1 / 38

Department of GI Medical Oncology

Cathy Eng, M.D., F.A.C.P. Associate Professor Associate Medical Director, Colorectal Center Director of Network Clinical Research, GI Med Onc March 28, 2014. Does the New EPOC trial eliminate Anti -EGFR antibodies as part of pre-op therapy for curable liver-only mCRC ? YES!.

dextra
Télécharger la présentation

Department of GI Medical Oncology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cathy Eng, M.D., F.A.C.P. Associate Professor Associate Medical Director, Colorectal Center Director of Network Clinical Research, GI Med Onc March 28, 2014 Does the New EPOC trial eliminateAnti-EGFR antibodies as part of pre-op therapy for curable liver-only mCRC? YES! Department of GI Medical Oncology

  2. Disclosures: • The presenter is the first of the sessions so please be kind . • In this setting, it is presumed we will be providing neoadjuvant chemotherapy regardless • In the perspective of the actual clinical setting, it is recommended that each patient is evaluated on a individual basis.

  3. USA (2014) Worldwide Cancers of the Colon and RectumInternational Statistics Colorectal cancer is the 3rd most common cancer in men and the 2nd in women. Incidence Mortality 1.2 Million 609,000 per annum Incidence Mortality 136,830 50,310 Jemal et al: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(8) August 2010; Siegel et al: CA Cancer J Clin 2014

  4. Facts about mCRC: • There is NO standard approach to surgically resect patients with liver metastases. • The liver is the most common site of metastatic disease. • Approximately, 20% of patients will have surgically resectable disease at presentation • Approximately, 20% of patients after neoaduvuant chemotherapy will be downsized to be potentially resectable. • The expected 5-yr OS of a surgically unresectable patient is 13%. • The 5-yr OS of a patient with surgically resectable disease is 33-58%. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html

  5. Management of MCRC: An Evolving Treatment Algorithm Diagnosis of MCRC Resectable (20%) Unresectable Borderline/ Potentially Resectable (20%) First-Line Neoadjuvant/ Preoperative Therapy Second-Line Surgery Palliation +/- Adjuvant Therapy NCCN, 2010.

  6. MDACC Algorithms: The complexity of treating mCRC

  7. Pivotal Trials of mCRC with Surgically Resectable Liver Metastasis • Keep in mind, there are limited studies overall • Most studies have been small single institution phase II studies or retrospective analyses.

  8. Original EPOC Trial: Phase III EORTC 40983 Randomi ze FOLFOX4 Surgery FOLFOX4 6 cycles (3 months) 6 cycles (3 months) Surgery Primary endpoint: PFS N=364 patients Nordlinger et al: Lancet 2008; LancOnc 2013

  9. EORTC 40983: PFS in Eligible Patients HR= 0.77; CI:0.60-1.00, p=0.041 100 90 +8.1%At 3 years Periop CT 80 70 60 50 36.2% 40 Surgery only 30 28.1% 20 After a median follow-up of 8.5 yrs, no difference in 5-yr OS (51% vs. 48%, p=0.34) 10 0 (years) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 O N Number of patients at risk : 125 171 83 57 37 22 8 115 171 115 74 43 21 5

  10. Why consider anti-EGFR therapy in the neoadjuvant setting? • Incorporate biologic therapy • Hope for additional benefit when using enriched pt pop • KRAS WT patients may have increased benefit from an EGFR inhibitor to optimize outcome • Avoid class effect toxicities of anti-VEGF therapy: • Long t1/2 requiring dose to be held prior to surgery • GI perforation • Wound healing • Original EPOC study showed ~8% improvement in 3-yr PFS with neoadjuvantFOLFOX in mCRC patients with operable liver metastases Nordlinger et al, Lancet 2008

  11. New EPOC Phase III Study: Chemotherapy ± Cetuximab in Operable KRAS-WT mCRC Randomi ze FOLFOX4 + Cetuximab Surgery FOLFOX4 + Cetuximab 6 cycles (3 months) 6 cycles (3 months) FOLFOX Surgery FOLFOX Primary endpoint: PFS N=621 patients Nordlinger et al: Lancet 2008; LancOnc 2013

  12. New EPOC Phase III Study: Chemotherapy ± Cetuximab in Operable KRAS-WT mCRC Randomi ze FOLFOX4 + Cetuximab Surgery FOLFOX4 + Cetuximab 6 cycles (3 months) 6 cycles (3 months) FOLFOX Surgery FOLFOX Primary endpoint: PFS N=272/621 patients Nordlinger et al: Lancet 2008; LancOnc 2013

  13. New EPOC: NeoadjuvantChemotherapy ± Cetuximab in Operable KRAS-WT mCRC: PFS • Median PFS significantly worse with cetuximab: 14.1 months vs 20.5 months with chemotherapy alone • Study stopped at predefined futility analysis • Immature data, but more events unlikely to change result 1.00 HR: 1.49 (95% CI: 1.04-2.12); P = .030 0.75 Proportion progression free 0.50 0.25 Chemo aloneChemo + cetuximab 0.00 42 48 54 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 60 Time to progression or death (months) Number at riskChemo aloneChemo + Cetuximab 116117 8987 6554 3824 2315 125 53 22 11 10 00 Primrose JN, et al. ASCO 2013. Abstract 3504.

