la strategia terapeutica del carcinoma del colon...
TRANSCRIPT
Dalla Capecitabina al TAS-102
Milano, 29 settembre 2016
La strategia terapeutica del
carcinoma del colon metastatico
Gianluca Masi
U.O. di Oncologia Medica Universitaria
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana
Istituto Toscano Tumori
MCRC: KEY POINTS FOR A WINNING STRATEGY
1. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT
• Opportunity & timing for resect primary T
• Opportunity & timing for resect sites of M
2. CHOICE OF “FIRST-LINE” TREATMENT
• Set chemo-intensity (mono, doublet, triplet)
• Pick the best biological partner (anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR)
3. ASSURE THE BEST “CONTINUUM OF CARE”
• Maintenance, Re-inducion, Re-challenge
• Second-line, Third-line, …
Examples of treatment strategies in MCRC
Treatment 1 PD Treatment 2 PD Treatment 3
TREAT UNTILL PD AND SWITHC («old fashioned»)
Treatment 1 PD Treatment 2 PD Treatment 3
Treatment 1 PD Treatment 1 PD Treatment 2
Treatment 1Maintenance PD Treatment 1 PD
CHEMO HOLIDAYS AND SWITHC AT PD
CHEMO HOLIDAYS AND REINTRODUCTION AT PD
MAINTENANCE AND REINTRODUCTION AT PD
Treatment 1 PD Treatment 2 PD
SWITHC AT PD AND RECHALLENGE
Treatment 1
Tr 2
MCRC: CHOOSE THE FIRST-LINE THERAPY
RESECATBILITY of MTS
• Easy, Border-line, Potentially
CLINICAL PRESENTATION
• Sites of Mts & Burden
• Symptoms
• Side of Primary T (!?)
MOLECULAR PROFILE
• RAS, RAF
• MSI (?), HER2 (?), …
THE PATIENT
• Comorbidities
• Expectations, …
Upfront treatment is still a crucial “step” to …
Achieve disease control Allow furtherinterventions (surgery
and other systemictreatments)
The ‘funnel effect’
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
4th line
5th line
PATIENTS
The ‘funnel effect’ in the case of disease control/response
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
4th line
5th line
PATIENTS
The ‘funnel effect’ in the case of initial PD
1st line
2nd line
3rd line
PATIENTS
PD, progressive disease
What are our best “evidenced-based” options in first-line?
• Fluoropyrimidine + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) + anti-EGFR
• Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) + BV
Less intense
More intense
What are our best “evidenced-based” options in first-line?
• Fluoropyrimidine + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) + BV
• Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) + BV
Less intense
More intense
Stratification factors:ECOG PS (0–1 vs 2)Geographic region
Key inclusion criteria
– ECOG PS 0–2
– Prior adjuvant chemotherapy allowed if completed >6 month before inclusion
– Not optimal candidates for a combination chemotherapy with irinotecan or oxaliplatin
Cunningham D. et al, Lancet Oncol ‘13
The AVEX study
R280 mCRC pts
1st line mCRC
AGE >70 yrs
Capecitabine
Capecitabine + BV
Cunningham D. et al, Lancet Oncol ‘13
AVEX - Progression Free Survival
.
The TASCO 1 trial
TAS-102 Twice a day 35 mg/m² orally
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BEVACIZUMAB 5 mg/kg IV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28-day cycle
CAPECITABINETwice a day
1250mg/m² orally
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
BEVACIZUMAB 7.5 mg/kg IV
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
OR
21-day cycle
The TASCO 1 trial
What are our best “evidenced-based” options in first-line?
