Mohamed Abdulla, profile picture
Uploaded byMohamed Abdulla
PPTX, PDF10,160 views

colon cancer synopsis 2015

1. Colon cancer is the second and third most common cancer in males and females respectively and accounts for 9% of cancer deaths. 2. Screening and lifestyle changes have led to improved outcomes, with a 55% reduction in late-stage colon cancer cases over 3 decades from screening. 3. Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens including FOLFOX, CAPOX and XELOX have improved disease-free and overall survival rates compared to 5-FU/LV alone, particularly for stage III disease. 4. Ongoing research focuses on shortening treatment duration, identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from more intensive regimens, and incorporating molecular markers to optimize adjuvant therapy

Embed presentation

Downloaded 1,062 times
COLON CANCER: WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW IN 2015? MOHAMED ABDULLA M.D. PROF. OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY KASR AL-AINI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE CAIRO UNIVERSITY Pfizer Headquarter Office. Wednesday; 18/02/2015
CRC: Figures & Facts:  2nd & 3rd most common cancers in females and males.  9% of cancer related deaths.  90% occurring around the age of 40 – 50 years.  OAS for entire patients = 65%.  Metastatic disease: 5-year OAS = 10%.  Organ limited metastatic disease: 5-year OAS > 40%  Median survival of metastatic disease > 30 months.  Improved OAS with exposure to all available drugs.  Unified global ideal treatment algorhytm is still
Colon Cancer Mortality:
Why Improving Outcome? 1. Better life style.
Why Improving Outcome? 1. Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility.
High Risk Factors:  FamilialAdenomatous Polyposis  Hereditary Non Poliposis Colon Cancer  Family history of Colo Rectal Carcinoma  Previous Colorectal CA, Ovarian, Endometrial, Breast CA  Age >50 (3/1000 at the age of 80)  Inflammatory Bowel Disease.  Diet (increased fat, red meat, decreased fibre)  Smoking  Diabetes mellitus.  HIV.  Radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
Risk Assessment: Ask The Following: 1. Have you had colorectal cancer or polyp? 2. Have you had inflammatory bowel disease or abdominal irradiation during childhood? 3. Have any family members had colorectal cancer or polyp? All Answers are NO Average Risk Any Answer is YES Increased Risk
Screening of CRC: Cost – Benefit: US Data: Screening for CRC (1987 – 2010):   The incidence of late stage from 118 – 74/100000.   The incidence of early stage disease from 77 – 67/100000.  Reduction of 550000 CRC cases over 3 decades. Cancer 2014;120:2893-2901.
Why Improving Outcome? 1. Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility. 3. Identification of prognostic groups of patients  More precise adoption of adjuvant therapy  Better DFS & OAS.
Recurrence Rate Over Time: 0.14 2.63 7.64 6.92 5.44 3.68 2.97 2.07 1.7 1.32 1.23 0.86 0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years % RECURRENCE > 80% of Recurrences Within the 1st 3 Years. Sargent DJ, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15S): Abstract 4011.
Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? 60 m30 m0 monthStage % Survival% Survival% Survival 93.296.1100I 84.791.0100IIa 72.280.2100IIb 83.491.4100IIIa 64.177.3100IIIb 52.367.1100IIIc 43.057.3100IIId 26.843.1100IIIe 8.117.3100IV O’ConnellJB, Maggard MA, Ko CY: Colon Cancer Survival Rates with The New American Joint Committee on Cancer, Sixth Edition Staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1423. LNs = > 12
Who Should Receive Adjuvant Therapy? 2. Mesentric Nodules: Contour Role: T-Stage N-Stage 1. V1 (micro). 2. V2 (macro) Isolated Tumor Cells & Micrometastases 0 – 0.2 mm (N0) 0.2 – 2 mm (N1mi) Stage III Not IV Cancer 2008;112:50–4. 13
Who Should Receive Adjuvant Therapy? 3. Peri-neural Invasion: An Under-Estimated Variable: 15 – 25% JCO.2009.22.4949
Who Should Receive Adjuvant Therapy? 3. Peritoneal Minimal Residual Disease: • 1/5 : Peritoneal Minimal Residual Disease. • 1/7 : Peritoneal Carcinomatois.  Surgical Techniques.  Intraperitoneal & Intraportal Chemotherapy.  HCE.  Prevention of The Inflammatory Response. thelancet.com/oncology Vol 10 January 2009 15
 Conflicting data.  The most accepted timing is 4 – 6 weeks.  2 meta-analyses:  One showed no effect.  Other showed significant impact on mortality and disease relapse. Timing of Chemotherapy: Des Guetz G, Nicolas P, Perret GY, Morere JF, Uzzan B. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(6):1049. Biagi JJ, Raphael MJ, Mackillop WJ, Kong W, King WD, Booth CM JAMA. 2011;305(22):2335. 16
Which Program & What Schedule? 5-Fu Modulated/ Non- Modulated Oxaliplatin Irinotecan UFT Capecitabin e Anti-EGFR Anti- Angiogeni c
Accepted Standards of Care: Stage III Colon Cancer Stage III Colon Cancer Patients 5- Fu/Leucovorin Mayo Clinic Roswell Park De Gramont Lower Toxicity Profile & Better Compliance NSABP Co1-6 IMPACT NCCTG NCIC-CTG 30% 18
Adjuvant FOLFOX4 in Stage II-III Colon Cancer: MOSAIC Study Schema de Gramont A, et al. ASCO 2007. Abstract 4007. FOLFOX4 Leucovorin 200 mg/m2 IV + 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus + 5-FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hrs + Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV (n = 1123) LV5FU2 Leucovorin 200 mg/m2 IV + 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus + 5-FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hrs (n = 1123) Patients with previously untreated, completely resected stage II-III colon cancer (N = 2246)
MOSAIC Study: 6-Y OAS; by Treatment Arm: J Clin Oncol. 2009,27:3109-3116
MOSAIC Study: 6-Y OAS; by Treatment Arm & Stage: J Clin Oncol. 2009,27:3109-3116
Final MOSAIC Results (cont’d)  Rate of peripheral sensory neuropathy decreased over time  At 4 yrs  Grade 1: 12.0%  Grade 2: 2.8%  Grade 3: 0.7%  Neutropenia ≥ grade 3 in 41.0% of patients receiving FOLFOX4 vs 4.7% of patients receiving LV5FU2  Febrile neutropenia in 1.8% of patients receiving FOLFOX4 de Gramont A, et al. ASCO 2007. Abstract 4007.
MOSAIC Patients > 70 Years:
NSABP C – 07: 2407 Colon Cancer Stage 2 & 3 Weekly Bolus 5-Fu and LV + Oxaliplatin on wks 1, 3 & 5 • 5-y DFS: 69% vs 64% (HR 0.82) • OAS: 80% vs 78% (HR 0.88) • High toxicity profile
X-ACT: Xeloda (capecitabine) Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of stage III colon cancer  Primary endpoint: non-inferiority in DFS  Secondary endpoint: OS Bolus 5-FU/LV 5-FU 425mg/m2 + LV 20mg/m2 days 1–5 q4w Capecitabine 1,250mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1–14 q3w Chemonaïve stage III resection 8 weeks n=1,004 n=983 R A N D O M I S A T I O N Data cut-off: January 2007 b.i.d. = twice daily Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
X-ACT: 5-year OS (median follow-up 6.8 years) • Non inferior: p = 0.000116 • Trend of Superiority: p = 0.06 • Lower toxicity profile except for hand & foot syndrome. Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
Role of Irinotecan in Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125
Role of Irinotecan in Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125
Role of Irinotecan in Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125 After Exclusion of Cases Developed Second Primary in Both Arms
XELOXA: Adjuvant CAPOX Chemo/radiotherapy naive stage III colon cancer R A N D O M I Z A T I O N CAPOX Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 BID days 1-15 Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 q3w Bolus 5FU/LV Mayo Clinic or Roswell Park Duration of therapy: 24 weeks Primary endpoint: Disease-free survival Haller DG, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11): 1465-1471.
Cetuximab in Adjuvant Sitting: N0147 Trial:
Cetuximab in Adjuvant Sitting: N0 147 Trial:
NSABP Protocol C-08: mFOLFOX ± Bevacizumab in Stage II/III CRC Wolmark N, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract LBA4. Arm A: mFOLFOX6 Q2W x 26 (n = 1356) Arm B: mFOLFOX6 + Bevacizumab 5 mg/kg Q2W x 26 (n = 1354) Pts with stage II or III colon adenocarcinoma with ECOG PS of 0/11 (N = 2710)  Pts stratified by number of positive lymph nodes and randomized between Days 29 and 50 postoperatively  mFOLFOX6 regimen: LV 400 mg/m2 IV, 5-FU 400 mg/m2 IV, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours; oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV  Primary endpoint: DFS
NSABP Protocol C-08: 3-Yr DFS Results: Wolmark N, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract LBA4. DFS(%) Yrs 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 HR: 0.89 (P = .15)mFF6 + B mFF6 Events 291 312 3-Yr DFS 77.4 75.5
Where Do We Go in Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer?  Shorten Duration: “Less is More”  6 months versus 3 months.  Non inferiority trial design.  Don’t lose any curability in adjuvant sitting.  More is Better:  FOLFIRINOX in high risk Stage III.  Toxicity and compliance are of upfront concern. 36
Quasar Collaborative G, Gray R, Barnwell J, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized study. Lancet 2007; 370:2020-9. Stage II Colon Cancer 80% Cured by Surgery only 16% will Recur Regardless Treatment 4% will Benefit of Treatment Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? Treatment Related Mortality
Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? Stage II: Uptodate.com 01/06/2014
