Download presentation
1
Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer
Ronald L. Burkes, M.D.
2
Historic Synopsis in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
5-FU has anti-tumor activity Biochemical modulation of 5-FU with LV 1989 HAI with FUDR RR Responses seen post bolus 5-FU with infusional 5-FU Adjuvant CT (5-FU/Lev or 5-FU/LV) for colon cancer Adjuvant CT + RT for rectal cancer New drugs - CPT-11/Tomudex/Oxaliplatin MTD – Cetuximab; Bevacizumab; Panitumumab
3
Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: Yes, No and Maybe So
4
Why is the Situation in Stage II Colon Cancer Less Clear than Stage III
DFS and survival difference is small – relatively low activity of adjuvant treatment High patient numbers required to show a difference Stage II is a heterogeneous disease for Clinical factors Pathological factors Molecular factors Most trials were not stratified for these factors
5
Why is Adjuvant Therapy Effective in Stage III but not Stage II Disease: The Numbers
To detect a 2% survival difference between Rx and controls (90% power with significance level of .05) would require a sample size of 9680 pts per group To detect an absolute risk reduction of 2.5% at 3 yrs and 4% at 5 (85% & 75% survival) would require a study of 8000 and 4700 pts respectively Benson JCO 22:3408, 2004
6
Stage II Colon Cancer: Poor Prognostic factors
Inadequate staging Clinical/pathological features Molecular/enzymatic factors
7
Poor Prognostic Factors: Inadequate Staging
Variability of the number of lymph nodes sampled Recent reports have independently recommended that >10 lymph nodes (ideally >12) be examined to classify a colon cancer as truly N0 Intergroup adjuvant trial National Cancer Data Base JCO, 2003 Ann Surg Oncology, 2003
8
Clinical/Pathological Features: Subset Analysis for B2 Intergroup Study (7 year survival)
Covariate Observation 5-FU/Lev Adhesion 70% 82% Invasion 64% 86% Obstruction 58% Perforation 51% 67%
9
Stage II a Heterogeneous Disease: Molecular Factors
Microsatellite instability – MSI-Hi > MSS (stg for stg) MSI-H vs MSS with CT – ND MSS with CT - ↑ survival MSI-H with CT – ND (trend to survival) 18q LOH DNA ploidy EGFR+ P53 Microarray gene expression profiling ???KRAS Gryfe NEJM 342:69, 2000 Ribic NEJM 349:247, 2003 Watanabe NEJM 344:1196, 2001 Barrier JCO 24:4685, 2006
10
Other Prognostic Pathological Variables
Grade Lymphovascular invasion Perineural invasion ?Immune response – lymphocytic infiltrate confers a better prognosis; fibrosis a worse prognosis
11
Pooled Analysis of Fluorouracil-Based Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II and III Colon Cancer
3 factors predict prognosis - nodal status – N0 vs N1-4 vs >5 - depth of invasion – T1/2 vs T3 vs T4 - grade – low vs high Stage II - 17% relative reduction in risk of recurrence (4% ↑ in 5 yr DFS; 72% vs 76% but overall survival was 80% vs 81%) Gill JCO 22:1797, 2004
12
Adjuvant on Line Depth of invasion Histologic grade
# of nodes involved # of nodes examined Derived tumor stage Age General health (# of comorbid conditions) Treatment
13
