-Value N
Gem + platinum 0.85 0.01 623, 5 trials
Gem + 5-FU 0.90 0.03 901, 6 trials
Good PS 90%+
Poor PS 60- 80%
0.76
1.08
<0.0001
0.40
1,108, 5 trials
574
Gemcitabine combination therapy: 10-15% OS improvement
Prodige 4 - ACCORD 11 trial design
Stratification :
center performance status: 0 versus 1 location of the tumor: head versus other location of the primary
Metastaticpancreaticcancer
RANDOMIZE
Folfirinox
Gemcitabine
6 months of chemotherapy recommended
CT scans: obtained
every 2 months
for both arms:
Objective Response Rate
FolfirinoxN=171
GemcitabineN=171
p
Complete response 0.6% 0%
Partial response 31% 9.4% 0.0001
CR/PR 95% CI [24.7-39.1] [5.9-15.4]
Stable disease 38.6% 41.5%
Disease control
CR+PR+SD70.2% 50.9% 0.0003
Progression 15.2% 34.5%
Not assessed 14.6% 14.6%
Median durationof response
5.9 mo. 4 mo. ns
Progression-Free Survival
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Pro
babi
lity
171 121 85 42 17 7 4 1 1 0 0 0 0Folfirinox171 88 26 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Gemcitabine
Number at risk
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36Months
Gemcitabine Folfirinox
p<0.0001
HR=0.47 : 95%CI [0.37-0.59]
Median PFS Folfirinox: 6.4 mo. Median PFS Gemcitabine: 3.3 mo
Overall Survival
Folfirinox
N=171
Gemcitabine
N=171 p HR
Median survival[CI 95%]
11.1 mo.[ 9 - 13.1]
6.8 mo.[ 5.5 - 7.6]
<0.0001 0.57
1-yr. survival 48.4% 20.6%
18-mo. survival 18.6% 6%
Median follow up: 26.6 months [95% CI: 20.5 – 44.9]
Overall Survival
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Pro
babi
lity
171146116 81 62 34 20 13 9 5 3 2 2Folfirinox171134 89 48 28 14 7 6 3 3 2 2 2Gemcitabine
Number at risk
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36Months
Gemcitabine Folfirinox
Stratified Log-rank test, p<0.0001
HR=0.57 : 95%CI [0.45-0.73]
Time to definitive QoL degradation
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Pro
babi
lity
163 89 35 13 4 1 1Folfirinox157 53 9 1 0 0 0Gemcitabine
Number at risk
0 3 6 9 12 15 18Months
Gemcitabine Folfirinox
p=.001
Kaplan-Meier estimation for TUDD ofGlobal health status/QoL (MCID 10 points)
Pancreatic Cancer
• Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine has modest improvement in OS and QOL
• Good PS patients may benefit for Gem + platin or Gem + 5-FU
• FOLFIRINOX is the new standard for good PS patients
• Targeted Agents– Marginal benefit for Erlotinib– Negative results for Bevacizumab and Cetuximab
Pancreatic Cancer
• Adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-FU or Gemcitabine improves OS– Role of RT unclear– Current RTOG trial delivers RT at the end
of chemo to select patients to best benefit– Locally unresectable disease
• Similar approach of chemo first, selective use of RT if no POD