 Molecular Markers: 1. ++MSI  Poor response to fluoroupyremidine therapy  No Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy. 2. Chromosomal Instability: Worse outcome. 3. LOH 18q: Worse outcome.  Genetic Expression Profiling: 1. Oncotype DX: 7 Recurrence Genes. 5 Reference Genes + 5 Treatment Benefit Genes. 2. Coloprint. Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? Stage II:
Stage II Colon Cancer: Trials of Better Identification: NSABP C 01, 02, 04, 06 (1851 Pts) 5 Reference Genes 7 Recurrence Genes 6 Treatment Benefit Genes QUASAR Study (1436/3239 Pts) Surgery Surgery + 5- Fu/LV Kerr D, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 4000.
Translational Study on PETACC 3: Results: Strong effect in stage II, decreases in stage III disease Parameter, % HR 95% CI P Value Both stage II and III (N = 1233)  RFS 0.569 0.400-0.811 .0018  OS 0.548 0.357-0.842 .006 Stage II (n = 391)  RFS 0.265 0.107-0.661 .0044  OS 0.159 0.039-0.659 .011 Stage III (n = 842)  RFS 0.693 0.473-1.02 .06  OS 0.699 0.446-1.09 .12 Roth AD, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 4002. 41
Why Improving Outcome? 1. Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility. 3. Identification of prognostic groups of patients  More precise adoption of adjuvant therapy  Better DFS & OAS. 4. Identification of molecular key players of growth & aggressiveness  Better RR, PFS and OAS.
The Adenoma-Carcinoma Process: Kinzler KW, et al. New York, The genetic basis of human cancer. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998:565-87. Vogelstein B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:525-532. Fearon ER, et al. Cell. 1990;61:759-767. Normal colonic epithelium Dysplastic aberrant crypt foci Initial adenoma develops Intermediate adenoma Late adenoma Carcinoma Metastasis Mutation in APC Mutation in K-ras Mutation in DCC Mutation in p53 Other alteration? EGFR & VEGF
PI3-K STAT AKT Grb2 SOS RAS RAF1 MEK MPA K Gene Transcription & Cell Cycle Progression 1. Angiogenesis 2. Survival 3. Proliferation 4. Progression Molecular Key Players: EGFR Carter P. Nat Rev. Cancer 2001. Heinemann V et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009. NK CELLS
Formation of New Blood Vessels Physiological Wound Healing Placental Implantation Growth Pathological Pre-Eclampsia Diabetic Retinopathy Tumors Molecular Key Players: Angiogenesis:
Disease Overview: Angiogenesis: Hallmark of Malignancy: Proliferation Invasion Metastases Treatment Failure Apoptosis Resistance VEGF + + TK + m-TOR
Angiogenesis Process: Release of GFs Receptor Activation Degradation & Proteolytic Enz. Disruption of ECM & Wall Invasion & Migration Tumor Proliferation
Angiogenic Factors: Tyrosine Kinase Receptors VEGFR - 1 VEGFR - 2 VEGFR - 3 NRP - 1 NRP - 2 VEGFs VEGF - A VEGF - B VEGF - C VEGF - D PlGF
Angiogenesis in Malignancy: Hypoxia HIF VEGF Gene VEGF VEGFR on Nearby Vessels VEGFR on Tumor Vessels
Resistance to Angiogenesis Inhibitors “Types”:
Keep in Mind: • Number of LNs > 12. • Timing: 4-8 wks. • Age. • Molecular Markers. • 5-Fu/LV is the Backbone. • Stage II Disease: Better Assessment. • Stage III Disease: MOSAIC & X-ACT. • NO Role for Adjuvant Targeted Therapy.
Metastatic Colon Cancer
Advances in the Treatment of Stage IV CRC: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Best supportive care (BSC) 5FU Irinotecan Capecitabine Oxaliplatin Cetuximab Bevacizumab Panitumumab
Advances in the Treatment of Stage IV CRC: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Best supportive care (BSC) 5FU Irinotecan Capecitabine Oxaliplatin Cetuximab Bevacizumab Panitumumab Median Overall Survival
Management of Met. CRC: Playing a Strategic Game: The King Should SURVIVE SURVIVA L What You Have to Play? Pharmaceuticals How to Play? 1st, 2nd , 3rd …seniL . Try to be Creative Research
mCRC patient segmentation: potentially resectable and long-term disease control Resection Optimising PFS and OS –represents majority of patients Treatment goal Required outcome Long-term DFS 10% 20% 70% Curative surgery Presentation Unresectable diseaseUpfront resectable Un-resectablePotentially resectable Most patients remain unresectable Van Cutsem, WCGIC 2012
Treatment for mCRC Comparing Combination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Scheme FOLFIRI Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 R FOLFOX6 FOLFOX6 FOLFIRI Till Progression Till Progression Arm A Arm B 226 pt Stage IV mCRC CPT-11 180 mg /m2 IV + Simplified LV5FU Oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 IV+Siplified LV5FU
Treatment for mCRC Comparing Combination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Time to Progression Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 There is no statistical difference in TTP regardless of sequence or arm. There is a slight improvement in TTP in 2nd line favoring FOLFOX, but not significant
59 Treatment for mCRC Comparing Combination Chemotherapy Regimen Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 The Tournigand Study: Overall Survival 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 Probability 0 10 20 30 40 50 FOLFIRI/FOLFOX6 FOLFOX6/FOLFIRI Overall Survival P = .99 FOLFIRI/FOLFOX6 21.6 FOLFOX6/FOLFIR 20.6
Treatment for mCRC Comparing Combination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Summary of Efficacy results Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 Endpoint FOLFIRI FOLFOX P value RR 1st line 54 % 56% 0.26 RR 2nd line 4% 15% 0.05 TTP 1st line 8.5 mo 8.0 0.26 TTP 2nd line 2.5 mo 4.2 mo 0.64 OS 1st line 21.5 mo 20 mo 0.99
• How can biologics in combination with conventional chemotherapy be used to their full potential? • Duration of therapy • Predictive markers • Can a patient population be identified that would benefit most from one specific treatment strategy? Challenges in The Palliative Treatment of Stage IV CRC:
Anti-VEGF Agents
Phase III Trial IFL +/- Bevacizumab in MCRC: Efficacy IFL+ Placebo (n = 411) Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2335-2342. IFL+ Bevacizumab (n = 402) P Value Median survival, months 15.6 20.3 .00004 Progression-free survival (PFS), months 6.2 10.6 <.00001 Overall response rate (ORR), % Complete response (CR) Partial response (PR) 35 2.2 32.5 45 3.7 41.2 .0036 Duration of response, months 7.1 10.4 .0014
XELOX N = 317 FOLFOX4 N = 317 Initial 2-arm open-label study (N = 634) Protocol amended to 2x2 placebo- controlled design after bevacizumab phase III data1 became available (N = 1401) Recruitment June 2003 – May 2004 Recruitment Feb 2004 – Feb 2005 XELOX vs FOLFOX +/- Bevacizumab NO16966 Study Design 1. Hurwitz H, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;22: Abstract 3646. Saltz LB, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):2013-2019. XELOX + placebo N = 350 XELOX + bevacizumab N = 350 FOLFOX4 + placebo N = 351 FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab N = 350
NO16966 PFS Subgroup Analyses: On-Treatment Population HR = 0.61 [97.5% CI 0.48–0.78] P≤.0001 HR = 0.65 [97.5% CI 0.50–0.84] P = .0002 XELOX + placebo FOLFOX4 + placeboXELOX + Bev FOLFOX-4 + BevVS VS XELOX Group FOLFOX Group Survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Study Day 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Survival Study Day 10.6 m Saltz L, et al. Presented at: 2007 Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium; January 19-21, 2007: Orlando, Florida. Abstract. 8.4 m9.5 m7.0 m
CAIRO-3: Validation of BEV-Containing Maintenance Therapy (MT) XELOX-Bx6 CTX-BEV XELOX-Bx6 CTX-BEV R PD1 PD2 PFS1 TT2PD MT CFI 8.5 4.1 11.8 10.5 HR P PFS1, months 0.44 <.00001 PFS2, months 0.81 .028 TT2PD 19.8 15.0 0.67 <.00001 OS 21.7 18.2 0.87 .16 MT: LD-Cape (625 mg/m2 BID daily) + BEV (7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) MT CFI N = 558 PFS2: time from R until PD upon re-introduction of XELOX-B TT2PD: time from R until PD upon any treatment after PFS1 CFI, observation; OS, overall survival; PFS1, first progression; PFS2, second progression; TT2PD, time to second progression Koopman M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(suppl): Abstract 3502. PFS2
BEV + standard first-line CT (either oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based) (n = 820) BEV (2.5 mg/kg/wk) + standard second-line CT (oxali or irino-based) until PD PD Randomize 1:1 CT switch: Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. Standard second-line CT (oxaliplatin or irinotecan- based) until PD ML18147 (TML) Study Design (Phase III) Oxaliplatin → Irinotecan Irinotecan → Oxaliplatin Primary endpoint Secondary endpoints included • OS from randomization • PFS • Best ORR • Safety • First-line CT (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based) • First-line PFS (≤9 months, >9 months) • Time from last BEV dose (≤42 days, >42 days) • ECOG PS at baseline (0/1, 2) Stratification factors
OS: ITT Population OSEstimate 0.4 0.2 0 0 6 11.2 mo 12 18 24 30 36 42 9.8 mo P = .0211 (log-rank test) aPrimary analysis method; bStratified by first-line CT (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based), first-line PFS (≤9 months, >9 months), time from last dose of BEV (≤42 days, >42 days), ECOG performance status at baseline (0, ≥1) Median follow-up: CT, 9.6 months (range 0–45.5); BEV + CT, 11.1 months (range 0.3–44.0) 1.0 0.8 0.6 CT (n = 410) BEV + CT (n = 409) Unstratifieda HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69–0.94) P = .0062 (log-rank test) Stratifiedb HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71–0.97) PFSEstimate 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 6 12 18 24 36 CT (n=410) BEV + CT (n=409) 4.1 mo 5.7 mo Unstratifieda HR: 0.68 (95% CI: (0.59–0.78) P<.0001 (log-rank test) Stratifiedb HR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58–0.78) P<.0001 (log-rank test) PFS:ITT Population Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. No. at risk Time , Months Time, Months No. at risk CT 410 293 162 51 24 7 3 2 CT 410 119 20 6 4 0 BEV + CT409 328 188 64 29 13 4 1 BEV + CT409 189 45 12 5 2