5-FU + Levamisole for Stage II/Dukes’ B2 Colon Cancer
Obs 5-FU/Lev n RFS (7 yr) % % p=.1 OS (7 yr) % % p=.83 recurrence by 31% (p=.1) disparity secondary to: - higher rates of non-colon ca deaths with CT - salvage surgery Moertel JCO 13: 2936, 1995
14
IMPACT B2 Adjuvant Trials (n=1016) (GIVI0, NCIC, FFCD, NCCTG, Siena) Pooled Analysis
5-FU/FA Control (370/200) EFS (5 yrs) % 73% OS (5 yrs) % 80% JCO 17:1356, 1999 (Lancet 345:939,1995)
15
NSABP Colon Trials 5 Year Survival
16
Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines for Stage II Colon Cancer
August, 1997 31 RCT’s 3 meta-analysis 1 evidence-based consensus statement Update: April, 2000 4 meta-analysis New or updated reports on 19 RCT’s
17
Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines for Stage II Colon Cancer
Adjuvant therapy is not recommended Patients with high risk factors have a poorer prognosis and adjuvant CT could be considered - bowel obstruction - tumor adhesion - invasion - perforation - aneuploidy Figueredo Ca Prev Control 1: 379, 1997 CCOPGI: Full Report – April, 2000
18
Systematic Review from the CCO Program in Evidence-Based Care’s GI Disease Site Group: Conclusions
No compelling evidence to use systemic adjuvant therapy. There probably is a small benefit that present trials have yet to detect as significant. Additional investigation of newer therapies and more mature data from the available trials should be pursued. Figueredo JCO 22:3395, 2004
19
Conclusions Regarding Adjuvant Therapy: ASCO Guidelines
Adjuvant therapy for low-risk stage II colon cancer is not supported by randomized controlled trials. Adjuvant therapy for hi-risk stage II disease is recommended - ? regimen. Benson JCO 22:3408, 2005
20
Adjuvant CT vs Observation: QUASAR Gray PASCO 23:246(3501), 2004
FUFA Obs n=3239 Stg II 92% 92% Colon 71% 71% 5 yr - RR 22.2% % - Surv % %
21
Adjuvant Immunotherapy with MoAb 17-1A for Stage II CRC: CO
Adjuvant Immunotherapy with MoAb 17-1A for Stage II CRC: CO.14 (CALGB 9581) Colacchio PASCO 23:251(3522), 2004 17-1A No Difference pts (13% recurrence in each arm; 86% & % survival) Obs
22
Who Should be Considered for Adjuvant FOLFOX: Stage II Patients Chua PGI ASCO: 202 (#237), 2005
Hi-Risk - T4, venous invasion, perforation, obstruction All pts received LV/5-FU Hi-risk Low-risk Stage III DFS - 3 yr % % OS - 5 yr 77.6% % % Conclusions: Pts with hi-risk stage II had a worse DFS and OS than the low-risk group Recommend FOLFOX for hi-risk stage II
23
FULV vs FLOX for Stage II or III Colon Cancer: NSABP C-07 Wolmark PASCO 23&26: 246s/179s (3500/4005), 2005/2008 FULV FLOX N % 28.9% N % 44.8% N> % 25.6% Neuro - all gr % 1 yr) - gr % 1 yr) Oxali dose mg/m2 (1020 in MOSAIC)
24
FULV vs FLOX for Stage II or III Colon Cancer: NSABP C-07 Wolmark PASCO 26:179s (4005)2008
DFS - 3 yr - 5 yr 71.5% 64.2% 76.1% 69.4% OS - 5 yr - 6 yr 78.3% 73.5% 80.3% (p=.06) 77.7% (HR=.85) Surv after recur 22.2 mo 17.6 mo Global test for interaction between stage and Rx was not significant (p = .7)
25
Adjuvant Oxaliplatin + 5-FU + Leucovorin: MOSAIC Trial Andre NEJM 350:2343, 2004; de Gramont PASCO 23:246 (3501), 2005 and PASCO 25:#4007, 2007
26
LV5FU2 FOLFOX4 1123 1123 Stage II/III 40%/60% 40%/60%
Adjuvant Oxaliplatin + 5-FU + Leucovorin: MOSAIC Trial Andre NEJM 350:2343, 2004; deGramont PASCO 23:246 (3501), 2005 LV5FU FOLFOX4 Stage II/III 40%/60% 40%/60% Mean # cycles DI FU % % - Oxali %
27
MOSAIC Trial: 5 Year DFS de Gramont PASCO 25:#4007, 2007
LVFU2 FOLFOX4 All pts 67.4% 73.3% Stage III 58.9% 66.4% Stage II 79.9% 83.7% Hi-risk stage II (576) 74.9% 82.1% Low-risk stage II (323) 86.3% 89.1%
28
MOSAIC Trial: 6 Year Survival de Gramont PASCO 25:#4007, 2007
LV5FU2 FOLFOX4 All pts 76% 78.6% HR = .85; p = .057 Stage III 68.6% 73% HR = .8; p = .029 Stage II 86.8% 86.9% HR = 1; p = .996
29
MOSAIC Trial: Conclusions
DFS benefit seen at 3 yrs is maintained at 5 yrs At 6 years there is no survival benefit for stage II pts Despite a DFS benefit with F4 for hi-risk stage II pts this did not translate into a survival benefit There was no increase in 2nd cancers There is continued recovery in peripheral neuropathy but 15% of pts still had residual PN at 4yrs (.7% gr 3; 2.8% gr 2; 12% gr 1)
30
DFS (3 yr) vs OS (5 yr) as a Primary Endpoint for Adjuvant Therapy for CRC Sargent PASCO 23:249s (3512), 2005/JCO 23:8564, 2005 43 Rx arms; n = 20,898 pts M:F = 54:46 Stg II:III = 34:66 74% of recurrences in 1st 3 yrs 3 yr DFS & 5 yr OS – cc = .92 for stg III but only .65 for stg II DFS excellent predictor of OS at 5 yrs (stg III) ODAC voted 15 to 0 to accept as a surrogate marker (Pazdur)
31
Microsatellites Short, tandemly repeated DNA sequences
Detected at the molecular level using genomic DNA from either fresh or paraffin-fixed CRC tissues Insertion or deletions of nucleotides within repeated sequences of DNA = Microsatellite Instability Frequent alterations in DNA sequence length = MSI-H MSI is due to defective mismatch repair genes
32
dMMR as a Predictive Marker for Lack of Benefit from 5-FU based Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Sargent PASCO 26:180s (#4008), 2008
38
Summary of Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: DFS
Moertel IMPACT Gray Mosaic 7 yr yr yr yr Obs CT Obs CT Obs CT LV5FU2 F4 71% % % 76% % % % %
39
Conclusions: Stage II Prospective clinical trials and meta-analyses have not yet shown a benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy. Present guidelines have recommended against the use of such treatment in “standard risk” patients. The use of adjuvant therapy in subsets of stage II pts with ominous clinical, pathological or molecular characteristics appears reasonable although the value of this strategy has not been prospectively validated and the regimen to use is controversial.
40
Stage III Disease
41
Intergroup Trial of Levamisole/5-FU for Stage III Colon Carcinoma (F/U > 5 yrs, med 6.5)
42
IMPACT Trial: Adjuvant 5-FU/FA (GIVI0, NCIC, FFCD)
43
IMPACT Trial: Adjuvant 5-FU/FA (GIVI0, NCIC, FFCD) - cont’d.
