minimal versus intense upfront systemic therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer paulo m. hoff, md,...
TRANSCRIPT
Minimal versus Intense Upfront Systemic Therapy in Metastatic
Colorectal Cancer
Paulo M. Hoff, MD, FACPHospital Sirio Libanes
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Centro de Oncologia
Medical Oncology Treatment Objectives in CRC
• To cure patients:
– Adjuvant chemotherapy
– Convert inoperable into operable disease
• To palliate symptoms:
– Reduce tumor volume
• To prolong survival
– Control disease growth
5 – Fluorouracil: 1957
NH
HN
O
O
F
5-FU
50 years later, fluoropyrimidines remain the backbone of colorectal cancer treatment.
Treatment Options for Advanced Colorectal Cancer in 2006
• Six different classes of drugs available:– Fluoropyrimidines
• 5-FU, FUDR, Capecitabine, UFT, S-1
– Platins • Oxaliplatin
– Topoisomerase I inhibitors • Irinotecan
– Direct TS inhibitors• Raltitrexed
– Anti-VEGF • Bevacizumab
– Anti-EGFR • Cetuximab, Panitumumab
Irinotecan Combination Trials
IFL* IFL* (n=231)(n=231)
5-FU/LV(n=226)
RRAANNDDOOMMII
Z Z EE IrinotecanIrinotecan
(n=226)(n=226)
Saltz et al. Saltz et al. N Engl J MedN Engl J Med. 2000;343:905-914. 2000;343:905-914
Metastatic Colorectal
Cancer
Saltz et al. Saltz et al. N Engl J MedN Engl J Med. 2000;343:905-914.. 2000;343:905-914.
Irinotecan Combination Trials: Efficacy
Irinotecan + 5-FU/LV 5-FU/LV P Value
RR (confirmed, %) 39% 21% <.001*
PFS (median, mo) 7.0 4.3 .004
OS (median, mo) 14.8 12.6 .04
Oxaliplatin as Second-Line Treatment for CRC
Rothenberg et al. Rothenberg et al. J Clin OncolJ Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2059-2069.. 2003;21:2059-2069.
LV5FU2(n=151)
Oxaliplatin(n=156)
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
FOLFOX4(n=152)
Metastatic Colorectal
Cancer S/P IFL
Oxaliplatin as Second-Line Treatment for CRC
LV5FU2 FOLFOX4 Oxaliplatin P Value
RR 0% 9.9% 1.3%
<.0001
TTP 2.7 mo 4.6 mo 1.6 mo <.0001
Overall Survival
8.7 mo 9.8 mo 8.1 mo .07
Rothenberg et al. Rothenberg et al. J Clin OncolJ Clin Oncol.. 2003;21:2059-2069. 2003;21:2059-2069.
N9741: Modified Schema
IFLIFL(n=264)(n=264)
IROX(n=264)
FOLFOX4FOLFOX4(n=267)(n=267)
Goldberg et al. Goldberg et al. J Clin OncolJ Clin Oncol. 2004;22:23-30.. 2004;22:23-30.
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
Metastatic Colorectal
Cancer
N9741: Efficacy Results
IFL(N=264)
FOLFOX(N=267)
IROX(N=264)
RR (CR + PR) 31% 45% 34%
Median TTP (Months)
6.9 8.7 6.5
Median OS
(Months) 14.8 19.5 17
Goldberg et al. Goldberg et al. J Clin OncolJ Clin Oncol. 2004;22:23-30.. 2004;22:23-30.
N9741: Second Line Treatment
Saltz FOLFOX-4 WassermanCPT-11 Oxaliplatin CPT-11
5-FU/LV 5-FU/LV OxaliplatinN=235 N=235 N=237
Any 59% 67% 63%
CPT-11 22% 52% 28%
Oxaliplatin 17% 6% 6%
5-FU 35% 33% 45%
Other 28% 20% 27%
FOLFOX6(n=111)
FOLFIRI With FOLFOX6 Sequencing Trial in CRC
Tournigand et al. Tournigand et al. J Clin Oncol.J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:229-237. 2004;22:229-237.
FOLFIRI(n=109)
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
FOLFIRI(n=69)
FOLFOX6(n=81)Until
progression
Untilprogression
Untilprogression
Untilprogression
RR, % 56 15 54 4
PFS, mo 8.5 4.2 8.0 2.5
OS, mo 21.5 20.6
FOLFIRI FOLFOX6 FOLFOX6 FOLFIRI n = 109 n = 81 n = 111 n = 69
Tournigand C et al. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:229-237
FOLFIRI With FOLFOX6 Sequencing Trial in CRC
Availability of All Cytotoxic Agents and Survival
Grothey A and Sargent D. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9441-9442.
