Cmab might have therapeutic benefit in Japanese patients with KRAS p.G13D mutant colorectal cancer. Limitations of this study are its retrospective design.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) vs FOLFIRI plus bev
Advertisements

CM A pooled safety & efficacy analysis examining the effect of performance status on outcomes in 9 first line treatment trials of 6,286 patients.
1 N9841: A Randomized Phase III Equivalence Trial of Irinotecan (CPT-11) versus FOLFOX4 in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Carcinoma Previously Treated.
Pilot Experience with Adjuvant FOLFIRI +/- Cetuximab in Patients with Resected Stage III Colon Cancer – NCCTG Intergroup N0147 J. Huang*, D. J. Sargent*,
Kovacs G et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 23.
Surgical resection of metastatic GIST on imatinib delays recurrence and death: results of a cross- match comparison in the EORTC Intergroup study.
Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine plus Cetuximab versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Southwest.
Experience and Outcomes with Hypofractionated Concurrent Chemoradiation for Stage III NSCLC at NCCC Gregory Webb Medical Student.
Choice of chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Eng C1, Rogers J2, Chang GJ3, You N3, Das P4, Rodriguez-Bigas.
Definition of oxaliplatin sensitivity in pts with advanced colorectal cancer previously treated with oxaliplatin-based therapy A. de Gramont, B. Chibaudel,
Van Cutsem E et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract LBA4509. (Oral Presentation)
Therapeutic Significance of D-dimer Cut-off Level of more than 3 µg/ml in Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Standard Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab.
1 A Randomized, Multi-Center Phase III Trial of Irinotecan in Combination with Three Different Methods of Administration of Fluoropyrimidine with Celecoxib.
Results of Docetaxel Plus Oxaliplatin (DOCOX) +/- Cetuximab in Patients with Metastatic Gastric and/or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Results.
Results of the X-PECT Study: A phase III randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of perifosine plus capecitabine (P-CAP) vs. placebo plus capecitabine.
*University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
IntroductionIntroduction ObjectiveObjective Patient selection criteria ResultsResults ConclusionsConclusions Polymorphisms in fragment C receptor (FcγR)
This house believes that FOLFIRINOX is the best treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma Pro Marc YCHOU Montpellier.
Impact of age and comorbidities on treatment effect, tolerance and toxicity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) treated on CALGB
Response rate using conventional criteria is a poor surrogate for clinical benefit on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal.
Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing FOLFIRINOX (F: 5FU/Leucovorin [LV], Irinotecan [I], and Oxaliplatin [O]) versus Gemcitabine (G) as First-Line Treatment.
The treatment of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCCA) of the anal canal: A single institution experience P. Pathak, B. King, A. Ohinata, P. Das, C.H.
Risk Stratified Analysis Improves Prediction of Treatment Benefit Over Subgroup Analysis: Findings from Intergroup N9741 HK Sanoff, ME Campbell, HC Pitot,
Mace L. Rothenberg, M.D. Professor of Medicine Ingram Professor of Cancer Research Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer Management: KRAS Mutations and EGFR.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
Best of ASCO – Colorectal & Pancreatic Cancers Best of ASCO Colorectal & Pancreatic Cancers Ali Shamseddine, MD Professor of Medicine Head of Hematology/Oncology.
0 Adjuvant FOLFIRI +/- Cetuximab in Patients with Resected Stage III Colon Cancer NCCTG Intergroup Phase III Trial N0147 Jocelin Huang, Daniel J Sargent,
MABEL – a large multinational study of cetuximab plus irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer progressing on irinotecan H Wilke, R Glynne-Jones, J Thaler,
KRAS status and efficacy in the first- line treatment of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFOX with or without cetuximab: The OPUS experience Carsten.
A paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced lung cancer: survival and symptom benefits with Tarceva Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu Cancer Institute Ion Chiricuta.
Results From Panitumumab Regimen Evaluation in Colorectal Cancer to Estimate Primary Response to Treatment (PRECEPT): Second-Line Treatment With Panitumumab.