decrease recurrence by 33% decrease mortality by 22% borderline EFS & none for OS for Dukes’ B Lancet 345: 939, 1995
44
6 months of 5-FU + Leucovorin (LD/HD) became the standard
5-FU/LV vs FU/Lev vs 5-FU/LV/Lev: Low dose vs Hi-dose and 6 months vs 12 months 6 months of 5-FU + Leucovorin (LD/HD) became the standard adjuvant treatment
45
NSABP C04: 5-FU/LV vs FU/Lev vs 5-FU/LV/Lev
DFS (5 yr) OS (5 yr) 5-FU/LV 64% 74% 5-FU/LV/Lev 64% 72% 5-FU/Lev 60% % 5-FU/LV has a DFS & S advantage in Dukes’ B & C Wolmark PASCO 15: (460), 1996
46
NCCTG + NCIC-CTG Adjuvant Trial
RFS (4 yrs) S (4 yrs) 5-FU/Lev/LV x 5-FU/Lev x 5-FU/Lev/LV x 5-FU/Lev x p<.005 6 mo 5-FU/Lev inferior to 6 mo 5-FU/Lev/LV 12 mo of CT offers no advantage over 6 mo 6 mo 5-FU/Lev/LV associated with best S but not superior to 12 mo O’Connell PASCO 15: (478), 1996
47
5-FU/FA Adjuvant Trial: NCCTG, SWOG, ECOG, CALGB
48
Inter Group Trial - INT 0089 Comparison LDLV vs HDLV Lev vs LDLV
Lev vs HDLV LDLV vs LDLV/Lev Lev vs LDLV/Lev DFS (5 yr) OS (5 yr) 60 vs vs 65 56 vs vs 66 56 vs vs 65 59 vs vs 67 56 vs vs 67 (p=.014) (p=.074)
49
Inter Group Trial - INT 0089 only difference is 5-FU/Lev vs 5-FU/LDLV/Lev 5-FU/LDLV/Lev not superior to 5-FU/LDLV Levamisole is not necessary 6 months of 5-FU + LV (LD/HD) should be standard adjuvant treatment Haller PASCO 17: (982), 1998
50
5-Fluoruracil + Edrecolomab (17-1A Ab) as Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer Fields PASCO 21:128a (508), 2002 5-FU + Ab 5-FU (924) (915) 3 yr S 81.6% 78.9% p=.023 Colon Ca S 84.5% p=.007 DFS 67.5% 66.6% ND No toxicity Low incidence of neutropenia <1% Rx-related deaths
51
Capecitabine vs Mayo in Stage III CRC: X-ACT Study Twelves NEJM 352: 2696, 2005; GI ASCO #274, 2008
Cape Mayo T1/2 10% 10% T % 76% T % 14% 3 yr - DFS % 56.7% - RFS % 61.9% - OS % 68.4% Toxicity - H/F ↑ - Diarrhea ↓ - Stomatitis ↓ - Neutr ↓ Conclusions: ↑ RFS Trend to ↑ DFS & OS benefit ↑ safety
52
X-ACT Trial: Survival Data
53
UFT vs FULV (Roswell) in Stage II & III CRC: NSABP CO6 Wolmark PASCO 23:#3508, 2004
Roswell UFT II % 47% III % 54% N % 37% N % 16% RFS % 74.5% DFS % % OS % 78.7% Diarrhea % 29% QOL ND Sx distress ↓ Conclusion Equitoxic Equivalent UFT not available in N.A.
54
Adjuvant Oxaliplatin + 5-FU + Leucovorin: MOSAIC Trial Andre NEJM 350:2343, 2004; de Gramont PASCO 23:246 (3501), 2005 and PASCO 25:#4007, 2007
55
LV5FU2 FOLFOX4 1123 1123 Stage II/III 40%/60% 40%/60%
Adjuvant Oxaliplatin + 5-FU + Leucovorin: MOSAIC Trial Andre NEJM 350:2343, 2004; deGramont PASCO 23:246 (3501), 2005 LV5FU FOLFOX4 Stage II/III 40%/60% 40%/60% Mean # cycles DI FU % % - Oxali %
56
MOSAIC Trial: 5 Year DFS de Gramont PASCO 25:#4007, 2007
LVFU2 FOLFOX4 All pts 67.4% 73.3% Stage III 58.9% 66.4% Stage II 79.9% 83.7% Hi-risk stage II (576) 74.9% 82.1% Low-risk stage II (323) 86.3% 89.1%
57
MOSAIC Trial: 6 Year Survival de Gramont PASCO 25/26:#4007, 2007/08
LV5FU2 FOLFOX4 All pts 76% 78.6% HR = .85; p = .057 Stage III 68.6% 73% HR = .8; p = .029 Stage II 86.8% 86.9% HR = 1; p = .996 Alive with Recurrence 7.8% 6.1% Time from Recur to Death 24 mo 21 mo
