1 / 24

Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Discussion

Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Discussion. Martee L. Hensley, M.D. Attending Physician, Gynecologic Medical Oncology Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College. Abstracts 010 and 011: Does morcellation surgery for uterine LMS affect outcome?.

isanne
Télécharger la présentation

Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Discussion

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. Uterine Leiomyosarcoma: Discussion Martee L. Hensley, M.D. Attending Physician, Gynecologic Medical Oncology Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Professor of Medicine Weill Cornell Medical College

  2. Abstracts 010 and 011: Does morcellation surgery for uterine LMS affect outcome? • THE IMPACT OF OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES TO THE ONSET OF PERITONEAL TUMOR DISSEMINATION IN PATIENTS WITH UTERINE LEIOMYOSARCOMAS • F Menge; E Hartmann; M Mathew; B Kasper; P Hohenberger • IMPACT OF TUMOR MORCELLATION ON THE NATURAL HISTORY OF UTERINE LEIOMYOSARCOMA (ULMS) • C Serrano; T Oduyebo; J Manola; YFeng; M Muto; S George

  3. Menge abstract summary • Detailed attention to the surgical techniques—included the “myoma drill” cases with morcellation cases • Total of 23 uLMS cases in 10 years • 6 morcellation cases compared with 15 non-morcellation (4 metastatic cases excluded) p = 0.08 --3 cases with “peritoneal only” recurrence

  4. Serrano abstract summary • only intra-abdominal morcellation included • Reasonable case match for post-op management • 16 morcellation cases • Imbalance for BSO • RESULTS: • RFS is significantly poorer after morcellation • Recurrences are peritoneal • Significant prognostic factor in small multivariate analysis that included tumor size and mitotic rate

  5. Tumor morcellation led to a decrease in Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) p-value = 0.034 Median RFS TAH = 25.7 months Median RFS Morcellation = 10.8 months

  6. In perspective: • MSKCC retrospective of re-operation after SCH (n=12) or morcellation (n=5) procedures in pts found to have uterine malignancies (EmCa =8; LMS=5; ESS=3; CS=1) • 5 morcellation procedures; 4/5 underwent re-operation • 2/4 were upstaged due to finding of residual peritoneal disease at time of re-operation. • Both of the patients had uterine LMS • There were a total of 13 re-staging procedures; 2/13 patients (15%) were upstaged—both had uLMS Einstein, Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2007

  7. In perspective: • Retrospective comparison of pelvic recurrence at 3 months among morcellation (n=34) and no-morcellation hysterectomy (n=89) in patients with uterine malignancies • Morcellation pts: pelvic recurrence 8.82% • Hysterectomy pts: pelvic recurrence 3.66% • P=0.25 Morice P, Gynaecol Oncol 2003

  8. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Points Age at Diagnosis 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Tumor Size (cm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 High Tumor Grade Low Yes Cervical Involvement No Yes Distant Metastases No Yes Loco-regional Metastases No Total Points 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 5-year Survival 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 Uterine LMSNomogram to predict 5 year OS C-index = 0.683 Zivanovic, Hensley. Cancer 2012

  9. Discussion : • Easy for us to say, post-hoc, that morcellation is BAD • But can we conclude that morcellation SHOULD NOT BE DONE? Takamizawa, Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999

  10. Research agenda? • Identify a reliable tool for discerning pre-operatively which leiomyomas have high likelihood of being uLMS (or other malignancy). • Imaging characteristics? Imaging modality? • Presentation? (bleeding v. not?) • Post-menopausal growing fibroid? • Nomogram of multiple pre-op features? • The challenge is the database—need all that information on thousands of patients when the incidence of malignancy is 0.4%

  11. Abstracts 012 and 013: What are the systemic treatment options for uLMS • LMS-02: A PHASE II SINGLE-ARM MULTICENTER STUDY OF TRABECTEDIN IN COMBINATION WITH DOXORUBICIN AS FIRST LINE TREATMENT OF METASTATIC AND/OR LOCALLY ADVANCED LEIOMYOSARCOMA OF UTERINE (U-LMS) OR SOFT-TISSUE (ST-LMS) ORIGIN: RESULTS FROM BOTH COHORTS, FOR THE FRENCH SARCOMA GROUP (FSG) • F Duffaud; C Chevreau; N Penel,; ALe Cesne; CGuillemet; C Delcambre; AFloquet; D Cupissol; ARey; P Pautier • IMPACT OF CHEMOTHERAPY IN UTERINE SARCOMA (UTS): REVIEW OF 12 CLINICAL TRIALS FROM EORTC INVOLVING ADVANCED UTS COMPARED TO OTHER SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA (STS) • I Ray-Coquard,; A Natukunda; J-Y Blay; P Casali; I Judson; A Krarup Hansen; L Lindner; AP Dei Tos; H Gelderblom; S Marreaud; S Litiere; P Rutkowski; P Hohenberger; A Gronchi; Wvan der Graaf

  12. Ray-Coquard EORTC retrospective study: outcomes in ut sarcomas • 225 pt with uterine sarcoma, 71% ut LMS (160 LMS pts) • Response to chemo higher (30%) among pts with high grade cancers v. low grade (13.5%) • Histologic grade and performance status were prognostic for OS among all the ut sarcoma pts • Responses higher with dox-based chemo compared with ifos alone • LMS responses were 20% v. 33% for other histologies

  13. Median OS 10.9 months among the 225 ut sarcoma pts v. 11.7 for other STS types • Median PFS 4.1 months ut sarcoma v. 3.71 other STS • Response to chemotherapy 23% among uterine sarcoma patients