• Fluoropyrimidine + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) + BV
• Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) + BV
Less intense
More intense
TRIBE Study Design
R
508 mCRC pts
1st line
unresectable
stratified by
center
PS 0/1-2
adjuvant CT
FOLFIRI + bev(up to 12 cycles)
FOLFOXIRI + bev(up to 12 cycles)
5-FU/LV
+ bev
5-FU/LV
+ bev
PD
INDUCTION MAINTENANCE
Primary Endpoint: PFS
Loupakis et al., NEJM 2014
FOLFIRI + bev, median PFS : 9.7 mos
FOLFOXIRI + bev, median PFS : 12.1 mos
HR: 0.75 [0.62-0.90]
p=0.003
Primary endpoint: PFS
Loupakis et al., NEJM 2014
TRIBE: FOLFOXIRI + bev improves RECIST response, ETS and DoR
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80 FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (37.8%)FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (43.4%)
P = .003
62.7%
51.9%
FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab
FOLFIRI + bevacizumab
Tumour shrinkage ≥20% at 8 wks
P = .025
Cremolini C, et al. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(6):1188-1194.
Depth of response
RECIST Response: 53% vs 65 % p=0.006
Loupakis F, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;23;371(17):1609-1618.
FOLFIRI + bev, median OS: 25.8 mosFOLFOXIRI + bev, median OS: 29.8 mos
HR: 0.80 [0.65–0.98]P = .030
5-year OS rate
24.9% vs 12.4%
TRIBE: Updated OS results
Median follow-up: 48.1 mos
Cremolini C, et al. Lancet Oncol 2015
Median OS
41.7 months
33.5 months
27.3 months
23.9 months
19.0 months
10.7 months
RAS and BRAF wild-type – arm B
RAS mutant – arm B
BRAF mutant – arm B
RAS and BRAF wild-type – arm A
RAS mutant– arm A
BRAF mutant– arm A
TRIBE in molecular subgroups - OS
Cremolini et al, Lancet Oncol ’15
“Decision drivers for FOLFOXIRI”
FOLFOXIRI plus bev “appropriateness”
What are our best “evidenced-based” options in first-line?
• Fluoropyrimidine + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) + BV
• Doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) + anti-EGFR
• Triplet (FOLFOXIRI) + BV
Less intense
More intense
N RR PFS OS
German AIO
CapOx 241 48% 7.1 16.8
FUFOX 233 54% 8.0 18.8
Spanish TTD
Xelox 171 37% 8.9 18.1
FUOX 171 46% 9.5 20.8
NO16966
Xelox 350 n.a. 8.0 19.6
FOLFOX 351 n.a. 8.5 19.8
Capecitabine + Oxaliplatin vs 5FU + Oxaliplatin
6 randomized trials (N=3494)
• Decreased RR (OR= 0.85, p=0.02)
• Equivalent PFS (HR= 1.04, p=0.17)
• Equivalent OS (HR= 1.04, p=0.41)
XELOX + placebo
N=350
FOLFOX4 + placebo
N=351
XELOX +
bevacizumab
N=350
FOLFOX4 +
bevacizumab
N=350
XELOX
N=317
FOLFOX4
N=317
Initial 2-arm
open-label study
(N=634)
Protocol amended to 2x2 placebo-
controlled design after bevacizumab
phase III data1 became available
(N=1401)
Recruitment
June 2003 – May 2004
Recruitment
Feb 2004 – Feb 2005
NO16966 study design
Saltz et al, JCO 2009
PFS chemotherapy + bevacizumab superiority:
XELOX and FOLFOX subgroups
XELOX subgroup
HR = 0.77 [97.5% CI 0.63–0.94] (ITT)
p = 0.0026
9.37.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Months
PF
S e
sti
ma
te
XELOX+placebo N=350; 270 events
XELOX+bevacizumab N=350; 258 events
FOLFOX subgroup
HR = 0.89 [97.5% CI 0.73–1.08] (ITT)
p = 0.1871
9.48.6
FOLFOX+placebo N=351; 277 events
FOLFOX+bevacizumab N=349; 255 events
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Months
Saltz et al, JCO 2009
Maughan et al, ESMO 2009
Maughan et al, ESMO 2009
EORTC 40015
• CAPIRI vs FOLFIRI: suspended due to
occurrence of 6 treatment related deaths
in the CAPIRI arm
BICC-C
• CAPIRI vs FOLFIRI: efficacy safety
CAIRO-1
• CAPIRI: is safe
Capecitabine + Irinotecan vs 5FU + Irinotecan
Oral chemotherapy
needs ACTIVE
management!!!