  14. Why did the new EPOC study fail? • KRAS is a predictive marker of potential benefit for EGFR inhibition. • Cetuximab does not have a role in the adjuvant setting • Phase III N0147: FOLFOX +/- cetuximab failed to demonstrate improvement in DFS in stage III colon cancer • 3-yr DFS: 74.6% vs 71.5% with the addition of cetuximab (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.98–1.49; P=.08) • Or is it the chemotherapy backbone of FOLFOX and cetuximab? Alberts et al: JAMA. Apr 4, 2012; 307(13): 1383–1393.

  15. Pivotal trials in mCRC of EGFR inhibition

  16. CRYSTAL Study Phase III • Patients • Previously untreated mCRC, EGFR + pts • Tumor tissue from primary tumor or metastasis available for biomarker analysis • ECOG PS 0-2 • N=1198 FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 1:1 Randomization FOLFIRI Primary Endpoint: PFS Van Cutsem et al: NEJM, 2009; Van Cutsem et al: JCO 2011

  17. CRYSTAL STUDY - Cetuximab and Chemotherapy as Initial Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer • The PFS was 8.9M vs. 8.0M. • HR = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.99; P = 0.048). • The PFS for KRAS WT tumors was 9.9M vs. 8.7M • HR = 0.68 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94) • There was no initial significant difference in OS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.07; P = 0.31). • UPDATE: Improved median OS for the investigational arm of (23.5 v 20.0 months; HR: 0.796; P = .0093) • The ORR in each arm was 46% (95% CI, 42-50) and 38% (95% CI, 34-42). • Rate of surgery and R0 resection (7.9% v 4.6%; odds ratio, 1.823; 95% CI, 0.957 to 3.472; P = .0633 and 5.1% v 2.0%; odds ratio, 2.650; 95% CI, 1.083 to 6.490; P = .0265, respectively). • . Van Cutsem et al: NEJM, 2009; Van Cutsem et al: JCO 2011

  18. COIN Study Phase III • Patients • Previously untreated mCRC • Tumor tissue from primary tumor or metastasis available for biomarker analysis • ECOG PS 0-2 • N=2445 XELOX 1:1 Randomization XELOX + Cetuximab Primary Endpoint: OS Maughan et al Lancet 2011:

  19. OS (primary analysis) and PFS among KRAS wild-type patients Overall Survival Progression-free Survival 1.00 HR point estimate = 1.038 95% CI = (0.90, 1.20) Χ2 = 0.18; p = 0.68 HR point estimate = 0.959 95% CI = (0.84, 1.09) Χ2 = 0.27; p = 0.60 0.75 0.50 Survival 0.25 Arm A (OxFp) Arm A (OxFp) Arm B (OxFp + cetux) Arm B (OxFp + cetux) 0.00 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 Time (months) Time (months) N patients at risk: 367 245 92 41 18 11 6 1 A 367 316 250 154 83 44 19 1 361 249 103 42 22 9 6 0 362 306 238 149 80 42 17 3 B

  20. CELIM: Phase II • Patients • Previously untreated, surgically unresectablemCRC • ≥5 liver metastases • Tumor tissue from primary tumor or metastasis available for biomarker analysis • ECOG PS 0-2 • N=114 FOLFOX + cetuximab 1:1 Randomization FOLFIRI + cetuximab Primary Endpoint: RR Folprecht; Lancet Onc, 2010; Annals of Onc, 2014 .

  21. CELIM STUDY – Tumor response and resectability of colorectal liver metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab Results: • RR in 36 (68%) of 53 patients in group A, and 30 (57%) of 53 patients in group B (p=0.23). • In a retrospective analysis of response by KRAS status, RR was noted 47 (70%) of 67 patients versus 11 (41%) of 27 patients with KRAS-mutated tumors (OR 3.42, 1.35-8.66; p=0.0080). • Update: The median OS was 35.7M vs 29M HR 1.03 [95% CI: 0.66-1.61], p=0.9). • The median PFS was 10.8M vs. 10.5M, HR 1.18 [95% CI: 0.79-1.74], p=0.4). • Patients who underwent R0 resection (n=36) had a better median OS 53.9M vs. 21.9M, p<0.001). • The median disease-free survival for R0 resected patients was 9.9 [95% CI: 5.8-14.0] months, and the 5-year OS rate was 46.2 [95% CI: 29.5-62.9]%.

  22. New Data to Support EGFR Inhibition as Neoadjuvant Therapy Does it change my current opinion about the role of EGFR in neoadjuvant chemotherapy? No

  23. Update on PRIME Study Phase III • Patients • Previously untreated mCRC • Fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy allowed if PD occurred ≥6 mo after completion; no oxaliplatin • Tumor tissue from primary tumor or metastasis available for biomarker analysis • ECOG PS 0-2 • N=1183 Panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg q 2 wkFOLFOX4 q 2 wk 1:1 Randomization FOLFOX4 q 2 wk Primary Endpoint: PFS Douillard JY, et al. J ClinOncol. 2010;28:4697-4705.

  24. PRIME (FOLFOX +/- Panitumumab)PFS by KRAS Mutation Status WT KRAS MT KRAS RR: 55% vs. 48%, P= .068. Douillard et al: JCO, 2010; NEJM 2013

  25. PRIME Biomarker Analysis: Analysis of KRAS/NRAS and BRAF Mutations Oliner J, et al. J ClinOncol. 2013;31(Suppl): Abstract 3511. Oliner J, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(Suppl 2): Abstract 2275.

  26. Revised PRIME Consort Diagram Douillard et al: NEJM, 2013

  27. PRIME: Updated OS Analysis Overall Survival in the Primary-Analysis Population Events Median Mo no./total no. (%) (95% CI) Panitumumab- 128/259 (49) 26.0 (21.7–30.4)FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 alone 148/253 (58) 20.2(17.7–23.1) Events Median Mo no./total no. (%) (95% CI) Panitumumab- 204/259 (79) 25.8 (21.7–29.7)FOLFOX4 FOLFOX4 alone 218/253 (86) 20.2(17.6–23.6) Proportion Alive (%) Hazard ratio, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62–0.99)P=0.043 Months No.at Risk Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 259 189 88 0 FOLFOX4 alone 253 174 65 0 Overall Survival in the Updated-Analysis Population Proportion Alive (%) Hazard ratio, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64–0.94)P=0.009 Months No.at Risk Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 259 189 129 83 49 14 FOLFOX4 alone 253 176 104 60 30 8 Douillard et al, 2013.

  28. FIRE-3 Phase III Study Design • Patients • mCRC • KRASwild-type • ECOG PS 0-2 • 1st line therapy; prior adjuvant chemotherapy allowed if completed >6 mo before inclusion • N=592 FOLFIRI + Cetuximab(Cetuximab: 400 mg/m2 loading dose; 250 mg/m2 weekly) 1:1 Randomization FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab(Bev: 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) Primary endpoint: Response Rate Heinemann V. ASCO 2013. Abstract LBA3506.

  29. FIRE-3: Overall Response Rate Heinemann V. ASCO 2013. Abstract LBA3506.

  30. Consort FIRE-3 Diagram N=752 mCRC 1st-line unselected patients KRAS unknown= 30 No treatment= 13 No treatment KRAS mt = 4 N=592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type ITT population N=113 KRAS exon 2 mutantpopulation* N=407 (69%) RAS evaluable population N=58 FOLFIRI + Cetuximab N=55 FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab N=342 RAS wild-type N=65 (16%) ‘New’RAS mutant N= 171 FOLFIRI + Cetuximab N= 171 FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab N= 34 FOLFIRI Cetuximab N= 31 FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab Stinzing et al: ESMO, 2013

  31. FIRE-3: Overall survival RAS* all wild-type 1.0 0.75 0.50 Probability of survival Δ = 7.5 months 0.25 0.0 0.0 48 12 60 36 24 72 months since start of treatment 6 1 171 171 No. at risk 39 26 71 68 20 9 128 127 Stinzing et al: ESMO, 2013 * KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 wild-type

  32. FIRE-3 Update: Overall Survival by All-RAS Mutation Status Stintzing S. European Cancer Conference 2013. Abstract LBA17.

  33. Pending Trials

  34. CALGB/SWOG 80405: Pending results Study amended: Wild-type KRAS tumors only RANDOMIZE FOLFOX or FOLFIRI* + cetuximab • First-line mCRC • Amended accrual; N=2300 wild-type patients FOLFOX or FOLFIRI* + cetuximab + bevacizumab FOLFOX or FOLFIRI* + bevacizumab

  35. BOS-2 (EORTC 40091): Phase II KRAS WT Resectable Liver Mets Study amended: Wild-type KRAS tumors only RANDOMIZE FOLFOX • First-line mCRC • N=360 FOLFOX + bevacizumab FOLFOX + panitumumab Primary Endpoint: PFS http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01508000?term=BOS-2&rank=1

  36. BOS -3 (EORTC-1207) Phase II/III Study Design (Pending) • Patients • mCRC • KRAS MT • ECOG PS 0-1 • 1st line therapy; prior adjuvant chemotherapy allowed if completed >12 mo before inclusion FOLFOX + Aflibercept(Aflibercept: 4 mg/m2) 1:1 Randomization FOLFOX Primary endpoint: PFS http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01646554?term=BOS-2&rank=2

  37. Conclusions: • The data from the new EPOC trial indicates FOLFOX/cetuximab can be deleterious in surgically resectable KRAS WT patients • Due to the rare RAS MT? • Does EGFR inhibition require macroscopic disease for efficacy ~ irinotecan? • Is it the backbone? • CELIM was underpowered • The use of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI + anti-EGFR therapy in a KRAS WT patient does not result necessarily in superior RR vs. anti-VEGF therapy. • Pending final results of FIRE-3, CALGB 80405, BOS-2 and BOS-3 • If you are considering EGFR inhibition, must consider all RAS MT testing.

More Related