Adverse Events (AEs) of Special Interest to BEV: Safety Population Patients, % Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. Chemotherapy n = 409 All Grades Grade 3–5 21 6 BEV + Chemo n = 401 All Grades Grade 3–5 41 12AEs of special interest to BEV ATE, arterial thromboembolic events; GI, gastrointestinal; RPLS, reverse posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome; VTE, venous thromboembolic events Hypertension 7 1 12 2 Proteinuria 1 – 5 <1 Bleeding/hemorrhage 9 <1 26 2 Abscesses and fistulae – – 1 <1 GI perforation <1 <1 3 2 Congestive heart failure <1 <1 <1 – VTE 4 3 6 5 ATE 1 <1 <1 <1 Wound-healing complications RPLS <1 – <1 – 1 – <1 –
EFC10262: VELOUR Phase III Trial Second-Line FOLFIRI +/- VEGF-TRAP (Aflibercept) Stratification factors: Prior bevacizumab (Y/N) ECOG PS (0 vs 1 vs 2) 1:1 mCRC after failure of an oxaliplatin based regimen R 600 pts Aflibercept 4 mg/kg IV + FOLFIRI q 2 weeks 600 pts Placebo + FOLFIRI q 2 weeks Principle investigators: Allegra, Van Cutsem 21 30% of patients had prior BEV
VELOUR Study OS HR 0.82 PFS HR 0.76 Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3499-3506. Time, Months Time, Months
Overall Survival Strata (as per UVRS) N HR (95.34% CI) HR Interaction P All patients Prior BEV No Yes 1226 0.82 (0.713-0.937) 853 373 0.79 (0.669-0.927) 0.86 (0.673-1.104) .5668 0 Favors aflibercept 1 2 Favors placebo 3 Progression-Free Survival Strata (as per UVRS) N HR (95% CI) HR Interaction P All patients Prior BEV No Yes 1226 0.76 (0.661-0.869) 853 373 0.80 (0.679-0.936) 0.66 (0.512-0.852) .1958 0 Favors aflibercept 1 2 Favors placebo 3 Aflibercept: VELOUR Phase III: OS and PFS Stratified by Prior Bevacizumab Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3499-3506.
Conclusion Anti-VEGF Therapy • Duration of VEGF-inhibition matters – Treatment to progression – Maintenance strategies – Treatment beyond progression • Clinical synergism between FP + bevacizumab • Positive distinguishing factors for aflibercept vs BEV in second-line Tx not clear – Head-to-head comparison warranted (Efficacy? Toxicity?) • BEV combinable with FOLFOXIRI (TRIBE)
EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies
NCIC CTG CO.17: Randomized Phase III Trial in mCRC Cetuximab vs BSC (No Cross-Over) BSC Cetux n = 83 n = 81 BSC n = 113 Cetux n = 117 BSC n = 285 Cetux n = 287 RR 0% 1.2% 0% 12.8% 0% 6.6% PFS, months 1.8 1.8 1.9 3.8 1.8 1.9 OS, months 4.6 4.5 4.8 9.5 4.6 6.1 <.0001 <.0001 Karapetis CS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757-1765. KRAS Mut KRAS Wildtype All Patients <.0001 .0046
CRYSTAL: FOLFIRI +/- Cetuximab PFS in Patients With KRAS Wildtype Tumors Number of patients FOLFIRI 350 FOLFIRI + cetuximab 316 237 227 111 128 22 40 4 8 0 1 FOLFIRI (n = 350) FOLFIRI + Cetuximab (n = 316) No of events 189 8.4 months [7.4‒9.2] 146 9.9 months [9.0‒11.3] Median PFS [95% CI] HR [95% Cl] P value 0.70 [0.558‒0.867] .0012 ProbabilityofPFS Time, Months 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 120 4 8 16 20 FOLFIRI FOLFIRI + cetuximab Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15):2011-2019.
PRIME (FOLFOX +/- Panitumumab) PFS by KRAS Mutation Status “Final Analysis” Median, months (95% CI) Panitumumab + FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 10.0 (9.3 – 11.4) 8.6 (7.5 – 9.5) HR = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.67 – 0.95) Log-rank P value = .01 Median, months (95% CI) Panitumumab + FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 7.4 (6.9 – 8.1) 9.2 (8.1 – 9.9) HR = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.04 – 1.55) Log-rank P value = .02 WT KRAS MT KRAS ProportionEvent-Free 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Months 36 38 40 42 44 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ProportionEvent-Free Douillard J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(Suppl): Abstract 3510. 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Months 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 36 38 40 42 44
FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab Bevaciizumab: 5 mg/kg iIV.v.3300-9-900miin q 2ww Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. FIRE-3 Phase III Study Design FOLFIRI + Cetuximab mCRC first-line therapy KRAS wildtype N = 592 Randomize 1:1 FOLFIRI: 5FU: 400 mg/m2 (IV bolus); folinic acid: 400 mg/m2 irinotecan: 180 mg/m2 5FU: 2400 mg/m2 (IV 46h) • Primary objective: ORR (investigator assessed) • Designed to detect a difference of 12% in ORR induced by FOLFIRI + cetuximab (62%) as compared to FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (50%) • 284 evaluable patients per arm needed to achieve 80% power for an one-sided Fisher‘s exact test at an alpha level of 2.5% Cetuximab: 400 mg/m2 IV 120 min initial dose 250 mg/m2 IV 60 min q 1 w
FIRE-3 ORR Primary Endpoint FOLFIRI + Cetuximab FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab Odds ratio P Assessable for response (N = 526) 72.2 66.2 – 77.6 63.1 57.1 – 68.9 1.52 1.05-2.19 .017 1.18 0.85-1.64 .183 P = Fisher´s exact test (one-sided) ORR % 95%-CI % 95%-CI ITT population (N = 592) 62.0 56.2 – 67.5 58.0 52.1 – 63.7 Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506.
0.75 Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. 1.0 0.50 0.25 ProbabilityofSurvival Events n/N (%) Median (months) 10.0 95% CI 8.8 – 10.8 HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 – 1.26) 10.3 9.8 – 11.3 Log-rank P = .547 0.0 12 24 36 48 Months Since Start of Treatment 60 72 —FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 250/297 (84.2%) — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab 242/295 (82.0%) Number 297 100 19 10 5 3 at risk 295 99 15 6 4 FIRE-3 PFS:
Events n/N (%) Median (months) 28.7 95% CI — FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 158/297 (53.2%) 185/295 (62.7%) 24.0 – 36.6 — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab HR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 – 0.96) 25.0 22.7 – 27.6 Log-rank P = .017 0.75 1.0 0.50 0.25 ProbabilityofSurvival 0.0 12 24 36 48 60 72 Months Since Start of Treatment Number 297 at risk 295 218 214 111 111 60 47 29 18 9 2 PFS Split of curves Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. FIRE-3 OS:
— FOLFIRI + Cetuximab ProbabilityofSurvival — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab PTEN, EGFR ligands Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. 0.75 1.0 0.50 0.25 0.0 12 24 36 48 Months Since Start of Treatment 60 72 Who are these patients? Analysis of RAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, Number 297 218 111 60 29 9 at risk 295 214 111 47 18 2 FIRE-3 OS:
Progression-Free Survival By Arm (All RAS Wildtype Patients)100 – 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 0 – 0 12 PercentEventFree 24 36 48 Months From Study Entry 60 72 No at Risk Arm Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. 256 112 49 23 13 6 270 126 49 18 5 2 1 N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P 256 (221) 270 (241) 11.3 (10.3-12.6) 11.4 (9.6-12.9) 1.1 (0.9-1.3) .31
Overall Survival By Arm (All RAS Wildtype Patients) 100 – 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 0 – 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 PercentEventFree Arm Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P 256 (178) 270 (177) 31.2 (26.9-34.3) 32.0 (27.6-38.5) 0.9 (0.7-1.1) .40 No at Risk Months From Study Entry 256 199 147 77 35 16 5 2 270 205 164 88 41 24 7 1 1
Conclusions EGFR mAbs (2) • All-RAS wildtype CRC = 40% to 45% of CRC • Further molecular refinements in future (PTEN, EGFR ligands, PIK3CA…) could cut the patient population suitable for EGFR mAbs down to 30% to 35% • This refined patient population could sustain a marked benefit from use of first-line EGFR mAbs!
Progression-Free Survival Overall Survival N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux 192 (163) 11.0 (9.5-13.1) 1.1 (0.9-1.4) .3 192 (137) 29.0 (24.0-32.8) 0.86 (0.6-1.1) .2 198 (177) 11.3 (9.4-13.1) 198 (129) 32.5 (26.1-40.4) All RAS Wildtype FOLFOX Patients Progression-Free Survival Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. Overall Survival N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux 64 (58) 11.9 (10.3-14.8) 1.1 (0.7-1.5) .7 64 (41) 35.2 (28.3-41.3) 1.1 (0.7-1.6) .7 72 (64) 12.7 (8.9-14.1) 72 (48) 32.0 (25.6-42.9) All RAS Wildtype FOLFIRI Patients Outcomes by Chemotherapy Backbone
Bevacizumab + oxaliplatin-based regimens:
Bevacizumab + irinotecan-based regimens
First-line efficacy of EGFR inhibitors in KRAS WT populations 1. Van Cutsem et al. ASCO GI 2010; 2. Maughan, et al. ASCO 2010; 3. Tvelt, et al. ESMO 2010; 4. Doulliard, et al. JCO 2010
Irinotecan vs Oxaliplatin for Cetuximab??
Take Home Message: • Exposure to all available agents is mandatory to optimize OAS. • Unified global treatment algorhytm is still controversial. • Careful interpretation of available clinical trials to establish guidelines of management. • FIRE3 trial should not be used as a practice changing guideline although it might point to a better selection of patients for anti-EGFR therapy. • Cost-effective studies should be kept in mind especially in developing regions of the world.
Thank You