WHICH BIOLOGIC IN FIRST-LINE?
Direct comparisons anti-EGFRs vs bev
• FIRE-3
• CALGB C80405
• PEAK
• Key inclusion criteria
– Patients ≥18 years with histologically confirmed diagnosis of mCRC
– ECOG PS 0-2
– prior adjuvant chemotherapy allowed if completed >6 month before
inclusion
• Amendment in October 2008 to include only KRAS wildtype patients
• 150 active centers in Germany and Austria
Phase III study design
FOLFIRI + CetuximabCetuximab: 400 mg/m2 i.v. 120min initial dose
250 mg/m2 i.v. 60min q 1w
FOLFIRI + BevacizumabBevacizumab: 5 mg/kg i.v. 30-90min q 2w
mCRC
1st-line therapy
KRAS wild-type
N= 592
Randomize 1:1
FOLFIRI: 5-FU: 400 mg/m2 (i.v. bolus); folinic acid: 400mg/m2
irinotecan: 180 mg/m2
5-FU: 2,400 mg/m2 (i.v. 46h)
Progression-free survival
0.75
1.0
0.50
0.25
12 24 36 48 60 72
months since start of treatment
297
295numbers
at risk100
99
19
15
10
65
4
3
0.0
Pro
ba
bilit
y o
f s
urv
iva
l
Events
n/N (%)
Median
(months)
95% CI
― FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 250/297
(84.2%)
10.0 8.8 – 10.8
― FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab 242/295
(82.0%)
10.3 9.8 – 11.3
HR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 – 1.26)
Log-rank p= 0.547
Overall survival
Events
n/N (%)
Median
(months)
95% CI
― FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 158/297
(53.2%)
28.7 24.0 – 36.6
― FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab 185/295
(62.7%)
25.0 22.7 – 27.6
HR 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 – 0.96)
Log-rank p= 0.017
0.012 24 36 48 60 72
months since start of treatment
297
295numbers
at risk218
214
111
111
60
4729
18
9
2
0.75
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.0
Pro
ba
bilit
y o
f s
urv
iva
l
Events
n/N (%)
Median
(months)
95% CI
― FOLFIRI + Cetuximab 91/171
(53.2%)
33.1 24.5 – 39.4
― FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab 110/171
(64.3%)
25.6 22.7 – 28.6
HR 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53 – 0.92)
p (log-rank)= 0.011
Overall survival
RAS* wild-type
0.012 24 36 48 60 72
months since start of treatment
171
171No. at
risk128
127
71
68
39
2620
9
6
1
0.75
1.0
0.50
0.25
0.0
Pro
ba
bilit
y o
f s
urv
iva
l
* KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 wild-type
Adapted from Heinemann V, et al. ECCO-ESMO 2013
CALGB/SWOG 80405:
FINAL DESIGN
N = 1140
1° Endpoint: Overall Survival
Chemo + Cetuximab
Chemo + Bevacizumab
mCRC
1st-line
KRAS wild type
(codons 12,13)
FOLFIRIor
FOLFOX
MD choice
CALGB/SWOG 80405: Overall Survival
Presented by: Venook A
Arm N (Events)OS (m)
Median95% CI
Chemo + Cetux 578 (375) 29.9 27.0-32.9
Chemo + Bev 559 (371) 29.0 25.7-31.2
P=0.34
HR 0.925 (0.78-1.09)
CALGB 80405: Overall Survival By Arm(All RAS Wild Type Patients)
ArmN
(Events)
Median
(95% CI)
HR
(95% CI)p
Chemo
+ Bev
256
(178)
31.2
(26.9-34.3)0.9
(0.7-1.1)0.40
Chemo
+ Cetux
270
(177)
32.0
(27.6-38.5)
Lenz HJ et al, ESMO 2014
OS
PFS
RR
PEAK
• Phase II random
• Primary EP (PFS): negative
FIRE-3
• Primary EP (RR): negative
• Data interpretation
CALGB/SWOG 80405
• N. pts analyzed
• Data quality
Main troubles with H-H comparison trials
Choice and duration of
2nd line therapy
Depth of response
Change in tumor biology during 1st line therapy
OS
FIRE-3: possible explanations for OS
Early Tumor Shrinkage & Deepness of Response
Lethal
tumor
load
Baseline
tumor
load
Time under treatment
OS
ETSETS• ETS predicts sensitivity
• ETS predicts the
potential DpR
• DpR predicts OS
ETS: early tumor shrinkage1,2 At least 20% decrease (shrinkage) in the sum of the
longest diameter compared with baseline at week 8
DpR: depth of response3 Percentage of tumor shrinkage observed at the smallest
tumor size compared with baseline
adapted from Mansmann et al, ASCO GI 2013 abstract #427
DpR (smallest tumor size)
Courtesy :Andrea Sartore Bianchi AIOM 2015
PFS 2nd OS 2nd= First-line FOLFIRI+CET
= First-line FOLFIRI+BEV
BEV + FOLFIRI
(n=110)Randomise 1:1
Irinotecan/
CETUXIMAB
FOLFOX
PD
COMETS: Study design
Study conducted in 11 centres in Italy
Primary endpoint Progression-free survival (PFS)
Secondary endpoints Overall survival (OS) from randomisation;
PFS 2° and 3°line;
Overall response rate
Safety
FOLFOX
Irinotecan/
CETUXIMAB
Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01030042
Research Funding Source: AIFA (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) Code FARM 6XB38F
101 events were required to achieve a power of 80% of detecting a HR of 0.57 in
favour of one of the two sequences, translating in an increase of median overall
PFS from 4 to 7 months, with a type I error of 5%, two-sided, using the Mantel-Cox
version of the log-rank test. 110 assessable patients were needed to reach the
target number of events.
PFS
Cascinu S., Labianca R. et al. ECC 2015
Efficacy data according to arm
Arma A
CETUX/CPT(55 patients)
Arm B
FOLFOX(55 patients)
Hazard ratio(95% CI)
Response rate (%) 19/52 (37%) 30/53 (57%) p= 0.05Fisher exact test
Overall median PFS (months)
9.9 11.3 HR 0.83(0.56-1.24); p= 0.37
Overall median survival(months)
12.3 18.6 HR 0.79(0.52-1.19); p= 0.26
Arm A: Cetuximab/irinotecan followed by FOLFOX
Arm B: FOLFOX followed by Cetuximab/irinotecan
Adapted: Cascinu S., Labianca R. et al. ECC 2015
RIGHT
LEFT
X Colon??
PUBLICATION
(Study)Patients
N
Molecular
Selection Treatment OUTCOME RIGHT LEFT
O’Dwyer
JCO, 2001
(E2290)
N = 1120 NONE 5FU
VARIATIONS OS (MOS) 10.9 15.8
Brule, Eur J
Can, 2015
(CO.17)
N =399 KRAS wt BSC v.
BSC + CET
PFS (MOS) 1.9
1.8
1.9
5.4
Loupakis,
JNCI, 2015
N = 2053 NONE FOLFIRI/BEV
FUOX/BEV
IFL/BEVOS (MOS)
24.8
18.0
14.6
42.0
23.0
24.0
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer:
Does Side Matter?