Patients With 3 Drugs (%)
0
Med
ian
OS
(m
on
ths)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
12
5-FU/IRI vs FOLFOXIRI: Falcone et al
N = 244
FOLFOXIRI
5-FU/Iri5-FU/IriDouillardDouillard
Falcone ASCO 2007Falcone ASCO 2007
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Efficacy
5-FU/IRI
N=122
FOLFOXIRI
N=122
P-value
Response rate (%)
41% 66% ?
PFS (mos) 6.9
(BICC = 8.3)
9.9 0.0009
OS (mos) 16.7
(BICC = 23)
23.6 0.042
Falcone ASCO 2007
Availability of All Cytotoxic Agents and Survival
Courtesy of Dr. Goldberg, adapted from Grothey A and Sargent D. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9441-9442.
Patients With 3 Drugs (%)
0
Med
ian
OS
(m
on
ths)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
12
*FOLFOXIRI
FU/IRI(42 pts)
FOLFOXIRI(39 pts)
R0 12%*(5 pts)
36%*(14 pts)
* p=0.017
Post-ChemoRx Resections(patients with liver mts only)
Falcone ASCO 2007
Phase III Trial With Bevacizumab Therapy in First-Line MCRC
Bolus IFL + BV(n = 403)
5-FU/LV + BV(n = 110)
Bolus IFL + placebo(n = 412)
RR
AA
NN
DD
OO
MM
II
ZZ
EE
Untreated
MCRC
Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2235–42
Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab in First-Line MCRC
IFL + Placebo (n=411)
IFL + Bevacizumab
(n=402) P Value
ORR (%)
CR
PR
35
2.2
32.5
45
3.7
41.2
0.0036
Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2235–42
Median PFS (months)IFL + placebo: 6.2 (95% CI: 5.6–7.7)IFL + Bevacizumab: 10.6 (95% CI: 9.0–1.0)HR=0.54 (95% CI: 0.45–0.66) p<0.001
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f b
ein
g p
rog
ress
ion
-fre
e 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00 10 20 30
PFS (months)
6.2 10.6
IFL + Bevacizumab
IFL + placebo
Phase III trial : PFS
Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–42
Median survival (months)IFL + placebo: 15.6 (95% CI: 14.3–17.0) vsIFL + Bevacizumab: 20.3 (95% CI: 18.5–24.2)HR=0.66 (95% CI: 0.54–0.81) p<0.001
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f su
rviv
al
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
00 10 20 30 40
Survival (months)
IFL + Bevacizumab
IFL + placebo
15.6 20.3
Hurwitz H, et al. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–42
Phase III trial : Survival
FOLFIRI(n=144)
RmIFL
(n=141)
XELIRI(n=145)
Feb 2003 – April 2004
Initial design
n=430
FOLFIRI+Bev.
mIFL+Bev.
(n=60)
(n=57)
May 2004 – Dec 2004n=117
Primary endpoint: PFS
Trial of Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI/mIFL (BICC-C): design
Protocol amended due
to approval of bevacizumab
Amended design
R
* Celecoxib data not shownFuchs et al, ASCO 2007
BICC Efficacy in 430 Patients
mIFL CapeIRI FOLFIRI P-value
Response rate (%)
43.3 38.6 47.2 N.S.
PFS (mos) 6.0 5.7 8.2 0.01
OS (mos) 17.6 18.9 23.1 N.S.
Fuchs et al, ASCO 2007
Adverse EventGrade 3-4
FOLFIRIn = 137
(%)
m-IFLn = 137
(%)
CapeIRI n = 141
(%)
Nausea 8.8 7.3 18.4
Vomiting 8.8 7.3 15.6
Diarrhea 13.9 19 47.5
Dehydration 5.8 7.3 19.1
Neutropenia 43.1 40.9 31.9
Febrile neutropenia 3.6 12.4 7.1
Hand-foot syndrome 0 0 9.9
60-day mortality 3.6 5.1 3.5
Period 1: Grade 3-4 AEs
Fuchs et al, ASCO 2007
Period 2: Efficacy
mIFL + Bev
N=60
FOLFIRI + Bev
N=57
P-value
Response rate (%)
? ? ?