More Related Content

PPTX
metastatic colorectal cancer; a new chapter in the story
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
landmark trials in ca rectum.pptx
bymasoom parwez
 
PPT
Topic-Driven Round Table on Low Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer
bybkling
 
PPTX
retroperitoneal sarcoma ppt_final.pptx
bySameer Rastogi
 
PPTX
New Treatment Options for Uterine Cancer
bybkling
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy in carcinoma rectum
bySagar Raut
 
PPTX
Katherine trial
byDina Barakat
 
PPTX
Adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer
byGita Bhat
 
metastatic colorectal cancer; a new chapter in the story
byMohamed Abdulla
 
landmark trials in ca rectum.pptx
bymasoom parwez
 
Topic-Driven Round Table on Low Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer
bybkling
 
retroperitoneal sarcoma ppt_final.pptx
bySameer Rastogi
 
New Treatment Options for Uterine Cancer
bybkling
 
Radiotherapy in carcinoma rectum
bySagar Raut
 
Katherine trial
byDina Barakat
 
Adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer
byGita Bhat
 

What's hot

PPTX
Neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer 2016
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
EVOLUTION OF CHEMOTHERAPY IN BREAST CANCER
byIsha Jaiswal
 
PPTX
Bladder preservation for CA Urinary Bladder
byAnil Gupta
 
PPTX
LANDMARK CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION TRIALS IN GASTRIC CANCER.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PDF
Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer
byspa718
 
PPTX
Breast landmark trials dr.kiran
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
PPTX
Esophageal carcinoma trials
bykoduruvijay7
 
PPTX
LANDMARK CHEMOTHERAPY TRIALS in Carcinoma Ovary.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy for bladder cancers
byAshutosh Mukherji
 
PPTX
Rectal cancer chemo and radiotherapy trials
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PPTX
PORTEC-3
byVarshu Goel
 
PPTX
PARP inhibitor in Ca Ovary
byChandan K Das
 
PPTX
NACT in Head and Neck cancer
byAjay Manickam
 
PPTX
Management of Axilla in Breast Cancer
byPradeep Dhanasekaran
 
PPTX
Landmark trials in carcinoma breast
byStalinsurgeon Joseph Antonymuthu
 
PPTX
Soft & text trial- an overview
byKundan Singh
 
PPTX
surgical manag of colorectal liver mets
byDr Dharma ram Poonia
 
PPTX
LOCAL ABLATIVE RADIOTHERAPY/LIVER METASTASIS SBRT
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Locally advanced breast cancer management
byadityasingla007
 
Neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer 2016
byMohamed Abdulla
 
EVOLUTION OF CHEMOTHERAPY IN BREAST CANCER
byIsha Jaiswal
 
Bladder preservation for CA Urinary Bladder
byAnil Gupta
 
LANDMARK CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION TRIALS IN GASTRIC CANCER.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
Update on Management of Triple Negative Breast Cancer
byspa718
 
Breast landmark trials dr.kiran
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
Esophageal carcinoma trials
bykoduruvijay7
 
LANDMARK CHEMOTHERAPY TRIALS in Carcinoma Ovary.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
Radiotherapy for bladder cancers
byAshutosh Mukherji
 
Rectal cancer chemo and radiotherapy trials
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PORTEC-3
byVarshu Goel
 
PARP inhibitor in Ca Ovary
byChandan K Das
 
NACT in Head and Neck cancer
byAjay Manickam
 
Management of Axilla in Breast Cancer
byPradeep Dhanasekaran
 
Landmark trials in carcinoma breast
byStalinsurgeon Joseph Antonymuthu
 
Soft & text trial- an overview
byKundan Singh
 
surgical manag of colorectal liver mets
byDr Dharma ram Poonia
 
LOCAL ABLATIVE RADIOTHERAPY/LIVER METASTASIS SBRT
byKanhu Charan
 
Locally advanced breast cancer management
byadityasingla007
 

Similar to colon cancer synopsis 2015

PDF
Management of lower Gastrointestinal malignancies
byAnimesh Agrawal
 
PPTX
Colon cancer chemotherapy trials
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PPTX
Management of colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
MANAGEMENT OF CA COLON
byIsha Jaiswal
 
PPTX
Colorectal cancer ver 3.0
byVivek Verma
 
PPT
Role of chemotherapy Carcinoma colon
byAnil Gupta
 
PPTX
Post ASCO Webinar 2019
byFight Colorectal Cancer
 
PPTX
Adjuvant therapy for colon adenocarcinoma
byJoão Augusto Ribeiro
 
PDF
2015_3.pdf
bydrblouse
 
PPTX
Tratamento neoadyuvante y adyuvante en cáncer de colon
byMauricio Lema
 
PDF
Stage 3 colon cancer
byspa718
 
PPT
MON 2011 - Slide 19 - P. Rougier - Adjuvant treatment (stage 2 and 3)
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
PPT
MCO 2011 - Slide 21 - P. Rougier - Adjuvant treatment (stage 2 and 3)
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
PPTX
BALKAN MCO 2011 - D. Vrbanec - Adjuvant chemotherapy of colorectal cancer
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
PPTX
circulating DNA bases treatment in colon cancer
byvivekmaleyur1
 
PPTX
role of chemotherapy in colon cancer.pptx
byLAKSHMI DEEPTHI GEDELA
 
PPTX
Management Of Colon Cancer in surgical practice.pptx
bydanemedicals
 
PPTX
Edward Greeno, M.D.
bysmsherman
 
PPT
Colorectal cancer - adjuvant Rx - Nicola Tanner
bywelshbarbers
 
PPTX
Non metastatic colonic cancer management
byGebrekirstos Hagos Gebrekirstos, MD
 
Management of lower Gastrointestinal malignancies
byAnimesh Agrawal
 
Colon cancer chemotherapy trials
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
Management of colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
MANAGEMENT OF CA COLON
byIsha Jaiswal
 
Colorectal cancer ver 3.0
byVivek Verma
 
Role of chemotherapy Carcinoma colon
byAnil Gupta
 
Post ASCO Webinar 2019
byFight Colorectal Cancer
 
Adjuvant therapy for colon adenocarcinoma
byJoão Augusto Ribeiro
 
2015_3.pdf
bydrblouse
 
Tratamento neoadyuvante y adyuvante en cáncer de colon
byMauricio Lema
 
Stage 3 colon cancer
byspa718
 
MON 2011 - Slide 19 - P. Rougier - Adjuvant treatment (stage 2 and 3)
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
MCO 2011 - Slide 21 - P. Rougier - Adjuvant treatment (stage 2 and 3)
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
BALKAN MCO 2011 - D. Vrbanec - Adjuvant chemotherapy of colorectal cancer
byEuropean School of Oncology
 
circulating DNA bases treatment in colon cancer
byvivekmaleyur1
 
role of chemotherapy in colon cancer.pptx
byLAKSHMI DEEPTHI GEDELA
 
Management Of Colon Cancer in surgical practice.pptx
bydanemedicals
 
Edward Greeno, M.D.
bysmsherman
 
Colorectal cancer - adjuvant Rx - Nicola Tanner
bywelshbarbers
 
Non metastatic colonic cancer management
byGebrekirstos Hagos Gebrekirstos, MD
 

More from Mohamed Abdulla

PPTX
Triple Negative Breast Cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Colon cancer sidedness 2018
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Rectal Cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Management of metastatic colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Continuum of care of metastatic colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Ovarian Cancer; What is Behind the Scene
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Msd msi high solid tumors
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
CRPC management
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
mHSPC Feb 2023.pptx
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Neuroendocrine Tumors in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Basic principles of cancer immunotherapy
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Impact of 1ry tumor location on treatment guidelines of mCRC
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Cancer immunotherapy different modes of action - astra zeneca - jordan
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
BTC - Durvalumab - AZ 2023.pptx
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Ihof heterogenity &amp; personalized treatment crpc 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
angiogenesis; a key player in all chapters of metastatic crc story2
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
Prostate cancer the androgenic fortified dogma
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Triple Negative Breast Cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Colon cancer sidedness 2018
byMohamed Abdulla
 
ovarian cancer - angiogenesis
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Rectal Cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Management of metastatic colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Continuum of care of metastatic colorectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Ovarian Cancer; What is Behind the Scene
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Msd msi high solid tumors
byMohamed Abdulla
 
