1 / 58

ASCO 2009 – GI Highlights

ASCO 2009 – GI Highlights. Eileen M. O’Reilly, M.D. Associate Member Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor Weill Medical College of Cornell University. CONKO-004.

nenet
Télécharger la présentation

ASCO 2009 – GI Highlights

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. ASCO 2009 – GI Highlights Eileen M. O’Reilly, M.D. Associate Member Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Associate Professor Weill Medical College of Cornell University

  2. CONKO-004

  3. A Randomized Prospective Trial of Chemotherapy +/- LMWH, Enoxaparin, in Patients with Advanced Pancreas Adenocarcinoma (LBA #4506) H. Riess, U. Pelzer. G. Deutschinoff, B. Opitz, M. Stauch, P. Rietzig, S. Hahnfeld, A. Hilbig, J. Stieler, H. Oettle

  4. Cancer, PC & Thromboses • VTE in malignancy related to poor prognosis • 12% vs 36% I-yr OS for VTE vs no VTE in Ca pts • Data suggest improved outcome in PC with the addition of anticoagulation to systemic tx • Retrospective review in metastatic PC • Addition of LMWH to chemotherapy improved survival from 3.8 → 6.6 mths (p= 0.006) Sorensen, et al. NEJM, 2000. Chew, et al. Arch Int Med, 2006. Von Delius, et al. Thromb Haemost, 2007

  5. Study Endpoints • Primary endpoint • Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) within the first 3 months of chemotherapy • Secondary endpoints • VTE in the first 6, 9 and 12 mths • Major bleeding within 3, 6, 9 and 12 mths • PFS, OS, RR • Toxicity Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  6. Systemic Therapy + Enoxaparin* R A N D O M I Z E Systemic Therapy CONKO-004 (LBA #4506) Stratify N= 540 (planned) • Locally advanced vs M1 • Primary vs Relapsed • PS 80- 100% vs 60- 70% • Creatinine level ≤/ > ULN *Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg/day for 3 mths → 40 mg/day until POD Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  7. Study Treatment • Treatment allocation based on PS + creatinine • For pts with PS ≥ 80% and creat ≤ ULN • Gemcitabine, 5FU/LV, Cisplatin (GFFC); d 1,8,22 • For pts with PS of 60 - < 80% or creat > ULN • Gemcitabine (G); d 1,8, 5, q 28 • Experimental arm • Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg for 12 weeks → 40 mg SQ El Rayes, et al. J Clin Oncol, 2003. Araneo, et al. Can Invest, 2003. Riess et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  8. Eligibility • Histologically proven PC • Measurable disease • No prior systemic therapy • KPS ≥ 60% • Adequate hematologic, hepatic function • No VTE within previous 2 years • No major haemorrhage, no aspirin > 500mg • Calculated creatinine clearance > 30 ml/min • No indication for anticoagulation Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  9. Biostatistics • Hypothesis: Significant decrease in symptomatic VTE from 10% → 3% with LMWH • Sample size: N= 540, 1: 1 ratio,15% dropout or 24 pts with VTE • Stratify: KPS 60- 70% vs 80- 100%; M0 vs M1; Primary vs Recurrent; Creat ≤ / > ULN Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  10. Study Conduct • Open-label, randomized phase II • Recruitment 4/04- 1/09, 33 centers • Date of analysis 4/09 Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  11. Demographics (N= 312) Recruitment ceased 1/09 (24 VTE episodes) Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  12. Gemcitabine (N= 57) PS 60-70% or creat > ULN Gemcitabine, Cis, 5-FU (N= 255) PS ≥ 80% and creat ≤ ULN CONKO-004 (N= 312) Gemcitabine (N= 27) Gemcitabine + Enoxaparin (N= 30) Gem, Cis, 5-FU, LV (N= 125) Gem, Cis, 5-FU + Enoxaparin (N= 130) Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  13. VTE in the first 3 Months 1 pt had DVT + PE. 18 events in 17 pts Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  14. VTE in the first 3 Months • Observation 9.9% vs 1.3% in enoxaparin arm • p< 0.01 • Difference of 8.6% between two arms • Relative risk reduction of 87% • VTE according to chemotherapy • Gemcitabine 12.4% vs 6.6% Gem,Cis,5FU,LV • Poor PS pts – more VTE Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  15. Major Bleeding Events (3 months) 9 non-fatal, *1 fatal upper GI haemorrhage (observation arm) Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  16. Overall Results (Med f/up 34 wks) 3 fatal haemorrhages: *2 tumor-related lethal GI bleeds in two GFFC pts (12.4, 13.4 wks) #1 lethal GI haemorrage in a gemcitabine-treated pt (16.7 wks) Riess, et al. ASCO, 2009 (LBA #4506)