PFS (mos) 8.3 11.2 0.28
OS (mos) 19.2 Not reached 0.01
Fuchs et al, ASCO 2007
Progression Free SurvivalP
rop
ort
ion
of
Su
bje
cts
Wh
o
Did
No
t P
rog
ress
Regimen PFS (Mos) P Value
FOLFIRI + BEV 11.2 --
mIFL + BEV
8.3 0.28
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30
Time to Progression (months)
FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab
mIFL + Bevacizumab
Fuchs et al, ASCO 2007
Overall Survival
Survival Time (months)
RegimenMedian OS (Months) 1 Year P Value
FOLFIRI+ BEV Not Reached 87% --
mIFL + BEV 19.2 61% 0.01
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f S
ub
ject
s W
ho
Su
rviv
ed
FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab
mIFL + Bevacizumab
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 4030
Fuchs et al, ASCO 2007
E3200: Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab in Second-Line Metastatic CRC
FOLFOX4
BV monotherap
y
FOLFOX4 + BV
Previously IFL
Treated Metastati
c CRC(n=880)
Giantonio, ASCO 2005
E3200: Efficacy
4.8P < 0.0001 vs. BV
3.0%9.2%21.8%P < 0.0001 vs.
FOLFOX
RR
2.77.2P < 0.0001 vs.
FOLFOX
PFS (months)
10.2
230
Bevacizumab
10.8
12.9P = 0.0018 vs.
FOLFOX
OS
(months)
271271
FOLFOX4FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab
Giantonio BJ et al. ASCO 2005
Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab With Oxaliplatin-Based Therapy in CRC
Primary end point:
PFS
Previously untreated MCRC
(N=1600)
XELOX
FOLFOX4
+ Placebo
+ Placebo
+ Bevacizumab(7.5 mg/kg, q3w)
+ Bevacizumab(5 mg/kg, q2w)
Saltz L, et al. ASCO 2007
Efficacy
XELOX/FOLFOX
N=701
XELOX/FOLFOX + bev
N=699
P-value
Response rate (%) 49% 47% 0.99
PFS (mos) 8.0 9.4 0.0023
OS (mos) 19.9 21.3 0.076
Saltz L, et al. GI ASCO 2007
Overall survival
HR=0.89 (97.5% CI 0.76–1.03)
p=0.0769
XELOX / FOLFOX-4 + bevacizumab n=699 (420 events)
XELOX / FOLFOX-4 + placebo n=701 (455 events)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Months
Su
rviv
al e
stim
ate
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
19.9 21.3
Saltz L, et al. ASCO 2007
Cetuximab in Colorectal Cancer “Bond Trial”
Irinotecan pre-treated EGF-R positive Metastatic CRC
Cetuximab and Irinotecan218 patients
Cetuximab 111 patients
* 577 patients screened 329 patients included in a 2:1 randomization
PD
Cunningham et al. NEJM 2004;351:337-345
Cetuximab Combination Therapy “BOND” Trial
IRI/Cx Cx Assessment (n=218) (n=111) P-value
Response Rate 22.9% 10.8% 0.007
TTP 4.1 mo. 1.5 mo.<0.001 (Median)
Survival (Median) 8.6 mo. 6.9 mo. 0.48
Cunningham et al. NEJM 2004;351:337-345
Cetuximab may circumvent irinotecan resistance
Correlation Between Response Rate and Prior Treatment
SubgroupsCombination
n/N (%)Monotherapy
n/N (%)
Prior regimens
1 7/41 (17.1) 5/27 (18.5)
2 20/79 (25.3) 5/41 (12.2)
≥3 23/98 (23.5) 2/43 (4.7)
Prior oxaliplatin
yes 30/135 (22.2) 6/71 (8.5)
no 20/83 (24.1) 6/40 (15.0)
The BOND II Trial
RANDOMI
Z E
Bevacizumab+
Cetuximab
Bevacizumab+
Cetuximab+
Irinotecan
CRC patients who progressed
on irinotecan(any line)
Saltz et al, ASCO 2005
The BOND II Trial
• Best response on study
– CBI (n= 41) PR = 37%
– CB (n=40) PR = 20%
• Median time to tumor progression:
– Cetux/Bev/IRI 7.9 months
– Cetux/Bev 5.6 months
Saltz et al, ASCO 2005
CALGB 80405 Intergroup Trial
mFOLFOX6or
FOLFIRI
Bevacizumab
Cetuximab
Bevacizumab + Cetuximab
R
A
N
D
O
M
I
Z
E
Panitumumab Phase III Trial in First Line Metastatic CRC: PACCE
RRAANNDDOOMMII
Z Z E E
FOLFOX or FOLFIRI+
Bevacizumab+
Panitumumab
FOLFOX or FOLFIRI+
Bevacizumab
Previously untreated CRC
patientsN=1000
PACCE: Panitumumab Advanced Colorectal Cancer Evaluation
Press release reported lack of benefit in experimental arm
First Line Trials: Caveats for Survival as Endpoint
Randomization
Drug A
Drug A + B
Crossover to B not encouraged