ECCO ESMO 2011 GI Cancer Updates TAS102 and BSC vs. Placebo and BSC Reviewer: Dr. Scott Berry Date posted: October 2011.
Gray Zone Lymphoma (GZL) with Features Intermediate between Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Large Retrospective.
Preliminary Results from a Phase II study of FOLFIRI and Bevacizumab as First Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (Abstract #3579) S. Kopetz,
Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the influence of KRAS and BRAF biomarkers on outcome: updated data from the CRYSTAL.
Phase II trial of chemotherapy with high-dose FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the front-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)
KRAS status (wild-type vs mutant) correlates with efficacy to first-line cetuximab in a study of cetuximab single agent followed by cetuximab + FOLFIRI.
Riccardo Giampieri Scuola di Specializzazione Oncologia Università Politecnica delle Marche Ancona How to manage patients with mutated KRAS tumors.
1 CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIES mCRC: Effectiveness and Safety of 1st- and 2nd-line Bevacizumab Treatment in Elderly Patients Mark Kozloff, MD.
D. P. Modest 1, R. P. Laubender 2, L. Fischer von Weikersthal 3, U. Vehling-Kaiser 4, M. Stauch 5, H. Hass 6, H. F. Dietzfelbinger 7, D. V. Oruzio 8, S.
Impact of Bevacizumab (Bev) on Efficacy of Second-Line Chemotherapy (CT) for Triple- Negative Breast Cancer: Analysis of RIBBON-2 Brufsky A et al. Proc.
Introduction Patients and Methods Results Conclusion Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the 108 patients included in the biomarker analysis. Objectives.
P.A. Tang 1, S. J. Cohen 1, G. Bjarnason 1, C. Kollmannsberger 1, K. Virik 1, M. J. MacKenzie 1, J. Brown 1, L. Wang 1, A. Chen 2, M. J. Moore 1 1 Princess.
Patterns of Care in Medical Oncology Treatment of Metastatic Colon Cancer.
1 A Randomized, Multi-Center Phase III Trial of Irinotecan in Combination with Three Different Methods of Administration of Fluoropyrimidine with Celecoxib.
Pharmacogenetic analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with second-line irinotecan (IR)+/- cetuximab (CB): The EPIC experience.
Surgery of colorectal metastasis in the Optimox 1 study. A GERCOR Study. N. Perez-Staub, G. Lledo, F. Paye, B. Gayet, M. Flesch, A. Cervantes, A. Figer,
A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study of Eribulin Mesylate versus Capecitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast.
Phase I/II study of oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 plus oral Leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer T. Yoshino 1, W. Koizumi 2,
Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine Compared with Gemcitabine Alone in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute.
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.
Single-agent nab-Paclitaxel Given Weekly (3/4) as First-line Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer (An International Oncology Network Study, #I )
Mamounas EP et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract S1-10.
Correlation of tumor mutation burden and chemotherapy outcomes
Alessandra Gennari, MD PhD
Results of Definitive Radiotherapy in Anal Canal Carcinoma
KEYNOTE-012: Durable Efficacy With Pembrolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Gastric Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
BRAF mutant mCRC patients – What would you recommend? FOLFIRINOX/Bev
Clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer patients among KRAS wild type, p.G13D and other mutations: Results from a multicenter, cross-sectional.
or other irinotecan-based regimens
Progression-Free Survival Times Overall Survival Times
Published online September 20, 2017 by JAMA Surgery
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
Cetuximab with chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies according to KRAS.
KRAS status and efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab: The.
Adjuvant chemotherapy after potentially curative resection of metastases from colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis of two randomized trials E Mitry, A Fields,
Phase III study of irinotecan/5FU/LV (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5FU/LV (FOLFOX) +/- cetuximab for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the.
GOCS GRUPO ONCOLÓGICO COOPERATIVO DEL SUR
Coiffier B et al. Proc ASH 2011;Abstract 265.
Figure S1. A. B. Figure S1. Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival by treatment group in soluble heregulin (HRG)-high population (A) and soluble.
