Updates in hepatocellular cancer and pancreas cancer
description
Transcript of Updates in hepatocellular cancer and pancreas cancer
Updates in hepatocellular cancer and pancreas cancer
Jordan Berlin, M.D.
Ingram Associate Professor, Medicine
Disclosures
• Advisory Boards here and there
– Genentech
– BMS
– Imclone
– Sanofi-Aventis
– Pfizer
– Abbott
– Astra Zeneca
– Cephalon (not paid)
– Roche
• Spoke for:– Genentech– Nestle
» Not being paid in chocolate
• DSMB– Pfizer
• Presented a lot of data resulting in trips to Europe (ESMO and ECCO)
– Amgen
Hepatocellular Cancer
• What we know about HCC• Known risk factors include hepatitis B and C
–Most common etiology is hep C in the US, but in certain ethnic groups, recent immigrants and in much of the world, hep B is more common
–Other causes: alcohol, Wilson’s, hemochromatosis, idiopathic to name a few
–Previously, SEER data showed a rise in HCC
Hepatocellular Cancer
• SEER Data update–Rising incidence with a tripling form 1975 to
2005» 1.6/100,000 in 1975, 4.9 per 100,000 in 2005
–Steady decrease in mortality » 1 year survival rose from 25% to 47%» 2 year survival rose from 16% to 35%
Altekruse SF< et al JCO 27:1845-51, 2009
Altekruse, S. F. et al. J Clin Oncol; 27:1485-1491 2009
Fig 1. Annual age-adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 and trends, all hepatocellular carcinoma cases and by sex, 1975 to 2005 (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 9 [SEER9])
Treatments
• Transplantation• Surgery• TACE• PEI• RFA• Chemo (doxorubicin, fluoropyrimidine)• Sorafenib
TACE vs Doxorubicin Beads
• TACE with doxorubicin vs DCE (drug-eluting bead embolization)
• Child’s A or B, PS 0-1• 212 patients in 23 European Centers
–After dropout, 93 in DCE vs 102 in TACE–RR 52% DCE vs 44% in TACE, p = 0.11–Gr 3-4 AE’s, 13% DCE vs 19% TACE–Doxorubicin related AE’s any grade was less
likely with DCE vs TACE p < 0.0001
R Lencioni, et al. GI Symposium 2009 and abstract 4523 at ASCO 2009
Drug-eluting Beads 2009
• 73 patients randomized to drug-eluting –OS 610 vs 284 days (p, 0.03)–Benefit was limited to Child’s A and B
patients
Dhanasekaran, et al
Targeted Therapies
• Sorafenib –Sharp trial:
» 602 Child’s A patients randomized to sorafenib vs placebo
» Median survival 10,7 months vs 7.9 months, HR 0.69, p < 0.001
–Asian Trial» 226 Child’s A patients» Median Survival 6.2 months vs 4.1 months , HR
0.67, p = 0.0155» Median PFS =2.8 vs 1.4 months, p = 0.009
Toh , et al,ASCO 2009, Llovet, et al NEJM 359:378-, 2009
What about other VEGF inhibitors?