CRPC management
byMohamed Abdulla
 
mHSPC Feb 2023.pptx
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Neuroendocrine Tumors in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Role of Apalutamide in management of M0 CRPC
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Basic principles of cancer immunotherapy
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Impact of 1ry tumor location on treatment guidelines of mCRC
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Cancer immunotherapy different modes of action - astra zeneca - jordan
byMohamed Abdulla
 
BTC - Durvalumab - AZ 2023.pptx
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Astellas meeting, crpc- what we have in 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Ihof heterogenity &amp; personalized treatment crpc 2019
byMohamed Abdulla
 
angiogenesis; a key player in all chapters of metastatic crc story2
byMohamed Abdulla
 
Prostate cancer the androgenic fortified dogma
byMohamed Abdulla
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY2025bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.pptx
byhospital
 
PPTX
Imaging of benign focal lesions of the Liver
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
PPTX
OBSTRUCTED LABOR - Edward Mwansa.LGH.pptx
byedwardmwansa4
 
PPTX
Swallowing & Swallowing Disorders SLP_1 lecture 4.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
PPTX
Labour1.docx-flashcards.pptx..............
bySir Fad'hi
 
PPTX
Historical background and development of profession of pharmacy pptx
byGulam Muheyuddeen
 
PPTX
Structural elucidation of Menthol by uv vis ir nmr mass
byswathireddy6585
 
PDF
Food Safety دبلومة دحاتم البيطار 01005684344.pdf
byد حاتم البيطار
 
PPTX
Neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia in stroke 2025.pptx
byHeba El Saeid
 
PPTX
B SCAN . TECHNIQUES , PROBE POSITIONS , INDICATIONS
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
PDF
Femoral Triangle-Prof.Dr.N.Mugunthan KMMC Medical College, Muttom.pdf
byKanyakumari Medical Mission Research Center, Muttom
 
PPTX
Communication and utilization of research.pptx
byPreeti Kulshreshtha
 
PPTX
Drug Distribution Explained | Pharmacokinetics, Barriers, Vd & Redistribution...
byRGUHS
 
PPTX
Pressure ulcer Internal KPIs results for July,2024.pptx
byprofyasser95
 
PPT
Forging New Paths With Earlier Use of ADCs in Breast Cancer: From Clinical Br...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
PPTX
Seminar on Ebola virus , سیمینارێکی ئامادەکراو لەسەر Ebola virus
bydanaShalal2
 
PPTX
"SUPER FLU": TRUTH VS HYPE - WHAT CLINICIANS MUST KNOW
byArchitMehta11
 
PDF
Dyes/ Stain Used In Ophthalmology - Clinical uses, Indication & Side effects....
bySamikshaRai22
 
PDF
RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION; CRVO & BRVO types, pathophysiology, diagnosis & manag...
bySamikshaRai22
 
PPTX
Types of Communication Disorders SLP lecture 3.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY2025bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.pptx
byhospital
 
Imaging of benign focal lesions of the Liver
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
OBSTRUCTED LABOR - Edward Mwansa.LGH.pptx
byedwardmwansa4
 
Swallowing & Swallowing Disorders SLP_1 lecture 4.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
Labour1.docx-flashcards.pptx..............
bySir Fad'hi
 
Historical background and development of profession of pharmacy pptx
byGulam Muheyuddeen
 
Structural elucidation of Menthol by uv vis ir nmr mass
byswathireddy6585
 
Food Safety دبلومة دحاتم البيطار 01005684344.pdf
byد حاتم البيطار
 
Neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia in stroke 2025.pptx
byHeba El Saeid
 
B SCAN . TECHNIQUES , PROBE POSITIONS , INDICATIONS
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
Femoral Triangle-Prof.Dr.N.Mugunthan KMMC Medical College, Muttom.pdf
byKanyakumari Medical Mission Research Center, Muttom
 
Communication and utilization of research.pptx
byPreeti Kulshreshtha
 
Drug Distribution Explained | Pharmacokinetics, Barriers, Vd & Redistribution...
byRGUHS
 
Pressure ulcer Internal KPIs results for July,2024.pptx
byprofyasser95
 
Forging New Paths With Earlier Use of ADCs in Breast Cancer: From Clinical Br...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
Seminar on Ebola virus , سیمینارێکی ئامادەکراو لەسەر Ebola virus
bydanaShalal2
 
"SUPER FLU": TRUTH VS HYPE - WHAT CLINICIANS MUST KNOW
byArchitMehta11
 
Dyes/ Stain Used In Ophthalmology - Clinical uses, Indication & Side effects....
bySamikshaRai22
 
RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION; CRVO & BRVO types, pathophysiology, diagnosis & manag...
bySamikshaRai22
 
Types of Communication Disorders SLP lecture 3.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 