Presentation transcript:

Cmab might have therapeutic benefit in Japanese patients with KRAS p.G13D mutant colorectal cancer. Limitations of this study are its retrospective design and small sample size. Further evaluation of therapeutic benefits are required. 1)Age >20 years 2)Fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan refractory 3)ECOG PS 0–2 4)Adequate hematological, hepatic, renal, cardiac, and bone marrow function 5)Histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; KRAS status evaluated 6)Treatment regimen: Cmab+CPT-11 7)CT evaluation: 28 days before Cmab treatment, more than once within 3 months after Cmab treatment Ninety-four patients were treated with Cmab+CPT-11 (From September 2008 to July 2010). Sixty-three, 7, and 23 patients had KRAS wild-type, p.G13D KRAS mutant and other KRAS mutant tumors, respectively (Figure 1). Baseline characteristics by each subset were well-balanced (Table 1). The RRs of patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors were 32%, 14%, and 0%, respectively. The disease control rates (PR+SD) of the same groups were 74%, 71%, and 61%, respectively (Figures 2–3). Median PFSs of patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors were 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5–6.5), 4.5 months (95% CI, 1.7 – ), and 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9–4.3), respectively (Figure 4). Median OSs of patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors were 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.7–19.8), 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.5–11.8), and 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.5–9.4), respectively (Figure 5). Although statistically significant difference was not found between the two mutant groups (PFS; P = , OS; P = ), there were trends that suggested that patients with p.G13D mutant tumors might have received better clinical benefits from Cmab than those with other KRAS mutant tumors. We would like to express our sincere thanks to all participating patients and investigators. This study was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (21 S4-5) from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan. Clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer harboring KRAS p.G13D mutation treated with Cetuximab GI-biomarker National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan, 2 The Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR, Tokyo, Japan, 3 Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan, 4 Shikoku Cancer Center, Ehime, Japan, 5 Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan, 6 Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan, 7 National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan Bando H. 1, Yoshino T. 1, Shinozaki E. 2, Yuki S. 3, Nishina T. 4, Kadowaki S. 5, Yamazaki K. 6, Tsuchihara K. 1, Fujii S. 1, Yamanaka T Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutant tumors are presently not treated with cetuximab (Cmab). From the pooled analysis of randomized control studies, patients with p.G13D mutant tumors treated with Cmab had longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than patients with other KRAS mutant tumors. Methods: Data of 94 patients from 9 Japanese institutions were collected and retrospectively analyzed. All patients were refractory to fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan and were treated with a Cmab+irinotecan (Cmab+CPT-11) combination regimen. The response rate (RR), PFS, and OS were assessed and compared for their KRAS status. Results: Ninety-four patients were treated with the combination therapy. Among these patients 7, 23, and 63 patients had p.G13D mutant KRAS, wild-type KRAS tumors, and other KRAS mutant tumors, respectively. Baseline characteristics by each subset were well-balanced. While 1 partial response (PR) and 4 stable disease (SD) patients were found among 7 patients with p.G13D mutant tumors, no PR was found in patients with other KRAS mutant tumors. The median PFSs of patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors were 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.5–6.5), 4.5 months (95% CI, 1.7-), and 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.9–4.3), respectively. The median OSs of patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors were 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.7–19.8), 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.5–11.8), and 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.5–9.4), respectively. Although statistically significant difference was not found between the two mutant groups, there were trends that suggested that patients with p.G13D mutant tumors may have received better clinical benefits from Cmab than those with other KRAS mutant tumors. Conclusion: Cmab might have therapeutic benefits in Japanese patients with KRAS p.G13D mutant colorectal cancer, although further evaluation is necessary. Background Study design Methods Abstract Objective Conclusion Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutant tumors are presently not treated with Cmab. Although KRAS mutations of colorectal cancer tissues have been detected in both codons 12 and 13, most KRAS mutations of pancreatic and lung cancer tissues have been detected in codon 12 (Background 1). Some patients with mutant KRAS status only occasionally respond to Cmab. The tumors of those patients predominantly had codon 13 mutations, and all codon 13 responders have mutations of p.G13D* 1)-3). * p.G13D: glycine (G) to aspartate (D) transition mutation From the pooled analysis of randomized control studies, the patients with p.G13D mutant tumors treated with Cmab had longer OS and PFS than patients with other KRAS mutant tumors 4) (Background 2). 1)Benvenuti S, et al. Cancer Res. 2007,67(6): )Frattini M, et al. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(8): )Moroni M, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(5): )De Roock W, et al. JAMA 2010; 304: To compare the efficacy of Cmab among Japanese patients with KRAS wild-type, p.G13D mutant, and other KRAS mutant tumors Data of 94 patients from 9 Japanese institutions were collected and retrospectively analyzed. RR, PFS, and OS were assessed for patients’ KRAS status. Statistical analysis ・ RR was assessed according to RECIST ver.1.0 criteria. ・ PFS and OS were calculated according to the Kaplan – Meier method and compared using the Log-rank test. Results Waterfall plot analysis Overall survival 94 patients were enrolled (from September 2008 to July 2010) Patient enrollment by KRAS status Patient selection criteria LungPancreasLarge intestine Total Unique Samples Unique Mutated Samples % Mutated 17%68%35% Lung cancerPancreas cancerColon cancer Codon % (2219) 99.0% (2700) 79.4% (7682) Codon % (143) 0.7% (18) 19.2% (1854) Distributions of mutations Survival KRAS p.G13D Mutation (n = 45) Other KRAS Mutations (n = 265) KRAS Wild-Type (n = 464) Overall Survival Any Cmab-based treatment (No.) Median survival (95% CI), mo 7.6 (5.7–20.5)5.7 (4.9–6.8)10.1 (9.4–11.3) Multivariate HR (95% CI) 1 〔 Reference 〕 0.50 (0.31–0.81)0.94 (0.60–1.48) Cox regression P value Progression-free Survival Any Cmab-based treatment (No.) Median survival (95% CI), mo 4.0 (1.9–6.2)1.9 (1.8–2.8)4.2 (3.9–5.4) Multivariate HR (95% CI) 1 〔 Reference 〕 0.49 (0.28–0.86)1.30 (0.78–2.16) Cox regression P value  Background 1 KRAS status of cancer in each organ  Background 2 The pooled analysis of randomized control studies Wild-type (n = 63) p.G13D mutant (n = 7) Other KRAS mutant (n = 23) Total (n = 94) Age (median) Sex (M/F)40/233/412/1155/39 ECOG PS (0/1/2)40/22/15/1/115/7/160/31/3 Colon/Rectum42/215/219/466/28 Site of Metastasis Liver71.4%57.1%69.6%68.1% Lung66.7%57.1%73.9%68.1% Lymph node54.0%28.6%43.5%51.3% Peritoneum23.8%28.6%13.0%21.0% Prior Bevacizumab49.2%57.1%52.2%50.0% Enrollment: 94 KRAS wild-type 63 Other KRAS mutants 23 p.G13D mutant 7 Criteria met: 93 KRAS not evaluated: 1 Figure 1 Table 1 Patient Characteristic Response rate PR SD PD CR Wild-type (n = 63) Other KRAS mutant (n = 23) SD PD KRASPFS ( median months ) Wild-type (n = 63)4.6 p.G13D mutant (n = 7)4.5 Other KRAS mutant (n = 23) 2.3 Log Rank test p.G13D vs. Other KRAS P = p.G13D vs. Wild-type P = Progression-free survival KRASOS (median months) Wild-type (n = 63)12.2 p.G13D mutant (n = 7)9.3 Other KRAS mutants (n = 23) 7.4 Log Rank test p.G13D vs. Other KRAS P = p.G13D vs. Wild-type P = Figure 3 (Figure 4) (Figure 5) Figure 2 Days Acknowledgement Wild-type (n = 62) p.G13D mutant (n = 7) Other KRAS mutant (n = 23) SD PD p.G13D mutant (n = 7) PR De Roock W, et al. JAMA 2010; 304: