adjuvant therapy: – additional cancer treatment given after the primary treatment to lower the...
TRANSCRIPT
• Adjuvant therapy:– Additional cancer treatment given after the primary
treatment to lower the risk that the cancer will come back
• Neo-adjuvant therapy:– Treatment given as a first step to shrink a tumor before the
main treatment, which is usually surgery, is given
NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms
• Presentation at diagnosis1:– 45% with localized disease– 25% with locally advanced disease– 20–30% metastatic disease
• 33% of patients treated for localized disease will develop metastatic disease2
1. National Cancer Institute. SEER cancer statistics fact sheet: cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis. Accessed 2009;2. Flanigan RC et al. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2003;4:385–90.
Closed adjuvant trials N Author (year) Outcome of the study
RT vs. observation 72 Kjaer (1987) negative
MPA vs. observation 136 Pizzocaro (1987) negative
Aut. tumor vaccine + BCG vs. observation 43 Adler (1987) negative
Aut. tumor vaccine ± BCG vs. observation 120 Galligioni (1996) negative
UFT vs. observation 71 Naito (1997) negative
IFN- vs. observation 247 Pizzocaro (2001) negative
IFN- NL vs. observation 283 Messing (2003) negative
HD IL-2 vs. observation 69 Clark (2003) negative
Autologous tumor vaccine vs. observation 553 Jocham (2004) positive in terms of PFS (p=0.02)
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- + 5-FU vs. observation 203 Atzpodien (2005) negative
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- vs. observation 310 Passalacqua (2007) negative
Aut. tumour-derived HSP-96-peptide complexvs. observation
918 Wood C (2008) negative
Thalidomide vs. observation 46* Margulis (2009) negative*trial stopped due to inefficacy
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- + 5-FU vs. observation 550 Aitchinson (2012) negative
Girentuximab (anti-CAIX MoAb) vs. observation
856 Belldegrun (2013) negative
Closed adjuvant trials N Author (year) Outcome of the study
RT vs. observation 72 Kjaer (1987) negative
MPA vs. observation 136 Pizzocaro (1987) negative
Aut. tumor vaccine + BCG vs. observation 43 Adler (1987) negative
Aut. tumor vaccine ± BCG vs. observation 120 Galligioni (1996) negative
UFT vs. observation 71 Naito (1997) negative
IFN- vs. observation 247 Pizzocaro (2001) negative
IFN- NL vs. observation 283 Messing (2003) negative
HD IL-2 vs. observation 69 Clark (2003) negative
Autologous tumor vaccine vs. observation 553 Jocham (2004) positive in terms of PFS (p=0.02)
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- + 5-FU vs. observation 203 Atzpodien (2005) negative
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- vs. observation 310 Passalacqua (2007) negative
Aut. tumour-derived HSP-96-peptide complexvs. observation
918 Wood C (2008) negative
Thalidomide vs. observation 46* Margulis (2009) negative*trial stopped due to inefficacy
s.c. IL-2 + IFN- + 5-FU vs. observation 550 Aitchinson (2012) negative
Girentuximab (anti-CAIX MoAb) vs. observation
856 Belldegrun (2013) negative
Massari F, et al. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2013 (E-pub ahead of print)
Ongoing adjuvant trials
SORCE (MRC/EORTC)Sorafenib 1 year (+ 2 years placebo) vs. Sorafenib 3 years vs. placebo 3 years
1656 Leibovich score of 3 to 8.Primary end-point: DFS
Closed at enrolment;no data available yet
ASSURE (ECOG)Sunitinib 1 year vs. Sorafenib 1 year vs. placebo 1 year
1923 T3b-4 N0, T1-4 N+, or T1-4 with positive margins or
vascular invasion)Primary end-point: DFS
Closed at enrolment;no data available yet
S-TRAC (Pfizer)Sunitinib 1 year vs. placebo 1 year
856 High risk according to UISS.Primary end-point: DFS
Closed at enrolment;no data available yet
EVEREST (SWOG)Everolimus vs. placebo (days 1-42; treatment repeats every 6 weeks for 9 courses)
1218 Pathologically intermediate high-risk or very high-risk.
Primary end-point: DFS
Not yet enrolling(US only)
VEG113387 PROTECT study (GSK)Pazopanib 1 year vs. placebo 1 year
1500 Intermediate and high risk.Primary end-point: DFS
Closed at enrolment;no data available yet
NCT01599754 (SFJ Pharmaceuticals)Axitinib 3 yeas vs. placebo 3 years
592 pT2 or higher, pNx pN0 or pN1, M0, Fuhrman G3-4 and
ECOG PS 0-1Primary end-point: DFS
Enrolling(Japan only)
• To date, no treatment emerged as a standard of care in this setting
• Presently, patients should be thus offered just obser-vation
• Enrollment into well-desigend and adequately con-ducted RCTs is mandatory
Pro Cons
Litmus test for patients who will do well Therapy may impact wound healing and recovery
Potential for higher incidence of wound complications
Incorporates cytoreductive surgery to examine tissue before and after therapy for endpoint targets
Local tumor progression in non-responders increases complexity of the surgery
More “ectomies”= Worse outcome
May see responses in the primary tumor not seen before
Timing is everythingWhy interrupt a therapeutic response?Who wants to operate on therapy refractory disease?