80405: Overall Survival by Sidedness
Presented by:
Side N (Events)Median
(95% CI)
HR
(95% CI)p
Left 732 (550)33.3
(31.4-35.7) 1.55
(1.32-1.82)< 0.0001
Right 293 (242)19.4
(16.7-23.6)
Right
Left
AVF2017g : p for interaction OS=0.38; PFS=0.59
NO16966 : p for interaction OS=0.29; PFS=0.62
Right versus Left and Bevacizumab
Right versus Left and anti-EGFR: OS in FIRE-3
FOLFIRI+cetuximab FOLFIRI+bevacizumab
Heinemann et al., ASCO ‘14
Impact of primary tumor location on
Overall Survival and Progression Free Survival
in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer:
Analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance)
A Venook, D Niedzwiecki, F Innocenti, B Fruth, C Greene, BH O’Neil,
J Shaw, J Atkins, LE Horvath, B Polite, JA Meyerhardt, EM O’Reilly,
R Goldberg, HS Hochster, CD Blanke, R Schilsky, RJ Mayer, M Bertagnolli,
HJ Lenz for SWOG and the ALLIANCE
Patient Characteristics by Tumor Side, 80405 (KRAS wt)
RIGHT-SIDED
(N = 293)
LEFT-SIDED
(N = 732)
TOTAL*
(N = 1137)
P
Age (mean) 61.2 57.3 58.4 < 0.0001
Gender (M %) 54.9% 65.0 % 62.1% 0.002
Synchronous
Stage IV
86.9% 76.0% 79.3% 0.0009
Prior Adjuvant 10.6% 15.7% 14.2% 0.03
FOLFOX / FOLFIRI 74.4 / 25.6 72.4 / 27.6 73.4 / 26.6 0.51
Primary in place 19.2% 29.6% 26.6% 0.0007
Pattern mets:
liver only
liver mets
extra-hepatic
27.5%
40.5%
32.0 %
32.1%
43.2%
24.7%
30.9%
42.8%
28.5%
0.02**
*Transverse colon – 66 (excluded from analysis); unknown - 46
**Test of any liver metastases versus extrahepatic
80405: OS by Sidedness (Bevacizumab)
Presented by:
Side N (Events)Median
(95% CI)HR(95% CI) p
Left 356 (280)31.4
(28.3-33.6)1.32
(1.05-1.65)0.01
Right 150 (121)24.2
(17.9-30.3)
LeftRight
80405: OS by Sidedness (Cetuximab)
Presented by:
Side N (Events)Median
(95% CI)
HR
(95% CI)p
Left 376 (270)36.0
(32.6-40.3)1.87
(1.48-2.32)<0.0001
Right 143 (121)16.7
(13.1-19.4)
Left
Right
80405: Overall Survival by Sidedness and Biologic
Presented by:
31.4 (28.3-33.6)
36.0 (32.6-40.3)
24.2 (17.9-30.3)
16.7 (13.1-19.4)
Bettington, et al. Histopathology. 2013.
MIDGUT HINDGUT
Bettington, et al Histopathology, 2013
Which is the best strategy in mcrc ?
RAS WT (and BRAF WT) pts have a MAJOR benefit
from anti-EGFR moAbs
Maintenance & Treatment Beyond PD maximize the
benefit of BEVA
WHAT IS THE NEED OF A RAPID & DEEP
RESPONSE ???
WHAT IS THE CHANCE TO RECEIVE A
THIRD-LINE THERAPY ???
Expectations
Patient preferences
Toxicity profile
Tumour burden Resectability
Aggressiveness
Tumour clinical characteristics
Patient clinical characteristics
Age
Comorbidities
Prior adjuvant
treatment
Tumour Molecular characteristics
RAS BRAF
Performance
status
Related symptoms
Which variables to consider in the choice of second-line?