58
MOSAIC Trial: Conclusions
DFS benefit seen at 3 yrs is maintained at 5 yrs There is a 6 yr OS benefit for stage III pts There was no increase in 2nd cancers There is continued recovery in peripheral neuropathy but 15% of pts still had residual PN at 4yrs (.7% gr 3; 2.8% gr 2; 12% gr 1)
59
FULV vs FLOX for Stage II or III Colon Cancer: NSABP C-07 Wolmark PASCO 23: 246s (3500), 2005
FULV FLOX N % 28.9% N % 44.8% N> % 25.6% Neuro - all gr % 1 yr) - gr % 1 yr) Oxali dose mg/m2 (1020 in MOSAIC) DFS – 3 yr % % Global test for interaction between stage and Rx was not significant (p = .7)
60
FULV vs FLOX for Stage II or III Colon Cancer: NSABP C-07 Wolmark PASCO 26:179s (4005)2008
DFS - 3 yr - 5 yr 71.5% 64.2% 76.1% 69.4% OS - 5 yr - 6 yr 78.3% 73.5% 80.3% 77.7% Surv after recur 22.2 mo 17.6 mo Global test for interaction between stage and Rx was not significant (p = .7)
61
MOSAIC vs CO.7: 5 year Survival: Stages II/III
Study DFS ∆ HR MOSAIC 81.3% 2.2% .85 CO.7 80.3% 2.0%
62
Comparison of Adjuvant Trials
Moertel IMPACT X-ACT MOSAIC Regimen Lev/5-FU LV/5-FU Cape FOLFOX DFS (3yr) % % 64.2% %
63
Role for Adjuvant Irinotecan
Adjuvant FL (Roswell) vs IFL in Stage III CRC: CALGB (CO.15) FOLFIRI vs LV5FU2 in Stage III Colon Cancer: PETACC 3 Adjuvant LV5FU2 vs FOLFIRI for Stage III (hi-risk) Colon Cancer: ACCORD-2 All negative studies – no role for adjuvant irinotecan Saltz PASCO 23: 246 (3500), 2004 van Cutsem PASCO 23:3 (8), 2005 Ychou PASCO 23: 246s (3502), 2005
64
DFS (3 yr) vs OS (5 yr) as a Primary Endpoint for Adjuvant Therapy for CRC Sargent PASCO 23:249s (3512), 2005 43 Rx arms; n = 20,898 pts M:F = 54:46 Stg II:III = 34:66 74% of recurrences in 1st 3 yrs 3 yr DFS & 5 yr OS – cc = .92 for stg III but only .65 for stg II DFS excellent predictor of OS at 5 yrs (stg III) ODAC voted 15 to 0 to accept as a surrogate marker (Pazdur)
65
Time-Dependent Patterns of Failure and Treatment Benefit from Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Colon Cancer: Lessons from the 20,800-pt ACCENT database Sargent PASCO 25:#4008, 2007
66
ACCENT: Conclusions
67
ACCENT: Survival from Recurrence O’Connell PASCO 25:#4009, 2007
68
PASCO 26:179s (#4007), 2008
69
MOSAIC:Long Term Follow Up
DFS OS Difference 3 yr 5.3 1.1 4.2 4 yr 6.6 1.6 5 5/6 yr 5.9 2.6 3.3
70
Extended survival after recurrence ’s the DFS and OS relationship
73
How to Follow Patients Post Adjuvant Therapy
Examine and do BW including CEA every 3 months (pre-op CEA) CT chest, abdomen and pelvis every 6 months x 3 years and then annually x 2 years Colonoscopy at 1 year post op and then every 3 years if no polyps ASCO guidelines (Desch JCO 23:8512, 2005)
74
Adjuvant Therapy of Stage III Colon Cancer: 3 year DFS (equates with 5 year survival)
75
Rectal Cancer
78
Post-op CT +/- RT for Rectal Cancer
Trial Rx N LF (%) DFS (%) OS (%) GITSG S 202 24 46 45 RT 20 52 FU/Me 27 54 56 RT+CT 11 70 59 NCCTG 204 25 38 48 RT+FU/Me 13.5 58 R-01 555 30 43 16 35 41 MOF 21 53 R-02 CT 694 13 50 8 NEJM 312:1465,1985; NEJM 324: 709,1991; JNCI 80:21,1988; JNCI 92:388,2000