  14. In perspective: • 1977-2001 data window allows for long follow-up but limits treatment regimens to dox, ifos, CYVADIC • Possibility for changes over time in response definitions, histologic diagnoses, and grading changes • Some similarities to findings of nomogram for OS in ut LMS • Grade matters • We can all agree that better treatments are needed • We must recognize the challenges in agreeing on grade in LMS

  15. In perspective: • Median OS 10.1 months (range 9 to 11.9) in this dox and ifos-treated group with 0 prior regimens • SARC 001 (gem v. gem-doce, 0-3 prior) • Median OS 17.9 months with gem-doc v. 11.5 months with gem • Evolution of both the efficacy of agents and supportive care improvements over 3 decades influence interpretation of these data

  16. Gem v. Gem-Docetaxel in STS • Odds that Gem-Doce is superior to Gem for PFS = 98% • Odds that Gem-Doce is superior to Gem for OS=97% Maki, Hensley, J Clin Oncol 2007

  17. LMS-02A phase II single-arm multicenter study of Trabectedin in combination with Doxorubicin as first-line treatment of metastatic and/or locally advanced leiomyosarcoma of uterine (U-LMS) or Soft Tissue (ST-LMS) origin: Results from both cohorts F.Duffaud, C. Chevreau, N. Penel, A. Le Cesne, C. Guillemet, C. Delcambre, A. Floquet, D. Cupissol, B. Lacas, P. Pautier French Sarcoma Group

  18. LMS02–uterine results • Response (44 pts): • 25 PR ORR : 56.8% • 13 stable diseases • Disease control rate :86% • Median duration of response : 5.5 months(3.8 – 6.6) • PFS rate at 12 weeks: 84 %[95% CI : 73%-94%]

  19. LMS 02–discussion • Important objective RR per RECIST for 1rst line therapy in LMS • Compare favorably with other combinations for U-LMS Doxo-Ifo1; U-LMS 1rst line ORR: 30%, DCR : 82% Gem-Tax2; U-LMS 1rst line ORR: 36%, m PFS = 4.4 mo • Compare favorably with other combinations for ST-LMS Ifo- containing3; all-LMS 1rst line ORR: 17%, • High rates of disease control and of PFS in both cohorts of LMS • 86% and 92% of DCR, PFS rates at 3 mo of 84% and 92%, for Uterine and Soft Tissue cohorts respectively • Supports the hypothesis that Doxo + Trab is an active regimen,in both cohorts of LMS • Van Glabbecke 20025, active agents 1rst line for LMS : 3 mo PFR ≥58% and 6 mo PFR >40% → Efficacy results of Doxo →Trab combi are very encouraging in U- and ST-LMS 1Sutton G Gynecol Oncol 1996, 2 Hensley Gynecol Oncol 2008, 3 Sleijfer S, EJC 2010 46: 72-83, 5Van Glabbecke M, EJC 2002 38:543

  20. LMS 02–discussion • Though well tolerated, Doxo + Trab is toxic but manageable in 1st line • Less toxic than Doxo (75 mg) + Ifo (10 g),EORTC 62012 studya • 46% febrile neutropenia, 35% anemia gr3-4, 33% thombocytopenia gr3-4 • Compare favorably with Gem (900 mg)+Tax (100 mg),Hensleyb et al. 2008 • for anemia and thrombocytopenia (24% anemia gr3, 14.5% thombocytopenia gr3-4 ) • but 6% febrile neutropenia with Doxo+Trab vs. 0% with Gem+Tax, but in 45pts • LMS02 results different than GEIS-20 study results • GEIS-20: Doxo vs. Trab → Doxocombi(Martin-Proto et al. ECCO meeting 2013) • Combination not superior to Doxo alone (ORR : 13% and 20% , mPFS 5.7 and 5.6 mo, for Combi and Doxo respectively) • Trab → Doxo, all sarcoma subtypes, too small population • Define appropriate 1st line regimen in LMS only • A randomized phase III study, in 1st line, in LMS only, comparing best combinations regimens, is urgently needed, with new active combination drugs a Judson I. Ann Oncol LBA7 ESMO 2012; b Hensley M. Gyn Oncol 2008

  21. So many choices: 1st line treatment, metastatic ut LMS, good PS, organ function, large volume lung and peritoneal mets • Gemcitabine • Gemcitabine-docetaxel • Doxorubicin • Doxorubicin-ifosfamide • Ifosfamide • Trabectedin • Trabectedin-doxorubicin • Liposomal doxorubicin • Pazopanib • Dacarbazine • 3-drug combinations

  22. Where shall we focus our efforts? The n=1 approach The n=1001 approach • Genomic profiling of the great responder • Since there is not likely one driver for every uLMS, try to find the one driver for each one? • If you find the driver, will you have a drug? And how soon until • Target mutation • Oncogene bypass • Feedback upregulation • Prospective randomized trials with overall survival or at least PFS endpoints • Aim to define best first- and second-line therapies for uLMS • Dox-Trab v. Gem-Doc • Dox-Trab v. Dox • Gem-doce-placebo v. Gem-doce-bev • Ad infinitum for questions • BUT not for patients!

  23. In the end-- The bad guy: The good guys: Photo, Smithsonian Marine Station

  24. Acknowledgments • Dr. Maki and CTOS for this invitation • Authors and presenters of Abstracts 010, 011, 012, 013 for providing abstracts and slides for review • The women who face the challenges of this disease every day—

More Related