  17. CONKO-004 Conclusions • Advanced PC high risk of symptomatic VTE • PS may be more powerful predictor of VTE risk over treatment intensity • Enoxaparin 1mg/kg/day significant reduces clinically relevant VTE • No undue safety concerns observed • Impacts of enoxaparin prophylaxis on RR, PFS, OS immature

  18. Interpretation CONKO-004 • Early data reassuring regarding safety • Need maturity to assess impact on PFS, OS • Low dose of enoxaparin? • No change in standard practice for advanced disease for now

  19. Neuroendocrine

  20. Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Prospective Randomized Study of the Effect of Octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with Metastatic Neuroendocrine Midgut Tumors:A Report from the PROMID Study Group Rudolf Arnold for the PROMID Study Group Department of Internal Medicine, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany

  21. Octreotide LAR • Binds somatostatin receptors 2, 5 • FDA-approved for functional tumors for symptomatic relief • Indicated for progressive metastatic non-functioning NET’s • Anti-proliferative value not well established • No well-designed phase III trials to answer question in midgut NET’s

  22. Promid Study (Abst #4508) Octreotide LAR 30mg IM q 4 wks (N= 42) R A N D O M I Z E Midgut NET‘s N= 85 Placebo IM q 4 wks (N= 43) Randomized phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind Midgut NET’s: Jejunem, ileum, appendix, right colon Primary Endpoint: TTP Secondary Endpoints: RR (WHO), OS Arnold, et al. ASCO, 2009 (Abst #4508)

  23. PROMID Study 18 centers in Germany from 2001 to 2008 85 patients treated from a planned 162 accrued Planned Interim Analysis Based on 67 POD and 16 observed deaths Log-rank test, planned group sequential analysis at level of 0.0122 ASCO 2009: updated results

  24. Patient Population • Untreated, metastatic, well-diff midgut NET’s • Histologic confirmation • Functional or non-functional • Primary tumor located in the mid-gut • No curable therapeutic intervention feasible • Measurable disease by CT or MRI Arnold, et al. ASCO, 2009 (Abst #4508)

  25. Study Endpoints • Primary endpoint • Time-to-tumor progression • Secondary endpoints • Survival • Objective responses (WHO) • Biochemical response • Symptom control • Quality of life • Safety

  26. Patient Demographics

  27. 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 Octreotide LAR 30mg Significantly Increases Time to Tumor Progression Octreotide LAR vs placebo P=0.000017 HR= 0.33 [95% CI: 0.19–0.55] Octreotide LAR: 42 patients / 27 events Median 15.6 months [95% CI: 11.0–29.4] Placebo: 43 patients / 41 events Median 5.9 months [95% CI: 5.5–9.1] Proportion without progression Time (months) Based on Intention to treat analysis

  28. PROMID: TTP Arnold,et al. ASCO, 2009 (Abst #4508)

  29. PROMID: Response Rates Arnold, et al. ASCO, 2009 (Abst #4508)

  30. Is the Treatment Effect Homogenous across Subgroups? • Benefit of octreotide LAR versus placebo seen irrespective of • Functioning or non-functioning NETs • Elevated or non-elevated CgA • Most favorable outcome in patients with • Hepatic tumor load ≤10%: HR= 0.21 • Resected primary: HR= 0.16