Eliminates unnecessary and morbid surgery in patients who don’t respond
Escudier B, et al. ECCO 13 – the European Cancer Conference, Paris, October 30-November 3, 2005; abs.794.
Sorafenib treatment
Shuch B, et al. BJU Int 2008;102:692-696
Level II thrombus Level I thrombus
Sunitinib treatment(4 cycles)
Jonasch E, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4076-81
Baseline 8 Weeks of therapy
Bevacizumab treatment
Van der Veldt AAM, et al. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:2431-6; Thomas AA, et al. J Urol 2009;181:518-23;Jonasch E, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4076-81
Primary Tumor Regressionn=45 (%)
>20% growth 1 (2)
10-20% growth 2 (4)
0-10% growth 19 (42)
1-10% shrinkage 13 (29)
11-20% shrinkage 7 (16)
20-30% shrinkage 3 (7)
CG Wood, personal communication
CG Wood, personal communication
Pre-Surgical Therapy
Immediate Surgery Total p
Overall 25 (43.1) 28 (28.7) 54 (33.5) 0.048
Peri-operative Death 1 (1.7) 2 (2.0) 3 (1.9) 0.91
Readmission to Hospital 6 (10.3) 11 (11.0) 17 (10.8) 0.90
Bleeding 1 (1.7) 2 (2.0) 3 (1.9) 0.91 Thromboembolic 5 (8.6) 5 (5.0) 10 (6.3) 0.36 Cardiac 1 (1.7) 3 (3.0) 4 (2.5) 0.63 Gastrointestinal 5 (8.6) 9 (8.9) 14 (8.8) 0.95 Infection 4 (6.9) 6 (5.9) 10 (6.3) 0.81
Superficial Wound Healing 12 (20.7) 2 (2.0) 14 (8.8) <0.001
Fascial dehiscence 2 (3.5) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.3) 0.06
Chylous Ascites 2 (3.5) 6 (5.9) 8 (5.0) 0.49
CG Wood, personal communication
Univariate analysis Odds Ratio 95 % CI P
Overall Complications 1.98 1.00, 3.89 0.049*
Peri-operative Death 0.87 0.08, 9.79 0.91
Readmission to Hospital 0.93 0.33, 2.67 0.90
Bleeding 0.87 0.08, 9.79 0.91
Thromboembolic 1.81 0.50, 6.54 0.37
Cardiac 0.57 0.06, 5.64 0.63
Gastrointestinal 0.96 0.31, 3.03 0.95
Infection 1.17 0.32, 4.34 0.81
Superficial Wound Healing 12.91 2.78, 60.06 0.001*
Chylous Ascites 0.57 0.11, 2.90 0.49
CG Wood, personal communication
• *Adjusted for:– Pre-operative albumin– Smoking status (never, current, former)– Pre-operative hemoglobin– Laparoscopic vs open surgery– ECOG performance status– Body mass index– Age
Odds Ratio* 95% CI p-value
Superficial Wound Healing 19.7 2.13, 181.88 <0.01
Withheld treatment for at least 2 or 3 half-lives before and after surgery
Max
imum
resp
onse
Days after wounding (log scale)
I. inflammation
II. cell proliferationand matrix deposition
III. matrix remodelling
● Bleeding
● Coagulation
● Platelet activation
● Complement activation
● Granulocytes
● Phagocytosis
● Fibroplasia
● Angiogenesis
● Re-epithelization
● Extracelluar matrix sythesis
● Collagens
● Fibronectin
● Proteoglicans● Macrophages
● Cytokines
Stages of wound healingStages of wound healing
Extracellular matrixsynthesis, degradationand remodelling
Tensile strength
Cellularity
Vascularity
Consider drug half-life
Temsirolimus: 17 hrs
Sorafenib: 24-48 hrs
Sunitinib: 60-110 hrs
Bevacizumab: 14-21 days
Pazopanib: 30.9 hrs
CG Wood, personal communication
• Present, initial, body of evidencewould suggest that
significant primary tumor downstagingwill not be realized with the current generation
of targeted therapy agents