Which responseWhich chemo
Tolerance
First-line related factors
Which biologic
Residual toxicities Drug free-interval
COMBINATION STUDY RR PFS OS
Bevacizumab + IRI or LOHP-based CT
(E3200) TMLBEPYP
NO YES YES
Aflibercept + FOLFIRI
VELOUR YES YES YES
Ramucirumab + FOLFIRI RAISE NO YES YES
Cetuximab + IRI EPIC
YES YES NOPanitumumab + IRI PICCOLO
Panitumumab + FOLFIRI 181
Targeted agents in second line MCRC
Bevacizumab Aflibercept Ramucirumab
FDA and
EMA
approved
VEGF-A
VEGF-A
VEGF-BPlGF
VEGFR-2
Anti-angiogenic agents in 2nd line
R
820 mCRC pts
progressed to a
1st line chemo
plus Beva*
2nd line
chemo§
2nd line
chemo§ + BEVPrimary Endpoint:
Overall survival
Bevacizumab beyond progression: TML trial
Bennouna et al, Lancet Oncol 2013
* progressed up to 3 months after discontinuing 1st-line bevacizumab
§ switched chemo
Bennouna, Lancet Oncol 2013
Bevacizumab Beyond Progression: TML trial - OS
11.29.8
Bevacizumab Aflibercept Ramucirumab
FDA and
EMA
approved
VEGF-A
VEGF-A
VEGF-BPlGF
VEGFR-2
Anti-angiogenic agents in 2nd line
R
1226 mCRC pts
progressed to a
1st line
oxaliplatin-based
therapy*
Primary Endpoint:
Overall survival
Aflibercept: VELOUR trial
Van Cutsem et al, J Clin Oncol 2012
2nd line
FOLFIRI
2nd line
FOLFIRI+afl
* 1st-line bev allowed and administered in ≈30% of pts
VELOUR trial: Primary endpoint met (OS)
Van Cutsem et al, J Clin Oncol ‘12
VELOUR trial: PFS & Response Rate
Bevacizumab Aflibercept Ramucirumab
VEGF-A
VEGF-A
VEGF-BPlGF
VEGFR-2
Anti-angiogenic agents in 2nd line
Ramucirumab: RAISE trial
Tabernero et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
R
1072 mCRC pts
progressed to a
1st line therapy
with oxaliplatin,
fluoropyrimidine
and BEV
Primary Endpoint: Overall survival
2nd line
FOLFIRI
2nd line
FOLFIRI+ram
RAISE trial: OS results
Tabernero et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
Angiogenesis inhibition in second line
Bevacizumab Aflibercept Ramucirumab
Study TML E3200 VELOUR RAISE
mOS 11.2 9.8 12.9 10.8 13.5 12.1 13.3 11.7
HR 0.81* 0.75* 0.82* 0.84*
mPFS 5.7 4.1 7.3 4.7 6.9 4.7 5.7 4.5
HR 0.68* 0.61* 0.76* 0.79*
RR (%) 5.4 3.9 22.7* 8.6 19.8* 11.1 13.4 12.5
100% prior Beva NO prior Beva 100% prior Beva30% prior Beva
* p<0.05
Bennouna Lancet Oncol 2012 - Giantonio JCO 2007 - Van Cutsem JCO 2012 – Tabernero Lancet Oncol 2015
Can toxicity profile help us?
G3/4 adverse events, %
Chemo +
bevacizumab
TML
FOLFIRI +
aflibercept
VELOUR
FOLFIRI +
ramucirumab
RAISE
Diarrhea 10% 19% 19% 11%
Stomatitis 3% 14% 11% 4%
Neutropenia 16% 37% 20% 38%
Hypertension 2% 19% 16% 11%
Venous thromboembolism 5% 8% 7% 3%
Arterial thromboembolism 2% 2% 2% <1%
Adapted from:
Bennouna et al, Lancet Oncol 2012; Tabernero et al, Eur J Cancer 2014;
Van Cutsem et al, J Clin Oncol 2012; Tabernero et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
100% prior Bev 100% prior BevPrior Bev
subgroup
ITT
population
Bevacizumab Beyond PD: alternatives ???