  31. 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90 Octreotide LAR Lengthens TTP in Patients with Functioning and Non-Functioning Midgut NETs Patients with functioning tumors Patients with non-functioning tumors Octreotide LAR: 17 patients / 11 events Median TTP 10.35 months Placebo: 16 patients / 14 events Median TTP 5.45 months Octreotide LAR: 25 patients / 9 events Median TTP 27.14 months Placebo: 27 patients / 24 events Median TTP 7.21 months Proportion without progression Proportion without progression Time (months) Time (months) P= 0.0008; HR= 0.27 [95% CI: 0.12–0.61] P= 0.0007; HR= 0.23 [95% CI: 0.09–0.57] Based on the per protocol analysis

  32. Safety Consistent with Established Octreotide LAR Profile • No treatment-related deaths • Treatment was discontinued because of AE’s in 5 of 42 octreotide LAR recipients and no placebo recipients • Most frequent serious AEs affected • GI tract (octreotide LAR n= 6; placebo n= 8) • Hematopoietic system (octreotide LAR n= 5; placebo n=1 ) • General health status, e.g. fatigue, fever (octreotide LAR n= 8; placebo n= 2) • Serious AE’s in 11 octreotide LAR and 10 placebo pts

  33. Summary • Octreotide LAR 30mg significantly improves TTP in metastatic well-differentiated midgut NETs • 67% reduction in POD for octreotide LAR pts • Regardless of functional status • Overall survival – difficult to assess given cross-over from placebo to octreotide LAR at progression • Observed safety findings similar to those seen in previous studies of octreotide LAR in NETs

  34. Interpretation • Strengths – placebo-controlled, double-blinded, central radiology review, homogenous NET’s • Limitations – small numbers, cross-over, not powered for survival, imbalance in time prior to enrollment • An option to initiate octreotide LAR for newly diagnosed NET’s

  35. RADIANT 2 Trial R A N D O M I Z E Octreotide LAR + Everolimus Advanced Carcinoid (progressive) N= 390 Octreotide LAR + Placebo Primary Endpoint: PFS Accrual completed – Results awaited Yao, et al (PI)

  36. SWOG 0518 R A N D O M I Z E Octreotide LAR + Bevacizumab Advanced Poor Prognosis Carcinoid N= 287 Octreotide LAR + IFN α-2b Primary Endpoint: PFS Ongoing recruitment Yao, et al (PI)

  37. ESPAC-3

  38. ESPAC-3(v2) A Multicentre, International, Open-label, Randomised Controlled Phase III Trial of Adjuvant 5-Fluorouracil/Folinic acid (5-FU/FA) vs Gemcitabine (GEM) in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer CR-UK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit

  39. Background ESPAC-1 compared chemotherapy [5FU/FA ] with chemoradiation Using a 2x2 factorial design Observation Chemotherapy (CT) Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) CRT CT

  40. ESPAC-1 Lancet, 2001 No benefit for Chemoradiation – Potential benefit for Chemotherapy Lancet, 2001;358(9293):1576-85

  41. ESPAC-3(v1) Trial Design Patients with ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing ‘curative’ resection Target N=990 RANDOMISE 5FU/ FA 5-FU 425mg/m2 & FA 20mg/m2 for 5 days every 28 days for 6 cycles Target N=330 GEMCITABINE 1000mg/m2 once a week for 3 of 4 weeks for 6 cycles Target N=330 OBSERVATION Target N=330 330 per arm to detect 10% difference in 2y survival rate (= 5%, 1-b= 80%) Trial opened July 2000