colon cancer synopsis 2015

  • 1.
    COLON CANCER: WHAT SHOULDWE KNOW IN 2015? MOHAMED ABDULLA M.D. PROF. OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY KASR AL-AINI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE CAIRO UNIVERSITY Pfizer Headquarter Office. Wednesday; 18/02/2015
  • 2.
    CRC: Figures &Facts:  2nd & 3rd most common cancers in females and males.  9% of cancer related deaths.  90% occurring around the age of 40 – 50 years.  OAS for entire patients = 65%.  Metastatic disease: 5-year OAS = 10%.  Organ limited metastatic disease: 5-year OAS > 40%  Median survival of metastatic disease > 30 months.  Improved OAS with exposure to all available drugs.  Unified global ideal treatment algorhytm is still
  • 3.
  • 4.
    Why Improving Outcome? 1.Better life style.
  • 6.
    Why Improving Outcome? 1.Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility.
  • 7.
    High Risk Factors: FamilialAdenomatous Polyposis  Hereditary Non Poliposis Colon Cancer  Family history of Colo Rectal Carcinoma  Previous Colorectal CA, Ovarian, Endometrial, Breast CA  Age >50 (3/1000 at the age of 80)  Inflammatory Bowel Disease.  Diet (increased fat, red meat, decreased fibre)  Smoking  Diabetes mellitus.  HIV.  Radiation therapy for prostate cancer.
  • 8.
    Risk Assessment: Ask TheFollowing: 1. Have you had colorectal cancer or polyp? 2. Have you had inflammatory bowel disease or abdominal irradiation during childhood? 3. Have any family members had colorectal cancer or polyp? All Answers are NO Average Risk Any Answer is YES Increased Risk
  • 9.
    Screening of CRC:Cost – Benefit: US Data: Screening for CRC (1987 – 2010):   The incidence of late stage from 118 – 74/100000.   The incidence of early stage disease from 77 – 67/100000.  Reduction of 550000 CRC cases over 3 decades. Cancer 2014;120:2893-2901.
  • 10.
    Why Improving Outcome? 1.Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility. 3. Identification of prognostic groups of patients  More precise adoption of adjuvant therapy  Better DFS & OAS.
  • 11.
    Recurrence Rate OverTime: 0.14 2.63 7.64 6.92 5.44 3.68 2.97 2.07 1.7 1.32 1.23 0.86 0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years % RECURRENCE > 80% of Recurrences Within the 1st 3 Years. Sargent DJ, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15S): Abstract 4011.
  • 12.
    Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? 60m30 m0 monthStage % Survival% Survival% Survival 93.296.1100I 84.791.0100IIa 72.280.2100IIb 83.491.4100IIIa 64.177.3100IIIb 52.367.1100IIIc 43.057.3100IIId 26.843.1100IIIe 8.117.3100IV O’ConnellJB, Maggard MA, Ko CY: Colon Cancer Survival Rates with The New American Joint Committee on Cancer, Sixth Edition Staging. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1423. LNs = > 12
  • 13.
    Who Should ReceiveAdjuvant Therapy? 2. Mesentric Nodules: Contour Role: T-Stage N-Stage 1. V1 (micro). 2. V2 (macro) Isolated Tumor Cells & Micrometastases 0 – 0.2 mm (N0) 0.2 – 2 mm (N1mi) Stage III Not IV Cancer 2008;112:50–4. 13
  • 14.
    Who Should ReceiveAdjuvant Therapy? 3. Peri-neural Invasion: An Under-Estimated Variable: 15 – 25% JCO.2009.22.4949
  • 15.
    Who Should ReceiveAdjuvant Therapy? 3. Peritoneal Minimal Residual Disease: • 1/5 : Peritoneal Minimal Residual Disease. • 1/7 : Peritoneal Carcinomatois.  Surgical Techniques.  Intraperitoneal & Intraportal Chemotherapy.  HCE.  Prevention of The Inflammatory Response. thelancet.com/oncology Vol 10 January 2009 15
  • 16.
     Conflicting data. The most accepted timing is 4 – 6 weeks.  2 meta-analyses:  One showed no effect.  Other showed significant impact on mortality and disease relapse. Timing of Chemotherapy: Des Guetz G, Nicolas P, Perret GY, Morere JF, Uzzan B. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(6):1049. Biagi JJ, Raphael MJ, Mackillop WJ, Kong W, King WD, Booth CM JAMA. 2011;305(22):2335. 16
  • 17.
    Which Program &What Schedule? 5-Fu Modulated/ Non- Modulated Oxaliplatin Irinotecan UFT Capecitabin e Anti-EGFR Anti- Angiogeni c
  • 18.
    Accepted Standards ofCare: Stage III Colon Cancer Stage III Colon Cancer Patients 5- Fu/Leucovorin Mayo Clinic Roswell Park De Gramont Lower Toxicity Profile & Better Compliance NSABP Co1-6 IMPACT NCCTG NCIC-CTG 30% 18
  • 19.
    Adjuvant FOLFOX4 inStage II-III Colon Cancer: MOSAIC Study Schema de Gramont A, et al. ASCO 2007. Abstract 4007. FOLFOX4 Leucovorin 200 mg/m2 IV + 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus + 5-FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hrs + Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV (n = 1123) LV5FU2 Leucovorin 200 mg/m2 IV + 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus + 5-FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hrs (n = 1123) Patients with previously untreated, completely resected stage II-III colon cancer (N = 2246)
  • 20.
    MOSAIC Study: 6-YOAS; by Treatment Arm: J Clin Oncol. 2009,27:3109-3116
  • 21.
    MOSAIC Study: 6-YOAS; by Treatment Arm & Stage: J Clin Oncol. 2009,27:3109-3116
  • 22.
    Final MOSAIC Results(cont’d)  Rate of peripheral sensory neuropathy decreased over time  At 4 yrs  Grade 1: 12.0%  Grade 2: 2.8%  Grade 3: 0.7%  Neutropenia ≥ grade 3 in 41.0% of patients receiving FOLFOX4 vs 4.7% of patients receiving LV5FU2  Febrile neutropenia in 1.8% of patients receiving FOLFOX4 de Gramont A, et al. ASCO 2007. Abstract 4007.
  • 23.
  • 24.
    NSABP C –07: 2407 Colon Cancer Stage 2 & 3 Weekly Bolus 5-Fu and LV + Oxaliplatin on wks 1, 3 & 5 • 5-y DFS: 69% vs 64% (HR 0.82) • OAS: 80% vs 78% (HR 0.88) • High toxicity profile
  • 25.
    X-ACT: Xeloda (capecitabine)Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of stage III colon cancer  Primary endpoint: non-inferiority in DFS  Secondary endpoint: OS Bolus 5-FU/LV 5-FU 425mg/m2 + LV 20mg/m2 days 1–5 q4w Capecitabine 1,250mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1–14 q3w Chemonaïve stage III resection 8 weeks n=1,004 n=983 R A N D O M I S A T I O N Data cut-off: January 2007 b.i.d. = twice daily Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
  • 26.
    X-ACT: 5-year OS (medianfollow-up 6.8 years) • Non inferior: p = 0.000116 • Trend of Superiority: p = 0.06 • Lower toxicity profile except for hand & foot syndrome. Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
  • 27.
    Role of Irinotecanin Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125
  • 28.
    Role of Irinotecanin Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125
  • 29.
    Role of Irinotecanin Adjuvant Treatment of Stage III Colon Cancer PETACC-3 Study: J Clin Oncol.2009,27:3117-3125 After Exclusion of Cases Developed Second Primary in Both Arms
  • 30.
    XELOXA: Adjuvant CAPOX Chemo/radiotherapy naivestage III colon cancer R A N D O M I Z A T I O N CAPOX Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 BID days 1-15 Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 q3w Bolus 5FU/LV Mayo Clinic or Roswell Park Duration of therapy: 24 weeks Primary endpoint: Disease-free survival Haller DG, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(11): 1465-1471.
  • 32.
    Cetuximab in AdjuvantSitting: N0147 Trial:
  • 33.
    Cetuximab in AdjuvantSitting: N0 147 Trial:
  • 34.
    NSABP Protocol C-08:mFOLFOX ± Bevacizumab in Stage II/III CRC Wolmark N, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract LBA4. Arm A: mFOLFOX6 Q2W x 26 (n = 1356) Arm B: mFOLFOX6 + Bevacizumab 5 mg/kg Q2W x 26 (n = 1354) Pts with stage II or III colon adenocarcinoma with ECOG PS of 0/11 (N = 2710)  Pts stratified by number of positive lymph nodes and randomized between Days 29 and 50 postoperatively  mFOLFOX6 regimen: LV 400 mg/m2 IV, 5-FU 400 mg/m2 IV, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours; oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV  Primary endpoint: DFS
  • 35.
    NSABP Protocol C-08: 3-YrDFS Results: Wolmark N, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract LBA4. DFS(%) Yrs 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 HR: 0.89 (P = .15)mFF6 + B mFF6 Events 291 312 3-Yr DFS 77.4 75.5
  • 36.
    Where Do WeGo in Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer?  Shorten Duration: “Less is More”  6 months versus 3 months.  Non inferiority trial design.  Don’t lose any curability in adjuvant sitting.  More is Better:  FOLFIRINOX in high risk Stage III.  Toxicity and compliance are of upfront concern. 36
  • 37.
    Quasar Collaborative G,Gray R, Barnwell J, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized study. Lancet 2007; 370:2020-9. Stage II Colon Cancer 80% Cured by Surgery only 16% will Recur Regardless Treatment 4% will Benefit of Treatment Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? Treatment Related Mortality
  • 38.
    Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? StageII: Uptodate.com 01/06/2014
  • 39.
     Molecular Markers: 1.++MSI  Poor response to fluoroupyremidine therapy  No Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy. 2. Chromosomal Instability: Worse outcome. 3. LOH 18q: Worse outcome.  Genetic Expression Profiling: 1. Oncotype DX: 7 Recurrence Genes. 5 Reference Genes + 5 Treatment Benefit Genes. 2. Coloprint. Who Needs Adjuvant Therapy? Stage II:
  • 40.
    Stage II ColonCancer: Trials of Better Identification: NSABP C 01, 02, 04, 06 (1851 Pts) 5 Reference Genes 7 Recurrence Genes 6 Treatment Benefit Genes QUASAR Study (1436/3239 Pts) Surgery Surgery + 5- Fu/LV Kerr D, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 4000.