Classic
Randomization
Drug A
Drug A + B
Crossover to B mandatory
Practical
The FOCUS Trail
Drug A until it fails… …then B until it fails“staged single
agents”A
Drug A until it fails……then add drug B until both fail
“staged
combination”B
Drugs A + B together until both fail“1st-line
combination”C
A: FU until it fails, then change to Ir
“3rd drug” salvage
OxCap
OxCap
IrCap
OxCap
IrCap
B(ir): FU until it fails, then add Ir
B(ox): FU until it fails, then add Ox
C(ir): FU+Ir from the start, until it fails
C(ox): FU+Ox from the start, until it fails
700
350
350
350
350
2100patients
Focus Design
Seymour et al ASCO 2005
Overall survival
Plan First 2 drugs schedule Median OS
A FU then Ir 13.9
B(ir)
B(ox)
FU then FU/Ir
FU then FU/Ox
14.8
15.2
C(ir)
C(ox)
1st-line FU/Ir
1st-line FU/Ox
16.3
15.2
Seymour et al ASCO 2005
FOCUS Summary
• Use of sequential chemotherapy, with deferred use
of combinations, appears as effective as using the
combination upfront; HOWEVER…
• Sequential single agents appears to be inferior than
single agent followed by an appropriate combination
• Questions remain regarding exposure to all agents
• Not all agents should be used alone
CAIRO: Trial Profile
Arm A Arm B
Randomize
capecitabineN=397
capecitabine +oxaliplatin
N=143 (36%)
irinotecanN=251 (62%)
capecitabine +oxaliplatin
N=213 (53%)
capecitabine +irinotecan
N=398
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
Courtesy of Punt et al, ASCO 2007
Median Overall Survival
Combination treatment 17.4 months (15.2-19.2)
----------- Sequential treatment 16.3 months (14.3-18.2)
p = 0.33
Courtesy of Punt et al, ASCO 2007
Who, What, How Definitions
• Intense therapy:
– Implies early use of more complex combinations
– Is not the same as piling all active drugs together
• Minimal therapy:
– Seeks to minimize toxicity and perhaps cost
– It is not the same as sequential monotherapy
– It is not minimalist therapy
Who, What, How
• Who should get upfront intense therapy?
– Depends on what you call intense therapy!
– Patients who may become resectable with a good
response
– Patients whose quality of life may improve with a
tumor response
– Patients who are unlikely to get second and third
line treatment regimens (e.g., aggressive tumors)
Who, What, How
• Who should get upfront minimal therapy?
– Reserved for patients with little hope for a
curative surgery
– Patients who have relatively indolent disease, and
who can expect to receive additional lines of
therapy
– Patients with good quality of life who are not
interested in trading it for improvements in the
therapy’s efficacy
Chemotherapy for CRCSummary
• Doublets are more active than single agents, and
triplets may be even better
• Use of combinations of agents, in some sequence,
results in better response rates, resection rates, time
to progression, and overall survival
• However, the agents do not all need to be used
upfront
• Judicious use of combination therapy, in an
appropriate sequence, is indicated for most patients
How Should We Use the Available Drugs
• Good activity by itself– 5-FU/LV– Capecitabine– UFT– Irinotecan– Raltitrexed
• Better used in combination– Oxaliplatin
• FOLFOX / XELOX• IROX
– Bevacizumab• 5-FU • Oxaliplatin• Irinotecan• Cetuximab
– Cetuximab• Irinotecan• FOLFOX / XELOX
– Panitumumab?
The Building Block Strategy
5-FU + LV
5-FU + Oxaliplatin
Irinotecan + Cetuximab
Capecitabine
Irin
ote
can
5-F
U +
B
ev
aciz
um
ab
Capecitabine + OxaliplatinPanitumumab
Conclusion
• Treatment objectives are often different
• Patients are different
• Tumor biology and behavior is variable1
• Why should the treatment be the same ?
• We desperately need studies to learn how to match
the correct treatment with the appropriate patient
1O’Connell et al Abst. 4009, ASCO 2007