  42. Eligibility Complete macroscopic resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (WHO Classification) R0 or R1 resection No: ascites, liver or peritoneal metastasis, or any other distant abdominal or extra-abdominal organ spread No previous or concurrent malignancy diagnoses WHO performance status < 2 Life-expectancy of more than 3 months Fully informed written consent

  43. ESPAC-1 ESPAC-1 NEJM 2004: No benefit for Chemoradiation confirmed Survival rates 2-year 5-year No CRT: 41.4% 19.6% CRT: 28.5% 10.0% HR=1.28 (0.99, 1.66), p=0.053 NEJM 2004; 350:1200-10

  44. ESPAC-1 ESPAC-1 NEJM 2004: Benefit for Chemotherapy confirmed Survival rates 2-year 5-year No CT: 30.0% 8.4% CT: 39.7% 21.1% HR=0.71 (0.55, 0.92), p=0.009 NEJM 2004; 350:1200-10

  45. Impact • OBSERVATION arm closed on DMC advice June 2003 (n=61) • Target recruitment updated to detect 10% difference in survival at 2-years with 90% power, DMC July 2005 • Updated Target: 515 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients (275 events) per chemotherapy group

  46. ESPAC-3(v2) Trial Design Patients with ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing ‘curative’ resection Target N=1030* RANDOMISE 5FU/ FA Target N=515 Actual=551 GEMCITABINE Target N=515 Actual N=537 3-monthly follow-up to death 515 per arm to detect 10% difference in 2y survival rate ( = 5%, 1-b = 90%) *Actual N=1088

  47. Patient Demographics 5FU/FA GEM TOTAL n=551 n=537 n=1088 Age (years)63 (34-85)63 (31-81) 63 (31-85) Sex Male 301 (55%)297 (55%) 598 (55%) Female 250 (45%)240 (45%) 490 (45%) Baseline PS † 0 200 (36%)167 (31%) 367 (34%) 1 286 (52%)303 (57%) 589 (54%) 2 64 (12%)64 (12%) 128 (12%) Smoking †Never207 (43%)189 (40%) 396 (41%) Past 192 (39%)207 (44%) 399 (42%) Present 87 (18%)78 (16%) 165 (17%) Surgery to Rand (days) 45 (4-114)45 (5-98) 45 (4-114) † Significant prognostic variable

  48. Tumor Pathology 5FU/FA GEM TOTAL n=551 n=537 n=1088 Stratification factor: R Status † R0 356 (65%)348 (65%) 704 (65%) R1 195 (35%)189 (35%) 384 (35%) Max Tumour Size (mm) † 30 (2-350)30 (2-105) 30 (2-350) Grade † Well 81 (15%)66 (13%) 147 (14%) Mod 327 (60%)336 (63%) 663 (62%) Poor 135 (25%)125 (24%) 260 (24%) Undiff2 (0%)2 (0%) 4 (0%) Nodes † Neg161 (29%) 144 (27%) 305 (28%) Pos 387 (71%)391 (73%) 778 (72%) † Significant prognostic variable

  49. On-Study Data 5FU/FA GEM TOTAL n=551 n=537 n=1088 Diabetic No 388 (75%)375 (75%)763 (75%) Non-insulin dep54 (11%)51 (10%)105 (10%) Insulin dep72 (14%) 73 (15%)145 (14%) Surgery Whipples286 (56%) 295 (59%)581 (58%) Pylorus Pres 158 (31%) 147 (30%)305 (30%) Total Panc27 (5%)14 (3%) 41 (4%) Distal Panc40 (8%)39 (8%) 79 (8%) Local Invasion †No 297 (58%) 284 (57%)581 (58%) Yes 213 (42%) 215 (43%)428 (42%) Post-op Comps No 396 (78%) 364 (74%)760 (76%) Yes 112 (22%) 130 (26%)242 (24%)

  50. χ2LR = 31.8, p<0.001 χ2LR = 24.2, p<0.001 χ2LR = 52.7, p<0.001 χ2LR = 16.3, p<0.001

More Related