79
Adjuvant Postoperative 5-FU CT/RT for Rectal Cancer: Intergroup 0114
1696 pts (RT) - 5-FU, FULV, FU/Lev, FU/LV/Lev No advantage to any treatment compared with bolus 5-FU alone ↑ local control and survival for node neg stage II disease with > 13 nodes dissected GI toxicity with 3 drugs No benefit of Levamisole Tepper JCO 15/20:2030/1744, 1997/2002
80
Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial (T1-3)
Pre-op RT Surgery + Surgery Local recurrence % % p<.001 OS (5 yr) % % p=.004 Cancer SS (9 yr) % % p=.002 NEJM 336: 980, 1997
81
Dutch TME Study Local Recurrence TME RT TME 2 year 8.2% 2.4% 5 year
12% 6% Perioperative morbidity - 29% wound complications - 12% post op leaks - lack of downstaging NEJM 345:638,2001; Eur J Ca 38:919,2002; JCO 19/20:1976/817,2001/2002
82
Pre-operative vs Post-operative Therapy in Rectal Cancer: NSABP R03 Roh PASCO 23:247(3505), 2004
Pre-op Post op OS (3 yrs) 74% 66% DFS 64% 53% RFS 77% 70% cCR 25% - pCR 17% - SS 48% 39% cCR correlated with DFS & OS Trend to ↑ survival with preop CT/RT
83
German Rectal Study (CAO/ARO/AIO-94): Pre-op vs Post-op CI 5-FU/RT then 5-FU x 4
5 year outcome Preop Postop Acute toxicity 27% 40% Late toxicity 14% 24% pCR 8% Sphincter preserv 39% 19% Local Recurrence 6% 13% Distant RR 36% 38% DFS 65% 68% OS 74% 76% Sauer NEJM 351:1731, 2004
84
Pre-op RT + 5-FU/LV in T3-4 Rectal Cancer: FFCD 9203 Gerard PASCO23:246s(3504), 2005
RT/CT N 363 370 cCR 2.6% 5.7% Sphincter preser 51.7% 52.6% pCR 3.7% 11.7% Local Failure 16.5% 8% 5 yr DFS 56% 59% 5 yr OS 66.6% 67.8%
85
Pre-op RT in Rectal Cancer: Effect and timing of additional CT: EORTC 2291 Bosset PASCO 23: 247s (3505), 2005 N = 1011 Preop RT Preop RT/CT Postop CT No postop CT pCR 5% 11% - Sphinter preserv 52.4% 56% 5 yr PFS 54.4% 67.1% 63.2% 5 yr OS 64.8% 65.6% 58.1% 52.2% 5 yr LR: RT vs RT/CT vs RT-CT vs RT/CT-CT 17.1% vs 8.7% vs 9.6% vs 7.6%
89
Standard of Care for Most Patients with Stage II/III Rectal Cancer
CI 5-FU 225 mg/m2/day or Xeloda + RT Surgery FOLFOX x 8 cycles
90
Intermediate – T1,2/N1; T3/N0 Moderately High – T1,2/N2; T3/N1; T4/N0
Impact of T and N Stage and Treatment on Survival in Adjuvant Rectal Cancer: A pooled analysis of NCCTG, NSABP and INT 0114 Risk Groups Intermediate – T1,2/N1; T3/N0 Moderately High – T1,2/N2; T3/N1; T4/N0 High – T3/N2; T4/N1; T4/N2 Gunderson JCO 22:1785, 2004
91
Rectal Cancer Pooled Analysis: 5 year OS Gunderson JCO 22:1785, 2004
Intermed S + CT 84-85% S + CT + RT 74-83% Mod High 43-70% 44-80% High 25-45% 29-57%
92
Molecular Assessment of Patients
Identify distinct clinical attributes Identify pts who would benefit from adjuvant CT Identify pts with such good prognosis CT-costs and complications could be avoided Predicting chemo-responsiveness (adjuvant therapy) Screening Prevention
93
Questions Do patients with MSS or MSI-H tumors have the same response to adjuvant/palliative chemotherapy? Do all patients need chemotherapy? Do different chemotherapy drugs have the same effects on different tumors?