• Sunitinib–Phase II study in 34 patients
» PFS 3.9 months» OS 9.8 months» RR 2.9%, SD 50%» Increased levels of inflammatory molecules
predicted poorer outcomes
Zhu, et al. JCO 2008
Other VEGF inhibitors
• Bevacizumab–Phase II study of 46 patients–PFS 6.9 months–OS 12. months–1, 2, and 3 year survivals: 53%, 28%, 23%–RR 13%, 65% progression fre at 6 months
–Gr 3 HTN 15%, Gr 3 bleed
Siegel AB, JCO 26:2992-8, 2008
ASCO 2009
• Brivanib in HCC–Median OS 10 months, TTP 2.8 months, RR
<10% (Raoul, et al)
• Continuous Sunitinib in HCC–Median OS 9.3 months, PFS 2.8 months and
RR <10% (Koeberle, et al)
• ABT 869 in HCC–Median OS 9.9 moths, PFS 3.7 months, RR
<10% (Toh, et al)
Combined Targeted Agents
• Bevacizumab + erlotinib–Phase II study of 40 patients
» PFS 9 months» OS 15.6 months» RR 25%» PFS at 16 weeks – 62.5%
» Gr 3-4 fatigue, 20%, HTN 15% and diarrhea 10%
Thomas MB, et al JCO 27:843-50, 2009
Bevacizumab + erlotinib in HCC
• ASCO 2009, abstract• Bev 10 mg/kg q 2weeks with erlotinib 150 mg
daily• 58 patients
–14 PR (28%), 32 SD (62%), 4 (10%) PD–Median PFS 7.9 months, OS 12.8 months
(ABSTRACT), but closer to 15 months for patients with no prior therapy
• 2 other trials of similar regimens at ASCO as well
Kaseb, et al
HCC Conclusions
• Drug-eluting beads show promise in comparison to TACE–Larger trials needed
• VEGF inhibition appears effective in this disease, regardless of agent
• Combined VEGF/EGFR inhibition is also showing promise (bevacizumab/erlotinib)–Results of the randomized phase II trial will be
crucial
Pancreas Cancer
CONKO-001: Trial Design
Gem
Obs
Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m²: d1, 8, 15; q 4 weeks
Observation: d1; q 4 weeks
Randomisation
Follow up every 8weeks
Gem
Ultrasoundafter week 8
Ultrasoundafter week 16
CT Scanafter week 32
Obs
Gem
Obs
Gem
Obs
Gem
Obs
Gem
Obs
Gem
Obs
CA 19-9 CA 19-9 CA 19-9 CA 19-9 CA 19-9 CA 19-9
4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks
CA 19-9
.Oettle H, et al JAMA 297:267-77, 2007
CONKO-001: Results
Intent-to-Treat
Gem vs obs
Qualified
Gem vs obs
DFS (months) 13.4 vs 6.9
P < 0.001
13.7 vs 6.9
P < 0.001
Median OS (months) 22.1 vs 20.2
P= 0.06
24.2 vs 20.5
P = 0.02
5-year Survival 22.5% vs 11.5% N/A
.Oettle H, et al JAMA 297:267-77, 2007
CONKO-001
• Updated results:–DFS: 13.4 months vs 6.9 months, p < 0.001
» At 3 years: DFS 23.5% vs 8.5%» At 5 years: DFS 16.0% vs 6.5%
–OS: Median 22.8 vs 20.2 months, p = 0.005» At 3 years: 36.5% vs 19.5%» At 5 years: 21% vs 9%
–DFS data, all tested subsets benefitted
Neuhaus, et al asco LBA4504, 2008
ESPAC 3
• Randomized trial of 5FU/LV (Mayo regimen) vs gemcitabine–To be presented this PM
Picozzi Regimen
• Phase II trial– 43 patients– Treated with 54Gy XRT +
» Cisplat 30 mg/m2/week + CI 5-FU 200 mg/m2/d + interferon 3,000,000 units/d
» Followed by 5-FU 200mg/m2/d x 6 weeks repeated x1 (total + 2 cycles)
– Results» 42% hospitalized, no deaths» Median survival not defined» 1,2 and 5-yr actuarial survival: 95%, 64%, and 55%,
respectively– Conclusion: Should be evaluated further
» ACOSOG Trial is repeating this trial with careful monitoring
Picozzi VJ, et al Am J Surg 185:476-80, 2003
Adjuvant pancreas cancer
• ACOSOG Z5031 phase II trial–Cisplat/ifn/5FU + XRT followed by 2 cycles of
infusional 5FU–Planned 93 patients, but stopped early for toxicity
endpoint, although there were no study deaths» 96% had grade ¾ toxicity» 56% initiated all cycles of therapy
–89 patients» Median OS: 27.1 months» Median PFS: 14.1 months» 2 year survival: 58%
Piccozzi, et al ASCO 2008
So, chemo or chemo-XRT?• EORTC/FFCD/GERCOR randomized phase
II trial–90 patients randomized to gem vs gem-XRT
» DFS was 12 vs 11 months» OS was 24 months on both arms» Local recurrence as first site was lower with
chemoradiation (24 vs 11%)» The conclusions by the EORTC were very
appropriate and this was an extremely well done poster:
• Gem-XRT was safe and a larger trial is needed to discern if there is benefit to chemoxrt
Van Laethem ASCO 2009
RTOG 0848
RANDOMIZE
GEM X 5 CYCLESRANDOMIZEGEM + ERLOTINIB
X 5 CYCLES
GEM X 1 CYCLE THEN STOP
GEM X 1 CYCLE THEN CHEMOXRT
GEM + ERLOTINIB X 1 CYCLE THEN STOP
GEM + ERLOTINIB X 1 CYCLE THEN CHEMOXRT
Metastatic Pancreas Cancer
• Over the last decade or so, numerous trials of gemcitabine alone vs gemcitabine + any drug was negative, except with the addition of erlotinib
• CALGB 80303, gem vs gem + beva–590 patients randomized–Phase II trial had median survival > 8.5 months
(> 12 months initially but as tie went on, this went down)
–Phase III trial was negative
AVITA
• Gem-erlotinib vs gem-erlotinib-bevacizumab–607 patients randomized phase III trial
» Median OS: 6.0 vs 7.1 months, HR 0.89, P, 0.21» Median PFS: 3.6 vs 4.6 months, HR 0.73, P, 0.0002» RR 8.6 vs 13.5%» Time to KPS deterioration 10.1 vs 7.9 months, p 0.08» SAE’s similar
Vervenne W, et al ASCO 2008 abst 4507
Rationale for new VEGF targeted Phase III trials?