  • 41.
    Translational Study onPETACC 3: Results: Strong effect in stage II, decreases in stage III disease Parameter, % HR 95% CI P Value Both stage II and III (N = 1233)  RFS 0.569 0.400-0.811 .0018  OS 0.548 0.357-0.842 .006 Stage II (n = 391)  RFS 0.265 0.107-0.661 .0044  OS 0.159 0.039-0.659 .011 Stage III (n = 842)  RFS 0.693 0.473-1.02 .06  OS 0.699 0.446-1.09 .12 Roth AD, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 4002. 41
  • 42.
    Why Improving Outcome? 1.Better life style. 2. Risk groups and Screening utility. 3. Identification of prognostic groups of patients  More precise adoption of adjuvant therapy  Better DFS & OAS. 4. Identification of molecular key players of growth & aggressiveness  Better RR, PFS and OAS.
  • 43.
    The Adenoma-Carcinoma Process: Kinzler KW,et al. New York, The genetic basis of human cancer. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1998:565-87. Vogelstein B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:525-532. Fearon ER, et al. Cell. 1990;61:759-767. Normal colonic epithelium Dysplastic aberrant crypt foci Initial adenoma develops Intermediate adenoma Late adenoma Carcinoma Metastasis Mutation in APC Mutation in K-ras Mutation in DCC Mutation in p53 Other alteration? EGFR & VEGF
  • 44.
    PI3-K STAT AKT Grb2 SOS RAS RAF1 MEK MPA K Gene Transcription& Cell Cycle Progression 1. Angiogenesis 2. Survival 3. Proliferation 4. Progression Molecular Key Players: EGFR Carter P. Nat Rev. Cancer 2001. Heinemann V et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009. NK CELLS
  • 45.
    Formation of New Blood Vessels Physiological WoundHealing Placental Implantation Growth Pathological Pre-Eclampsia Diabetic Retinopathy Tumors Molecular Key Players: Angiogenesis:
  • 46.
    Disease Overview: Angiogenesis: Hallmark ofMalignancy: Proliferation Invasion Metastases Treatment Failure Apoptosis Resistance VEGF + + TK + m-TOR
  • 47.
    Angiogenesis Process: Release ofGFs Receptor Activation Degradation & Proteolytic Enz. Disruption of ECM & Wall Invasion & Migration Tumor Proliferation
  • 48.
    Angiogenic Factors: Tyrosine Kinase Receptors VEGFR- 1 VEGFR - 2 VEGFR - 3 NRP - 1 NRP - 2 VEGFs VEGF - A VEGF - B VEGF - C VEGF - D PlGF
  • 49.
    Angiogenesis in Malignancy: Hypoxia HIF VEGF Gene VEGF VEGFRon Nearby Vessels VEGFR on Tumor Vessels
  • 50.
  • 51.
    Keep in Mind: •Number of LNs > 12. • Timing: 4-8 wks. • Age. • Molecular Markers. • 5-Fu/LV is the Backbone. • Stage II Disease: Better Assessment. • Stage III Disease: MOSAIC & X-ACT. • NO Role for Adjuvant Targeted Therapy.
  • 52.
  • 53.
    Advances in theTreatment of Stage IV CRC: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Best supportive care (BSC) 5FU Irinotecan Capecitabine Oxaliplatin Cetuximab Bevacizumab Panitumumab
  • 54.
    Advances in theTreatment of Stage IV CRC: 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Best supportive care (BSC) 5FU Irinotecan Capecitabine Oxaliplatin Cetuximab Bevacizumab Panitumumab Median Overall Survival
  • 55.
    Management of Met.CRC: Playing a Strategic Game: The King Should SURVIVE SURVIVA L What You Have to Play? Pharmaceuticals How to Play? 1st, 2nd , 3rd …seniL . Try to be Creative Research
  • 56.
    mCRC patient segmentation: potentiallyresectable and long-term disease control Resection Optimising PFS and OS –represents majority of patients Treatment goal Required outcome Long-term DFS 10% 20% 70% Curative surgery Presentation Unresectable diseaseUpfront resectable Un-resectablePotentially resectable Most patients remain unresectable Van Cutsem, WCGIC 2012
  • 57.
    Treatment for mCRC ComparingCombination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Scheme FOLFIRI Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 R FOLFOX6 FOLFOX6 FOLFIRI Till Progression Till Progression Arm A Arm B 226 pt Stage IV mCRC CPT-11 180 mg /m2 IV + Simplified LV5FU Oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 IV+Siplified LV5FU
  • 58.
    Treatment for mCRC ComparingCombination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Time to Progression Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 There is no statistical difference in TTP regardless of sequence or arm. There is a slight improvement in TTP in 2nd line favoring FOLFOX, but not significant
  • 59.
    59 Treatment for mCRC ComparingCombination Chemotherapy Regimen Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 The Tournigand Study: Overall Survival 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 Probability 0 10 20 30 40 50 FOLFIRI/FOLFOX6 FOLFOX6/FOLFIRI Overall Survival P = .99 FOLFIRI/FOLFOX6 21.6 FOLFOX6/FOLFIR 20.6
  • 60.
    Treatment for mCRC ComparingCombination Chemotherapy Regimen The Tournigand Study: Summary of Efficacy results Tournigand at al. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 229-237 Endpoint FOLFIRI FOLFOX P value RR 1st line 54 % 56% 0.26 RR 2nd line 4% 15% 0.05 TTP 1st line 8.5 mo 8.0 0.26 TTP 2nd line 2.5 mo 4.2 mo 0.64 OS 1st line 21.5 mo 20 mo 0.99
  • 61.
    • How canbiologics in combination with conventional chemotherapy be used to their full potential? • Duration of therapy • Predictive markers • Can a patient population be identified that would benefit most from one specific treatment strategy? Challenges in The Palliative Treatment of Stage IV CRC:
  • 62.
  • 63.
    Phase III TrialIFL +/- Bevacizumab in MCRC: Efficacy IFL+ Placebo (n = 411) Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2335-2342. IFL+ Bevacizumab (n = 402) P Value Median survival, months 15.6 20.3 .00004 Progression-free survival (PFS), months 6.2 10.6 <.00001 Overall response rate (ORR), % Complete response (CR) Partial response (PR) 35 2.2 32.5 45 3.7 41.2 .0036 Duration of response, months 7.1 10.4 .0014
  • 64.
    XELOX N = 317 FOLFOX4 N= 317 Initial 2-arm open-label study (N = 634) Protocol amended to 2x2 placebo- controlled design after bevacizumab phase III data1 became available (N = 1401) Recruitment June 2003 – May 2004 Recruitment Feb 2004 – Feb 2005 XELOX vs FOLFOX +/- Bevacizumab NO16966 Study Design 1. Hurwitz H, et al. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003;22: Abstract 3646. Saltz LB, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):2013-2019. XELOX + placebo N = 350 XELOX + bevacizumab N = 350 FOLFOX4 + placebo N = 351 FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab N = 350
  • 65.
    NO16966 PFS SubgroupAnalyses: On-Treatment Population HR = 0.61 [97.5% CI 0.48–0.78] P≤.0001 HR = 0.65 [97.5% CI 0.50–0.84] P = .0002 XELOX + placebo FOLFOX4 + placeboXELOX + Bev FOLFOX-4 + BevVS VS XELOX Group FOLFOX Group Survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Study Day 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Survival Study Day 10.6 m Saltz L, et al. Presented at: 2007 Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium; January 19-21, 2007: Orlando, Florida. Abstract. 8.4 m9.5 m7.0 m
  • 66.
    CAIRO-3: Validation ofBEV-Containing Maintenance Therapy (MT) XELOX-Bx6 CTX-BEV XELOX-Bx6 CTX-BEV R PD1 PD2 PFS1 TT2PD MT CFI 8.5 4.1 11.8 10.5 HR P PFS1, months 0.44 <.00001 PFS2, months 0.81 .028 TT2PD 19.8 15.0 0.67 <.00001 OS 21.7 18.2 0.87 .16 MT: LD-Cape (625 mg/m2 BID daily) + BEV (7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) MT CFI N = 558 PFS2: time from R until PD upon re-introduction of XELOX-B TT2PD: time from R until PD upon any treatment after PFS1 CFI, observation; OS, overall survival; PFS1, first progression; PFS2, second progression; TT2PD, time to second progression Koopman M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(suppl): Abstract 3502. PFS2
  • 67.
    BEV + standard first-lineCT (either oxaliplatin or irinotecan-based) (n = 820) BEV (2.5 mg/kg/wk) + standard second-line CT (oxali or irino-based) until PD PD Randomize 1:1 CT switch: Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. Standard second-line CT (oxaliplatin or irinotecan- based) until PD ML18147 (TML) Study Design (Phase III) Oxaliplatin → Irinotecan Irinotecan → Oxaliplatin Primary endpoint Secondary endpoints included • OS from randomization • PFS • Best ORR • Safety • First-line CT (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based) • First-line PFS (≤9 months, >9 months) • Time from last BEV dose (≤42 days, >42 days) • ECOG PS at baseline (0/1, 2) Stratification factors
  • 68.
    OS: ITT Population OSEstimate 0.4 0.2 0 06 11.2 mo 12 18 24 30 36 42 9.8 mo P = .0211 (log-rank test) aPrimary analysis method; bStratified by first-line CT (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based), first-line PFS (≤9 months, >9 months), time from last dose of BEV (≤42 days, >42 days), ECOG performance status at baseline (0, ≥1) Median follow-up: CT, 9.6 months (range 0–45.5); BEV + CT, 11.1 months (range 0.3–44.0) 1.0 0.8 0.6 CT (n = 410) BEV + CT (n = 409) Unstratifieda HR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.69–0.94) P = .0062 (log-rank test) Stratifiedb HR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71–0.97) PFSEstimate 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 6 12 18 24 36 CT (n=410) BEV + CT (n=409) 4.1 mo 5.7 mo Unstratifieda HR: 0.68 (95% CI: (0.59–0.78) P<.0001 (log-rank test) Stratifiedb HR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.58–0.78) P<.0001 (log-rank test) PFS:ITT Population Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. No. at risk Time , Months Time, Months No. at risk CT 410 293 162 51 24 7 3 2 CT 410 119 20 6 4 0 BEV + CT409 328 188 64 29 13 4 1 BEV + CT409 189 45 12 5 2
