430 likes | 590 Vues
Axel Grothey Professor of Oncology Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Vice Chair and Director of Cancer Treatment of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) Co-chair of the gastrointestinal program of NCCTG
E N D
Axel GrotheyProfessor of OncologyMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA • Vice Chair and Director of Cancer Treatment of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) • Co-chair of the gastrointestinal program of NCCTG • Former Senior Consultant and Head of the Oncological Research Laboratory at the Martin-Luther-University in Halle, Germany • Prior posts at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA and the University of Essen and University of Bochum, Germany • Author of many papers in English and German Mayo Clinic, Rochester
Mounting evidence in early CRC Axel Grothey Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
Adjuvant chemotherapy of colon cancer: steps ahead 5-FU/LV 1-year superior to surgery alone 6- and 12-month equivalent Elderly benefitas well Stage II 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Capecitabine Bolus 5-FU/LV superior to surgery alone FOLFOX better than LV5FU2 LV5FU2 equivalent to bolus 5-FU/LV 5-FU = 5-fluorouracilLV = leucovorin
Stage II colon cancer:a heterogeneous population • In 2007, approximately 80,000 patients will be diagnosed with either stage II or III colon cancer in the USA • 28% of diagnosed colon cancer patients • Wide spectrum of disease1 • IIa: T3, N0, M0 • IIb: T4, N0, M0 • 5-year disease-free survival2 • IIa: 65–73% • IIb: 51–60% • 25–30% of stage II patients will relapse within 5 years 1AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook, 6th ed2Gill S, et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1797–806
Who should be offered adjuvant therapy of colon cancer? • All patients with stage III tumours • Patients with ‘high-risk’ stage II tumours according to • clinico-pathological parameters • T4 tumours • obstruction/perforation • lymphatic or vascular invasion • undifferentiated histology • <10 (12) lymph nodes examined • molecular parameters? (in trials)
Adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer • The role of adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II disease is controversial • studies have confirmed the benefits of treatment in stage III disease1,2 • A number of factors may influence adjuvant treatment decisions • treatment outcomes, patient characteristics, comorbidities, convenience, costs, etc. • The evidence for adjuvant treatment of stage II colon cancer comes from >13,500 patients • relative risk reduction between 14% and 31% 1Jessup JM, et al. JAMA 2005;294:2758–602de Gramont A, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:(Suppl. 18):165s (Abstract 4007)
5-FU: historical standardin the adjuvant setting Observation1 5-FU/high-dose LV (Mayo)2 6 months 5-FU/LV (Mayo)1 5-FU/low-dose LV (Mayo)3 LV5FU24 55 60 65 70 75 3-year disease-free survival (%) 1IMPACT Investigators, Lancet 1995;345:939–442Wolmark N, et al. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1879–87 3QUASAR Group. Lancet 2000;355:1588–964André T, et al. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2896–903 Stage II and III colon cancer patients
PETACC-3: DFS not significantly improved with FOLFIRI in stage III n 3-year DFS (%) FOLFIRI 1,044 63.3 5-FU/LV 1,050 60.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0 Estimated probability HR=0.89 (95% CI: 0.77–1.11)p=0.091 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Months DFS = disease free survivalHR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval Van Cutsem E, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:(Suppl. 16):3s (Abstract LBA8)
ACCORD2: DFS not improved with FOLFIRI in high-risk colon cancer 3-year DFS (%) FOLFIRI 51 LV5FU2 60 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Estimated probability HR=1.19(95% CI: 0.90–1.59)p=0.22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Years Ychou M, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;(Suppl. 16):246s (Abstract 3502)
CALGB 89803: DFS and OS not improvedwith IFL in stage III colon cancer 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Proportion surviving Proportion disease-free FU/LV IFL FU/LV IFL 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years Years n Events FU/LV 629 227IFL 635 248 p (stratified) = 0.85 (1-sided) n Events FU/LV 629 171IFL 635 181 p (stratified) = 0.74 (1-sided) OS = overall survival; IFL = irinotecan, 5-FU plus leucovorin Saltz L, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3456–61
MOSAIC: superior DFSwith FOLFOX4 in stage III n 3-year DFS (%) FOLFOX4 1,123 72.2 LV5FU2 1,123 65.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Estimated probability HR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.62–0.92)p=0.002 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Months André T, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–51
MOSAIC: consistent benefitin DFS with FOLFOX4 versus LV5FU2 *p<0.05 1de Gramont A, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(Suppl. 16)246s (Abstract 3501) 2André T, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–51