• Gem vs gem-axitinib randomized phase II–Endpoints: OS 10 vs 6 months or alternative, HR
of 0.6–Results:
» OS 6.9 vs 5.6 months (p, NS)» HR 0.76 uncorrected (p, NS)» HR 0.71, corrected (p, NS)» Toxicity greater in gem-axitinib» Looked better in PS 0-1 patients than in PS =2» My favorite: QOL favored gemcitabine alone
Gem vs gem-enzastaurin
• Randomized phase II, 130 patients (2:1 randomization)–Median Survival: 5.4 vs 5.1 months–1-year survival: 20% vs 16%
–No further study warranted. Thank you Dr. Richards and Lilly for reading and interpreting your own study correctly
Richards DA, et al GI Symposium 2009
Old ideas in new ways
• 2 trials with novel delivery of taxanes–Nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine
» All patients (n = 67) PFS 6.9 months, OS 10.3 months» Patients at phase II dose (n =44) 40% RR by CT, PFS
7.9 months, OS >15 months so far
–Cationic liposomal paclitaxel» Randomized phase II of gem vs gem + one of 3 dose
levels of cationic liposomal paclitaxel» RR 13-16%» PFS: 2.5, 4.6, 5.0 and 4.5 months» OS: 7.2, 8.4, 8.7 and 9.4 months
Von Hoff, et al and Loehr, et al
2nd Line?
• 5FU is de facto “standard”• CONKO-003
–Randomization (168 patients) to Folinic acid/5FU vs oxali/Folinic acid/5FU
» 160 patients eligible» Median PFS 13 weeks vs 9 weeks, p 0.012» Median OS 26 weeks vs 13 weeks, p 0.014
Pelzer U, et al ASCO 2009, abst 4508
Pancreas Cancer
• Adjuvant therapy–Chemo definitely benefits patients (only gemcitabine
data shown)–Chemo-XRT regimens may also help, but full role of
XRT not elucidated» Local control may matter a lot more once we have better
systemic therapy
• Metastatic Disease–Angiogenesis inhibition—didn’t work, doesn’t work,
unlikely to work—STOP IT–Nab-paclitaxel has promising data worthy of phase III
trial, not standard care
Can we stop this pattern?
RANDOMIZE
Gemcitabine Alone
Gemcitabine + Your Drug HereYour Drug = Tecans
platinums
fluoropyrimidines
EGFR inhibitors
VEGF inhibitors and lots of them
Many have a hard time considering treatment without gem first
Javle
• Polymorphisms and gemcitabine effect–120 patients in 2 neoadjuvant trials, 1 of
chemo before chemoxrt and the other just chemoxrt
–2 alleles, one of cytidine deaminase and one of deoxycytidine kinase predicted for poorer survival and less neutropenia
–Looking at 7 deleterious alleles, number of alleles, 0 vs 1-2 vs 3 that were present predicted survival
Javle, ASCO 2008
Overall
• Data like Javle’s needs further development–Not proven at this time, but encouraging
that we may some day be able to determine who will benefit from which treatment
• We need to figure out which patients benefit from gemcitabine and which don’t