  • 69.
    Adverse Events (AEs)of Special Interest to BEV: Safety Population Patients, % Bennouna J, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2012;14(1):29-37. Chemotherapy n = 409 All Grades Grade 3–5 21 6 BEV + Chemo n = 401 All Grades Grade 3–5 41 12AEs of special interest to BEV ATE, arterial thromboembolic events; GI, gastrointestinal; RPLS, reverse posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome; VTE, venous thromboembolic events Hypertension 7 1 12 2 Proteinuria 1 – 5 <1 Bleeding/hemorrhage 9 <1 26 2 Abscesses and fistulae – – 1 <1 GI perforation <1 <1 3 2 Congestive heart failure <1 <1 <1 – VTE 4 3 6 5 ATE 1 <1 <1 <1 Wound-healing complications RPLS <1 – <1 – 1 – <1 –
  • 70.
    EFC10262: VELOUR Phase IIITrial Second-Line FOLFIRI +/- VEGF-TRAP (Aflibercept) Stratification factors: Prior bevacizumab (Y/N) ECOG PS (0 vs 1 vs 2) 1:1 mCRC after failure of an oxaliplatin based regimen R 600 pts Aflibercept 4 mg/kg IV + FOLFIRI q 2 weeks 600 pts Placebo + FOLFIRI q 2 weeks Principle investigators: Allegra, Van Cutsem 21 30% of patients had prior BEV
  • 71.
    VELOUR Study OS HR 0.82 PFS HR0.76 Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3499-3506. Time, Months Time, Months
  • 72.
    Overall Survival Strata (asper UVRS) N HR (95.34% CI) HR Interaction P All patients Prior BEV No Yes 1226 0.82 (0.713-0.937) 853 373 0.79 (0.669-0.927) 0.86 (0.673-1.104) .5668 0 Favors aflibercept 1 2 Favors placebo 3 Progression-Free Survival Strata (as per UVRS) N HR (95% CI) HR Interaction P All patients Prior BEV No Yes 1226 0.76 (0.661-0.869) 853 373 0.80 (0.679-0.936) 0.66 (0.512-0.852) .1958 0 Favors aflibercept 1 2 Favors placebo 3 Aflibercept: VELOUR Phase III: OS and PFS Stratified by Prior Bevacizumab Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3499-3506.
  • 73.
    Conclusion Anti-VEGF Therapy •Duration of VEGF-inhibition matters – Treatment to progression – Maintenance strategies – Treatment beyond progression • Clinical synergism between FP + bevacizumab • Positive distinguishing factors for aflibercept vs BEV in second-line Tx not clear – Head-to-head comparison warranted (Efficacy? Toxicity?) • BEV combinable with FOLFOXIRI (TRIBE)
  • 74.
  • 75.
    NCIC CTG CO.17: RandomizedPhase III Trial in mCRC Cetuximab vs BSC (No Cross-Over) BSC Cetux n = 83 n = 81 BSC n = 113 Cetux n = 117 BSC n = 285 Cetux n = 287 RR 0% 1.2% 0% 12.8% 0% 6.6% PFS, months 1.8 1.8 1.9 3.8 1.8 1.9 OS, months 4.6 4.5 4.8 9.5 4.6 6.1 <.0001 <.0001 Karapetis CS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757-1765. KRAS Mut KRAS Wildtype All Patients <.0001 .0046
  • 76.
    CRYSTAL: FOLFIRI +/-Cetuximab PFS in Patients With KRAS Wildtype Tumors Number of patients FOLFIRI 350 FOLFIRI + cetuximab 316 237 227 111 128 22 40 4 8 0 1 FOLFIRI (n = 350) FOLFIRI + Cetuximab (n = 316) No of events 189 8.4 months [7.4‒9.2] 146 9.9 months [9.0‒11.3] Median PFS [95% CI] HR [95% Cl] P value 0.70 [0.558‒0.867] .0012 ProbabilityofPFS Time, Months 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 120 4 8 16 20 FOLFIRI FOLFIRI + cetuximab Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15):2011-2019.
  • 77.
    PRIME (FOLFOX +/-Panitumumab) PFS by KRAS Mutation Status “Final Analysis” Median, months (95% CI) Panitumumab + FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 10.0 (9.3 – 11.4) 8.6 (7.5 – 9.5) HR = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.67 – 0.95) Log-rank P value = .01 Median, months (95% CI) Panitumumab + FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 7.4 (6.9 – 8.1) 9.2 (8.1 – 9.9) HR = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.04 – 1.55) Log-rank P value = .02 WT KRAS MT KRAS ProportionEvent-Free 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Months 36 38 40 42 44 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ProportionEvent-Free Douillard J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(Suppl): Abstract 3510. 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Months 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 36 38 40 42 44
  • 78.
    FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab Bevaciizumab:5 mg/kg iIV.v.3300-9-900miin q 2ww Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. FIRE-3 Phase III Study Design FOLFIRI + Cetuximab mCRC first-line therapy KRAS wildtype N = 592 Randomize 1:1 FOLFIRI: 5FU: 400 mg/m2 (IV bolus); folinic acid: 400 mg/m2 irinotecan: 180 mg/m2 5FU: 2400 mg/m2 (IV 46h) • Primary objective: ORR (investigator assessed) • Designed to detect a difference of 12% in ORR induced by FOLFIRI + cetuximab (62%) as compared to FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (50%) • 284 evaluable patients per arm needed to achieve 80% power for an one-sided Fisher‘s exact test at an alpha level of 2.5% Cetuximab: 400 mg/m2 IV 120 min initial dose 250 mg/m2 IV 60 min q 1 w
  • 79.
    FIRE-3 ORR Primary Endpoint FOLFIRI+ Cetuximab FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab Odds ratio P Assessable for response (N = 526) 72.2 66.2 – 77.6 63.1 57.1 – 68.9 1.52 1.05-2.19 .017 1.18 0.85-1.64 .183 P = Fisher´s exact test (one-sided) ORR % 95%-CI % 95%-CI ITT population (N = 592) 62.0 56.2 – 67.5 58.0 52.1 – 63.7 Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506.
  • 80.
    0.75 Heinemann V, etal. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. 1.0 0.50 0.25 ProbabilityofSurvival Events n/N (%) Median (months) 10.0 95% CI 8.8 – 10.8 HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 – 1.26) 10.3 9.8 – 11.3 Log-rank P = .547 0.0 12 24 36 48 Months Since Start of Treatment 60 72 —FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 250/297 (84.2%) — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab 242/295 (82.0%) Number 297 100 19 10 5 3 at risk 295 99 15 6 4 FIRE-3 PFS:
  • 81.
    Events n/N (%) Median (months) 28.7 95% CI —FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 158/297 (53.2%) 185/295 (62.7%) 24.0 – 36.6 — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab HR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 – 0.96) 25.0 22.7 – 27.6 Log-rank P = .017 0.75 1.0 0.50 0.25 ProbabilityofSurvival 0.0 12 24 36 48 60 72 Months Since Start of Treatment Number 297 at risk 295 218 214 111 111 60 47 29 18 9 2 PFS Split of curves Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. FIRE-3 OS:
  • 82.
    — FOLFIRI +Cetuximab ProbabilityofSurvival — FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab PTEN, EGFR ligands Heinemann V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract LBA3506. 0.75 1.0 0.50 0.25 0.0 12 24 36 48 Months Since Start of Treatment 60 72 Who are these patients? Analysis of RAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, Number 297 218 111 60 29 9 at risk 295 214 111 47 18 2 FIRE-3 OS:
  • 83.
    Progression-Free Survival By Arm(All RAS Wildtype Patients)100 – 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 0 – 0 12 PercentEventFree 24 36 48 Months From Study Entry 60 72 No at Risk Arm Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. 256 112 49 23 13 6 270 126 49 18 5 2 1 N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P 256 (221) 270 (241) 11.3 (10.3-12.6) 11.4 (9.6-12.9) 1.1 (0.9-1.3) .31
  • 84.
    Overall Survival ByArm (All RAS Wildtype Patients) 100 – 80 – 60 – 40 – 20 – 0 – 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 PercentEventFree Arm Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P 256 (178) 270 (177) 31.2 (26.9-34.3) 32.0 (27.6-38.5) 0.9 (0.7-1.1) .40 No at Risk Months From Study Entry 256 199 147 77 35 16 5 2 270 205 164 88 41 24 7 1 1
  • 85.
    Conclusions EGFR mAbs(2) • All-RAS wildtype CRC = 40% to 45% of CRC • Further molecular refinements in future (PTEN, EGFR ligands, PIK3CA…) could cut the patient population suitable for EGFR mAbs down to 30% to 35% • This refined patient population could sustain a marked benefit from use of first-line EGFR mAbs!
  • 86.
    Progression-Free Survival OverallSurvival N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux 192 (163) 11.0 (9.5-13.1) 1.1 (0.9-1.4) .3 192 (137) 29.0 (24.0-32.8) 0.86 (0.6-1.1) .2 198 (177) 11.3 (9.4-13.1) 198 (129) 32.5 (26.1-40.4) All RAS Wildtype FOLFOX Patients Progression-Free Survival Lenz H-J, et al. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4): Abstract 5010. Overall Survival N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P N (Events) Median (95% CI) HR (95% CI) P Chemo + Bev Chemo + Cetux 64 (58) 11.9 (10.3-14.8) 1.1 (0.7-1.5) .7 64 (41) 35.2 (28.3-41.3) 1.1 (0.7-1.6) .7 72 (64) 12.7 (8.9-14.1) 72 (48) 32.0 (25.6-42.9) All RAS Wildtype FOLFIRI Patients Outcomes by Chemotherapy Backbone
  • 87.
  • 88.
  • 89.
    First-line efficacy ofEGFR inhibitors in KRAS WT populations 1. Van Cutsem et al. ASCO GI 2010; 2. Maughan, et al. ASCO 2010; 3. Tvelt, et al. ESMO 2010; 4. Doulliard, et al. JCO 2010
  • 90.
  • 91.
    Take Home Message: •Exposure to all available agents is mandatory to optimize OAS. • Unified global treatment algorhytm is still controversial. • Careful interpretation of available clinical trials to establish guidelines of management. • FIRE3 trial should not be used as a practice changing guideline although it might point to a better selection of patients for anti-EGFR therapy. • Cost-effective studies should be kept in mind especially in developing regions of the world.
  • 92.