MOSAIC: OS for stage II and stage III patients 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 p=0.996 0.1% p=0.029 4.4% Probability FOLFOX4 stage II LV5FU2 stage II FOLFOX4 stage III LV5FU2 stage III HR (95% CI) Stage II 1.00 (0.71–1.42) Stage III 0.80 (0.66–0.98) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 Overall survival (months) De Gramont A, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(Suppl. 18)165s (Abstract 4007) Data cut-off: January 2007
NSABP C-07: superior DFSwith FLOX in stage II/III combined n 3-year DFS (%) FLOX 1,200 76.5 5-FU/LV 1,207 71.6 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Estimated probability HR=0.79 (95% CI: 0.67–0.93)p<0.004 0 1 2 3 4 Years Kuebler JP, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2156–8
Adjuvant combination therapy: summary • Data from MOSAIC and NSABP C-07 suggest that • oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV significantly improves DFS in patients with stage II and III colon cancer • oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV significantly improves OS in patients with stage III colon cancer • Data from PETACC-3, ACCORD and CALGB 89803 suggest that • addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 may reduce riskof recurrence in patients with stage III colon cancer • there is no clear significant benefit for irinotecan in the adjuvant setting
Capecitabine: the potential agent of choice for adjuvant therapy
Capecitabine mode of action:TP-activation – proof of concept at last? Intestine Liver Capecitabine Tumour >> healthy tissue Capecitabine CE 5'-DFCR 5'-DFCR CyD CyD 5'-DFUR 5'-DFUR Thymidine phosphorylase (TP) 5-FU 5'-DFCR = 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine; 5'-DFUR = 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine; CyD = cytidine deaminase; CE = carboxylesterase
X-ACT: Xeloda (capecitabine) Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial of stage III colon cancer RANDO MIS ATION Capecitabine 1,250mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1–14 q3w n=1,004 Chemonaïve stage IIIresection 8 weeks Bolus5-FU/LV 5-FU 425mg/m2 + LV 20mg/m2days 1–5 q4w n=983 • Primary endpoint: non-inferiority in DFS • Secondary endpoint: OS Data cut-off: January 2007 b.i.d. = twice daily Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
X-ACT: 5-year DFS (median follow-up 6.8 years) 5-year DFS (%) Capecitabine 1,004 60.8 5-FU/LV 983 56.7 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 n Estimated probability HR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77–1.01) NI margin 1.20 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 Months Test of non-inferiority p<0.0001 Test of superiority p=0.0682 ITT population Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB) ITT (intent-to-treat) population; NI = non-inferiority
X-ACT: 5-year OS (median follow-up 6.8 years) 5-year OS (%) Capecitabine 1,004 71.4 5-FU/LV 983 68.4 n 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Estimated probability HR=0.86 (95% CI: 0.74–1.01) NI margin 1.14 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 Months Test of non-inferiority p=0.000116 Test of superiority p=0.06 Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB) ITT population
Favours capecitabine Favours 5-FU 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 HR (95% CI) X-ACT: improved efficacy with capecitabine(5-year OS subgroup analysis) n ITT population Male Female <40 40–69 years old 70 pN1 pN2 Baseline CEA <ULN Baseline CEA >ULN 1,987 1,074 912 76 1,513 396 1,389 593 1,672 155 CEA = carcinoembryonic antigen ULN = upper limit of normal Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB)
Multivariate analysis of OS Twelves C, et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2696–704
Treatment duration and intensity Twelves C, et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2696–704
X-ACT: improved safety with capecitabine Grade 3/4 adverse events 50 40 30 20 10 0 Capecitabine (n=993) 5-FU/LV (n=974) Patients (%) * * * * HFS Nausea/vomiting Diarrhoea Stomatitis Febrileneutropenia Neutropenia *p<0.001HFS = hand foot syndrome Scheithauer W, et al. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1735–43
Capecitabine (n=1,004) FOLFOX (n=672) Bolus 5-FU/LV (n=983) LV5FU2 (n=675) X-ACT and MOSAIC: projection of OS in stage III patients X-ACT1 MOSAIC2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Estimated probability Estimated probability 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 Years Years 1Twelves C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl 2007;5:1 (Abstract 1LB) 2De Gramont A, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:(Suppl. 18):165s (Abstract 4007) ITT population
X-ACT: 5-year survival update –conclusions • Update shows that capecitabine is at least equivalent to bolus 5-FU/LV with a trend to superiority (p=0.06) in terms of 5-year OS • First indication in the adjuvant setting from a cross-trial comparison showing that capecitabine is equivalent to infusional 5-FU Capecitabine is known to be an effective/better tolerated alternative to bolus 5-FU/LV (Mayo Clinic) in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer
CAPOX: a new optionin the adjuvant setting • Primary endpoint: disease-free survival RANDO MIS ATION CAPOX Capecitabine 1,000mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1–15 Oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 day 1 q3w n=944 Chemo/radiotherapy-naïve stage III colon cancer Bolus 5-FU/LVMayo Clinic or Roswell Park n=942 Schmoll HJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4217–23