94
Molecular Assessment of Patients: Prognostic factors
Microsatellite instability – MSI-Hi > MSS (stg for stg) MSI-H vs MSS with CT – ND MSS with CT - ↑ survival MSI-H with CT – ND (trend to survival) 18q LOH DNA ploidy EGFR+ P53 Microarray gene expression profiling ???KRAS Gryfe NEJM 342:69, 2000 Ribic NEJM 349:247, 2003 Watanabe NEJM 344:1196, 2001 Barrier JCO 24:4685, 2006
95
Clinical Research Issues
Targeting the patient Targeting the tumour Define the role for targeted therapy - Bevacizumab - Cetuximab - Panitumumab Define the optimal duration of therapy - Efficacy - Toxicity - Cost
96
Future Adjuvant Trials
97
CRC.2 (N0147) Stage III FOLFOX6 x Cetuximab
98
CRC.3 in Canada
101
Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Pre-op CT/RT
NCIC CRC.4/E5204 Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Pre-op CT/RT FOLFOX + Bevacizumab FOLFOX
102
Conclusions Regarding Adjuvant Therapy
Adjuvant therapy for low-risk stage II colon cancer is not supported by randomized controlled trials (Benson JCO 22:3408, 2005). Adjuvant therapy for hi-risk stage II disease is recommended - ? Xeloda/FOLFOX. Adjuvant CT with either FOLFOX or Xeloda for stage III colon cancer is standard practice. Pre-op CT/RT for stage II & III rectal cancer followed by FOLFOX is the usual practice. In the post-op setting pts usually receive FOLFOX x 4 CT/RT FOLFOX x 4.
103
Neoadjuvant FOLFOX4 for Potentially Resectable Liver Metastases: EPOC Trial Nordlinger PASCO 25: 2s (#5), 2007 R ESECT ABL E FOLFOX4 x 6 Surgery FOLFOX4 x 6 (182) Surgery alone (182) N = 364 Up to 4 liver metastases No extrahepatic disease No previous Oxaliplatin
104
31 and 30 pts not resectable (F4/surgery):
11 ineligible in each arm 20 advanced disease 31 and 30 pts not resectable (F4/surgery): - > 4 lesions or extrahepatic disease
105
EPOC Trial – cont’d FOLFOX4 182 Surgery 6 cycles 78.6% - RR - CR/PR
- SD/PD 3.8%/40.1% 35.2%/6.6% OR (n/%) Resected (n/%) 159/87.4% 151/83% 170/93.4% 152/83.5% Complications 25.2% 15.9% Biliary fistula (n) 12 5 Hepatic failure (n) 11 8 Intra-abdominal inf 2 Post-op deaths 1
106
EPOC Trial: Results CT Surg % 3 yr abs diff in PFS HR (CI) p-value
All pts (ITT) 182 +7.2% .79 ( ) .058 All eligible pts 171 +8.1% .77 (.6-1) .041 All resected pts 151 152 +9.2% .73 ( ) .025 NB: primary endpoint was a PFS HR of .71 Irinotecan – Steatohepatitis (N/CASH) Oxaliplatin – Sinusoidal/vascular damage
107
EORTC 40051: BOS Trial Remember the PACCE trial
? Data for F6 + Cetuximab
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.