Abstracts #338 and 339 Jordan Berlin, MD Ingram Professor of Cancer Research.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Biomarker Analyses in CLEOPATRA: A Phase III, Placebo-Controlled Study of Pertuzumab in HER2- Positive, First-Line Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC) Baselga.
Advertisements

Integration of Capecitabine into Anthracycline- and Taxane-Based Adjuvant Therapy for Triple Negative Early Breast Cancer: Final Subgroup Analysis of the.
A trial for women with –‘Triple negative’ breast cancer (TNBC) –Localised to breast +/- lymph nodes –Recommended standard treatment involves NEPTUNE Taxane.
Clinical Trial Designs for the Evaluation of Prognostic & Predictive Classifiers Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer.
The 70-Gene Profile and Chemotherapy Benefit in 1,600 Breast Cancer Patients Bender RA et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 512. (Oral Presentation)
Giuliano Pre-SSO mins ASCO Z mins
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Individualizing Therapy for Gastrointestinal Malignancies 2010 Update
Clinical Relevance of HER2 Overexpression/Amplification in Patients with Small Tumor Size and Node-Negative Breast Cancer Curigliano G et al. J Clin Oncol.
Pier Luigi Filosso, MD University of Torino, Department of Thoracic Surgery The Impact of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Pulmonary Large Cell Neuroendocrine.
References 1.Salazar R, Roepman P, Capella G et al. Gene expression signature to improve prognosis prediction of stage II and III colorectal cancer. J.
Biomarker-driven treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer - making sense of what we know June 7, 2010 Neal J. Meropol, M.D. Chief, Division of Hematology.
Eleni Galani Medical Oncologist
Tang G et al. Proc SABCS 2010;Abstract S4-9.
N ational S urgical A djuvant B reast and B owel P roject.
ERCC 1 isoform expression and DNA repair in NSCLC
Lymphadenectomy in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Oxaliplatin/5FU/LV in adjuvant colon cancer: Updated efficacy results of the MOSAIC trial, including survival, with a median follow-up.
Discussion abstracts Alberto Sobrero MD Ospedale San Martino Genoa, Italy.
Sgroi DC et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-9.
Adjuvant Therapy of Colon Cancer 2005 Daniel G. Haller, M.D. Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA.
Insert Program or Hospital Logo Introduction Melanoma is notoriously resistant to chemotherapy. While surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy can.
Metabolic Syndrome and Recurrence within the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Risk Categories in Lymph Node Negative Breast Cancer Lakhani A et al. Proc.
A Quantitative Multi-Gene RT-PCR Assay for Prediction of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer (CC): Selection of the Genes in 4 Large Studies and Results.
Capecitabine versus Bolus 5-FU/Leucovorin as Adjuvant Therapy for Colon Cancer: X-ACT Trial Results James Cassidy, MD Colorectal Cancer Update Think Tank.
Dubsky P et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S4-3.
Guanylyl Cyclase C (GCC) Lymph Nodes (LN) Classification as a Prognostic Marker in Patients with Stage II Colon Cancer: A Pooled Analysis Daniel J. Sargent,
The Use of Trastuzumab in the Elderly in the Adjuvant Setting and After Disease Progression in Patients with HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer Dall.
INCREASED EXPRESSION OF PROTEIN KINASE CK2  SUBUNIT IN HUMAN GASTRIC CARCINOMA Kai-Yuan Lin 1 and Yih-Huei Uen 1,2,3 1 Department of Medical Research,
This house believes that FOLFIRINOX is the best treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma Pro Marc YCHOU Montpellier.
Gene Expression Signatures for Prognosis in NSCLC, Coupled with Signatures of Oncogenic Pathway Deregulation, Provide a Novel Approach for Selection of.
1 THE ROLE OF COVARIATES IN CLINICAL TRIALS ANALYSES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr., PhD Boston University FDA ODAC March 13, 2006.
Outcomes Following Adjuvant 5-FU based Treatment (AT) for Colon Cancer vs Impact on Recurrence Rate, Time from Recurrence to Death.
T Andre, E Quinaux, C Louvet, E Gamelin, O Bouche, E Achille, P Piedbois, N Tubiana-Mathieu, M Buyse and A de Gramont. Updated results at 6 year of the.
Validation of four gene-expression risk scores in a large colon cancer cohort and contribution to an improved prognostic method Antonio F. Di Narzo 1,
Risk Stratified Analysis Improves Prediction of Treatment Benefit Over Subgroup Analysis: Findings from Intergroup N9741 HK Sanoff, ME Campbell, HC Pitot,
Tumor clock protein PER2 as a determinant of survival in patients (pts) receiving oxaliplatin-5-FU- leucovorin as 1st line chemotherapy for metastatic.
Individualizing Adjuvant Therapy on the Basis of Molecular Markers Charles S. Fuchs, MD Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Harvard Medical School Boston, MA.
KRAS status and efficacy in the first- line treatment of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience Carsten.
Gray Zone Lymphoma (GZL) with Features Intermediate between Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Large Retrospective.
A comparative study of survival models for breast cancer prognostication based on microarray data: a single gene beat them all? B. Haibe-Kains, C. Desmedt,
Clinical and technical validation of a genomic classifier (ColoPrint) for predicting outcome of stage II colon cancer patients Josep Tabernero, Vall d’Hebron.
The impact of smoking on cancer recurrence and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer: findings from CALGB Nadine A. Jackson, Charles S.
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology
S1207: Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Use of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy +/- One Year of Everolimus in Patients.
Who can benefit from chemotherapy holidays after first-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer ? N. Perez-Staub, B. Chibaudel, A. Figer, A. Cervantes,
Results Abstract Analysis of Prognostic Web-based Models for Stage II and III Colon Cancer: A Population-based Validation of Numeracy and Adjuvant! Online.
Identification of localized rectal cancer (RC) patients (pts) who may NOT require preoperative (preop) chemoradiation (CRT). D. Roda 1, M. Frasson 2, E.
Date of download: 5/29/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Gene Expression Signatures, Clinicopathological Features,
Microsatellite Instability Predicts Improved Response to Adjuvant Therapy With Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in Stage III Colon Cancer In association.
Complete pathologic responses in the primary of rectal or colon cancer treated with FOLFOX without radiation A. Cercek, M. R. Weiser, K. A. Goodman, D.
COMPARING DISEASE OUTCOME OF WOMEN WITH HORMONE RECEPTOR NEGATIVE/HER2 POSITIVE (HR-/HER2+) OR TRIPLE NEGATIVE (TN) METASTATIC BREAST CANCER (MBC) RECEIVING.
종양혈액내과 R4 고원진 / pf. 김시영 Rectal cancer : state of the art in 2012 Curr Opin Oncol 2012, 24:441–447.
Risk Stratification in Stage II Colon Cancer Patients Ramzi Amri, MD, PhD; Liliana G Bordeianou, MD, MPH; and David L Berger, MD Massachusetts General.
Mamounas EP et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-10.
Prognostic and Predictive Value of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay in Postmenopausal Women with Node-Positive, Estrogen- Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.
EMT inducing transcription factor SIP1: a predictive biomarker of colorectal cancer survival and recurrence? A Patel, R Sreekumar, R Bhome, KA Moutasim,
Is there a role for adjuvant oxaliplatin in rectal cancer? - YES! -
Colon Cancer Stages I-III
Jordan Berlin Co-Director, GI Oncology Program
Time-dependent patterns of treatment effect and failure as an explanation for the predictive role of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) in stage II and III.
MJ O’Connell for the ACCENT Collaborative Group
First efficacy and safety results from XELOX-1/NO16966, a randomised 2x2 factorial phase III trial of XELOX vs FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab or placebo in first-line.
Published online September 20, 2017 by JAMA Surgery
Cetuximab with chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies according to KRAS.
Adjuvant chemotherapy after potentially curative resection of metastases from colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis of two randomized trials E Mitry, A Fields,
Ali Shamseddine,MD,FRCP
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 265.
Presentation transcript:

Abstracts #338 and 339 Jordan Berlin, MD Ingram Professor of Cancer Research

Our goal is to improve the outcomes for those we can help while minimizing toxic exposure for those for whom our treatments provide no benefit

What do we know about stage II colon cancer? It is a heterogeneous stage with an overall good prognosis Fluoropyrimidine adjuvant therapy provides benefit to ~3-4% of unselected patients –FOLFOX does not appear to improve outcomes for low risk patients –At time of last publication, FOLFOX did not statistically improve survival of high risk stage II patients The HR was 0.72, NS and more people were alive with relapse in the 5FU arm at time of publication ASCO guidelines state that discussion of adjuvant therapy in stage II should be done

Clinicopathologic markers for high risk Consider treatment if presence of 1 or more of the following based on ASCO guidelines 4 –T4 stage –Poorly differentiated histology –Bowel obstruction or perforation –<12 Lymph nodes resected –Lympho-vascular invasion –Perineural invasion –Close margins –Elevated preoperative CEA Also, we have Mismatch Repair (MMR) or MSI –This is prognostic for improved when MMR is deficient –This also appears predictive of 5FU effect in stage II 4. Benson AB et al. J Clin Oncol 2004.

Strategies to improve risk/benefit in stage II Further refine the population at risk –Theoretically these patients have the best chance for benefit –Eg T4 and or at least 2 high risk features –Other prognostic markers Define the populations who will benefit from chemotherapy –Predictive markers

Oncotype DX: Primary Analysis: Recurrence Score Predicts Recurrence Risk in Stage II & III Colon Cancer Patients in NSABP C-07 (n=892) Solid: 5FU Dashed: 5FU+Ox Stage III C Stage III A/B Stage II With similar relative benefit of oxaliplatin added to adjuvant 5FU across the range of RS, absolute benefit of oxaliplatin increases with increasing RS, most apparently in stage II and stage IIIA/B patients p<0.001 Solid: 5FU Dashed: 5FU+Ox O’Connell, ASCO 2012

Oncotype DX: 5-year Recurrence Risk in 5FU treated arm Cox Regression Analysis (n=892) Stage IIStage IIIA/BStage IIIC RS Group*% pts Average Risk 95% CI % pts Average Risk 95% CI % pts Average Risk 95% CI Low39%9% (6-13%)41%21% (16-26%)33%40% (32-48%) Intermediate36%13% (8-17%)34%29% (24-34%)37%51% (43-59%) High25%18% (12-25%)25%38% (30-46%)30%64% (55-74%) * Pre-specified RS Groups: Low (RS<30), Intermediate (30≤RS<41), High (RS≥41). Recurrence risk is significantly higher in High vs. Low RS group: HR = 2.11, p<0.001 O’Connell, ASCO 2012

Contribution of RS Beyond Clinical and Pathologic Covariates Pre-specified Multivariate Analysis (n=892) VariableValueHRHR 95% CIP value Stage <0.001 (by nodal status)Stage III A/B vs. II0.97(0.55,1.71) Stage III C vs. II2.07(1.16,3.68) TreatmentFU+Oxali vs. FU0.82(0.64,1.06)0.12 MMRMMR-D vs. MMR-P0.27(0.12,0.62)<0.001 T-stage T4 st II & T3-T4 st III vs. T3 st II & T1-T2 st III 3.04(1.84,5.02)<0.001 Nodes examined<12 vs. ≥121.51(1.17,1.95)0.002 Tumor gradeHigh vs. Low1.36(1.02,1.82)0.041 RSper 25 units1.57(1.19,2.08)0.001 RS is significantly associated with risk of recurrence after controlling for effects of T and N stage, MMR status, number of nodes examined, grade and treatment

Contribution of RS Beyond Clinical and Pathologic Covariates Pre-specified Multivariate Analysis (n=892) VariableValueHRHR 95% CIP value Stage <0.001 (by nodal status)Stage III A/B vs. II0.97(0.55,1.71) Stage III C vs. II2.07(1.16,3.68) TreatmentFU+Oxali vs. FU0.82(0.64,1.06)0.12 MMRMMR-D vs. MMR-P0.27(0.12,0.62)<0.001 T-stage T4 st II & T3-T4 st III vs. T3 st II & T1-T2 st III 3.04(1.84,5.02)<0.001 Nodes examined<12 vs. ≥121.51(1.17,1.95)0.002 Tumor gradeHigh vs. Low1.36(1.02,1.82)0.041 RSper 25 units1.57(1.19,2.08)0.001 RS is significantly associated with risk of recurrence after controlling for effects of T and N stage, MMR status, number of nodes examined, grade and treatment

Kaplan-Meier plot of time to cancer-related death in the independent validation set. Kennedy R D et al. JCO 2011;29: ©2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Gene signature analysis This prognosis was independent of known clinicopathologic factors

Data from QUASAR study using 13 cancer-related genes : Kaplan-Meier estimates of 3-year recurrence in surgery-alone patients by risk group. Gray R G et al. JCO 2011;29: ©2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology QUASAR prognosis stratification

Gray R G et al. JCO 2011;29: ©2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Risk groups did not predict for chemotherapy benefit

Use of Adjuvant Chemotherapy & Outcomes in Stage II Colon Cancer with vs. without Poor Prognostic Features Aalok Kumar, Hagen Kennecke, Howard Lim, Daniel Renouf, Ryan Woods, Caroline Speers, and Winson Cheung Department of Medical Oncology British Columbia Cancer Agency

What was the study? An exploratory analysis of prospectively collected data in the British Columbia Cancer Agency Gastro-Intestinal Cancers Outcomes Unit (GICOU) –10 year period of analysis –1,697 patients divided into high vs low risk based on ASCO guidelines Note: these guidelines are well-considered and literature based. Although 9 years old, they are still relevant 73% high risk and 27% low risk

Some baseline lessons –More patients in the high risk category (29%) received adjuvant therapy than in the low risk category (13%) –Patients ≥ 70 years of age were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy –Perforation and T stage appeared to play the largest roles in selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy CEA also played a role

Some issues to note The performance status –This may have been measured early, but PS = 3 were treated (surprising) and comprised a huge population Perforation/obstruction –Seemed like a high proportion of patients presented with these findings Adjuvant therapy –We don’t actually know what the choice of adjuvant therapy was for the patients

Putting this into perspective Low risk group –Nothing about adjuvant chemotherapy looked good –Univariate 3 year relapse survival, 5 year disease specific survival and 5 year overall survival were similar with or without adjuvant chemotherapy –Multivariate Just made chemo look worse in this setting. 3 year RFS, 5 year DSS were worse with adjuvant chemo Note: The selection of low risk patient for chemo may have included some key factors not assessed that put them at higher risk for recurrence or death

High Risk Group Very confusing Univariate outcomes –3 year RFS and 5 year DSS were identical with or without adjuvant chemotherapy –5 year OS was improved with adjuvant chemo

Does adjuvant chemotherapy heal what is ailing you? The univariate analysis seems to suggest that while chemotherapy does not impact death from colorectal cancers, it does affect overall survival. –This is counterintuitive suggesting that chemotherapy reduced deaths from other causes –The multivariate outcomes analysis sheds more light

High Risk Outcomes Multivariate outcomes analysis showed that the high risk group does appear to benefit from adjuvant chemotehrapy (HR = 0.67 for OS) –However benefits vary T4 seems to have more benefit than T3 Multiple high risk features predicts for more benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy Single high risk feature T3 patients derive uncertain benefit

What is the bottom line? This seems to confirm that stage II patients overall have a good prognosis, but –There are subsets with better and worse prognoses –Clinicopathologic parameters can separate these groups to an extent –But we don’t truly know who benefits from chemo That group is small –And to benefit these patients we need to expose a large number of these patients to the risks

Is there a best way to use the data? We could use prognosis to segregate –Low risk individuals based on clinicopathologic criteria Don’t appear to benefit from chemotherapy and may even be harmed based on this data –Very high risk (T4, multiple high risk features) Appear to benefit from chemotherapy and maybe have the best chance to derive benefit –Intermediate risk (T3, one high risk feature) These are still the most complex, and maybe they would derive the most benefit from one of these recurrence risk panels

Summary However, we still risk exposing many patients who have no chance of benefit to adjuvant chemotherapy –While there are many gene signatures out there, these need to be validated prospectively Ideally we need predictive markers—these markers would ideally completely separate those who benefit from adjvant chemotherapy from those who don’t –Currently, our only predictive marker appears to be MMR –ECOG 5202 may shed more light on prognostic groups

Summary II The abstract presented did not assess mismatch repair (MMR) phenotype (ie microsatellite instability/stability) –While mismatch repair biology and its impact on treatment and prognosis is still emerging –Mismatch repair deficiency correlates with a better prognosis in stage II colon cancer The pathology often reads as poorly differentiated –In stage II colon cancer MMR deficiency predicts for lack of benefit from fluoropyrimidines

A Molecular Profile of Colorectal Cancer to Guide Prognosis and Therapy after Resection of Primary or Metastatic Disease Joshua M. Uronis, Ph.D. Hsu Laboratory Duke Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy Duke Cancer Institute Duke University

What did they do? They took microarray data from 850 primary CRC samples Looked at patterns of pathway activation/deregulation for 19 oncogenic pathways –6 subrgroups came out of this Then evaluated 133 metastatic CRC samples –6 subgroups again identified

What they learned Their 6 subgroups had different recurrence free survival –The same group did the worst in both resected primary and resected liver metastases –These subgroups could not be differentiated by any specific oncogene mutations –But these subgroups had potential to have differential sensitivity to targeted agents.

Next step: prove the differential sensitivity to targeted agents--predictive They have now developed 50 explant models from patients into mice –These appear to maintain their characteristic features over multiple generations They can place these explants into the 6 subgroups –Example given was from subgroups expected to be resistant and expected to be sensitive to mTOR inhibitors based on their pathway activation analysis

Rad001 Control Predicted Sensitive Predicted Resistant Control Rad001 Predicting Drug Responses

What have we learned? This is early and needs further testing However, they can potentially use the mouse model to identify targets to “hit” and agents that are effective for each subgroup –This may allow us to find more active agents for each subgroup –The authors hope to use this to find adjuvant therapies

Are there advantages over other model systems? This model would not require growing every patient’s tumor in vivo, –It identifies putative drugs for subgroups –Analysis of a patient’s tumor specimen could lump them into one of the 6 subgroups –And if clinical trials prove what their preclinical models show, Each subgroup will be treated differently, but with potentially more active agents

Conclusions Both abstracts add to our knowledge in colorectal cancer –Kumar, et al showed that our clinicopathologic prognosis models in stage II need more modification However, there are groups that can potentially be designated to treatment or no treatment based on these factors alone –Uronis, et al have developed a model that may help us to subdivide CRC patients and treat them (personalized) based on their subgroup However, this needs further preclinical testing and clinical trial validation This provides an alternative to genomic analysis which may identify mutations, but we don’t know if this means pathway dependence/activation/dysregulation