Adjuvant CAPOX: favourable toxicity compared with FOLFOX and FLOX 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 3/4 adverse events CAPOX1 (n=938) FOLFOX42 (n=1,108) FLOX3 (n=1,200) Patients (%) * * * HFS Nausea Vomiting Febrileneutropenia Diarrhoea Stomatitis Neutropenia Neurosensory 1Schmiegel WH, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(Suppl. 18):172s (Abstract 4034)2André T, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2343–51 3Wolmark N, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(Suppl. 16 Pt I):246s (Abstract LBA 3500) Cross-trial comparison *Not reported
Active patient management minimises adverse events: before and after dose modification 20 15 10 5 0 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Cycles (%) Before After Before After Before After HFS Diarrhoea Stomatitis Cassidy J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(Suppl. 14):14s (Abstract 3509)
Rationale for anti-VEGF therapy in the adjuvant setting • The roles of angiogenesis and VEGF in colorectal tumour growth are well established1 • Using anti-VEGF therapy such as bevacizumab when micrometastases are dormant and potentially reliant on VEGF may prevent the angiogenic switch,2 thereby improving outcomes • In preclinical studies, bevacizumab causes regression of human tumour xenografts,3–5 and a reduction in the number and size of liver metastases6 • Bevacizumab may have a greater impact in earlier disease stages 1Bergers G, et al. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:401–10; 2Poon RT, et al. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1207–25; 3Gerber HP, et al. Cancer Res 2000;60:6253–8; 4Wildiers H, et al. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1979–86; 5Shen B-Q, et al. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 2004;45 (Abstract 2203); 6Warren RS, et al. J Clin Invest 1995;95:1789–97 VEGF = vascularendothelial growth factor
Anti-VEGF therapy regresses some existing tumour microvasculature • Reduction in tumour vessel blood flow after 1 day of anti-VEGF therapy • Control Anti-VEGF therapy* Inai T, et al. Am J Pathol 2004;165:35–52 Rugo HS, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5474–83 *AG013736 (VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor)
Abnormal vasculature normalised following VEGF inhibition* Inai T, et al. Am J Pathol 2004;165:35–52 Rugo HS, et al. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5474–83 *AG013736 (VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor)
Normalisation of tumour vasculature improves delivery of chemotherapy • 46% increase in intratumoral availability of irinotecan after pretreatment with an anti-VEGF antibody* 15.98 20 15 10 5 0 10.93 Tumour irinotecan concentration (mg/g) Placebo A4.6.1 Wildiers H, et al. Br J Cancer 2003;88:1979–86 *In a preclinical model
Withdrawal of anti-VEGF therapyresults in vessel regrowth CD31 Untreated AG-013736, 7d Withdrawal, 2d Withdrawal, 7d RIP-Tag2 Continue anti-angiogenic therapy to avoid vessel regrowth Mancuso MR, et al. J Clin Invest 2006;116:2610–21
Linking the MoA of bevacizumab with clinical benefit in adjuvant CRC EARLY EFFECTS CONTINUED EFFECTS Regression Normalisation Inhibition 1 2 3 Prevent growth of small, unresected tumours Improve delivery of chemotherapy Suppress the ‘angiogenic switch’ in dormant cells Eliminate residual cancer cells following surgery Improve DFS
Primary endpoint: DFS Secondary endpoints include survival and tolerability Recruitment started September 2006 306 patients enrolled (March 2007) QUASAR-2 (phase III): study design Bevacizumab (7.5mg/kg) + capecitabine every 3 weeks (bevacizumab 16 cycles and capecitabine 8 cycles over24 weeks) Colon cancer (stage II/III) (n=2,240) Capecitabine (8 cycles over 24 weeks)
Phase III trial BO17920 (AVANT):study design Randomised, open-label study Observation FOLFOX4 Surgery for high-risk stage II + stage III colon cancer (n=3,450) FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab (5mg/kg every 2 weeks) Bevacizumab alone (7.5mg/kg every 3 weeks) CAPOX + bevacizumab (7.5mg/kg every 3 weeks) Bevacizumab alone (7.5mg/kg every 3 weeks) Duration of treatment phases 24 weeks 24 weeks • Primary endpoint: DFS at 3 years for stage III • Secondary endpoints: OS and safety • Accrual completed Q2 2007
NSABP C-08: study design • Primary endpoint: DFS at 3 years • Secondary endpoints include survival and tolerability • Trial design • 90% power for 25% reduction in risk of progression after 3 years • 82% power for 25% reduction in risk of death after 7 years • Patient recruitment is complete, efficacy results expected for ASCO 2009 Observation mFOLFOX6 Dukes’ C colon cancer (n=2,714) mFOLFOX6 + bevacizumab 5mg/kg every 2 weeks Bevacizumab 5mg/kg every2 weeks 24 weeks 24 weeks
Important adjuvant capecitabine/bevacizumab-based combination trials AVANT 1° efficacy NSABP C-08 1° efficacy QUASAR-2 1° efficacy XELOXA survival follow-up XELOXA 1° efficacy XELOXA final safety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Conclusions • Adjuvant capecitabine is as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV, with fewer grade 3/4 toxicities • Capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin is a promising option in the adjuvant setting • There is a strong rationale for the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting • Adjuvant bevacizumab and capecitabine clinical development programme is ongoing, results expected soon