Anti EGFR
• EPIC, J Clin Oncol 2008
• PICCOLO, Lancet Oncol 2013
• Pmab 181, Ann Oncol 2014
→ No Formal Evidence of Survival Benefit
→ Cross over (activity in third-line)
→ Re-think on the basis of extended molecular selection …
Panitumumab in 2nd line: 181 trial
R
1186 mCRC pts
progressed to a
1st line
fluoropyrimidine-based
therapy
Primary Endpoints:
Overall survival and Progression-free Survival, by KRAS status
2nd line
FOLFIRI
2nd line
FOLFIRI+Pan
Peeters et al, JCO 2010
181 trial: OS and PFS results in RAS wt population
Peeters et al, Clin Cancer Res 2015
OVERALL SURVIVAL
PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL
34% of patients assigned to FOLFIRI
eventually received anti-EGFR
In the Event that Tumor Shrinkage Is Needed
20050181 Study: ORR and Depth of response
Peeters et al, Clin Cancer Res 2015
Anti-EGFR moAbs in second line
Cetuximab Panitumumab
Study EPIC 2005-181 PICCOLO
mOS 10.7 10.0 16.2 13.9 10.5 10.4
HR 0.98 0.81 (p=0.08) 0.92
mPFS 4.0 2.6 6.4 4.6 NA NA
HR 0.69* 0.70* 0.68*
RR (%) 16.4* 4.2 41.0* 10.0 43.8* 12.3
No molecular selection RAS wt all-wt (RAS, BRAF, PIK3CA)
* p<0.05
Sobrero JCO 2008 – Peeters Clin Cancer Res 2015 - Seymour Lancet Oncol 2013 -
Which Biologic After CT+Bev?
✓ Bevacizumab both after Oxa-based and CPT-based
1st line and with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX or XELOX
✓ Aflibercept only after oxa-based 1st-line and only
with FOLFIRI
✓ Ramucirumab only after oxa-based+Beva 1st-line
and only with FOLFIRI
✓ Anti-EGFRs only RAS WT; only with CPT-based CT;
mainly if shrinkage is needed
Third and further-line
treatments
Well established «salvage» options
• Anti-EGFR (pani, cet +/- irinotecan)
• In RAS wt pts not previously treated with anti-EGFR
• Chemo Rechallenge
• No prospective evidences
• Carefully consider previous benefit and toxicity
REGORAFENIB
TAS-102
Regorafenib: indication and approval
30 August 2013
27 September 2012
mCRC pts, pretreated or not considered candidates for available tx
20 August 2015
Placebo +
BSC
Regorafenib +
BSC
• mCRC pts
treated with all
standard tx
• PD during or ≤3
months after
last tx
R
1:2
N= 760
Primary end-point: OS
CORRECT trial – Study design
Stratification by
Prior BV
Time from diagnosis of mets
Geographical region
N= 505
N= 255
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
CORRECT trial: Patients’ characteristics
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
CORRECT trial – Primary end-point MET
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
Regorafenib mOS = 6.4 mos
Placebo mOS = 5.0 mos
HR=0.77 (95%CI 0.64-0.94)
p=0.0052
CONCUR trial – Outcome Results
Li et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
HR=0.31
95% CI 0.22-0.44
p<0.00001
Regorafenib mOS = 8.8 mos
Placebo mOS = 6.3 mos
HR=0.55 (95%CI 0.40-0.77)
p=0.00016
Regorafenib mPFS = 3.2 mos
Placebo mPFS = 1.7 mos
HR=0.31 (95%CI 0.22-0.44)
p<0.00001
Regorafenib: safety profile
G≥3 Adverse event %
CORRECT CONCUR CONSIGN
Rego(n=505)
Placebo(n=255)
Rego(n=136)
Placebo(n=68)
Rego(2872)
HFS 17 <1 16 0 14
Fatigue 10 5 3 1 13
Hypertension 7 1 11 3 15
Diarrhea 7 1 1 1 5
Rash 6 0 4 0 <5
Bilirubin increase 13 8 11 4 13
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
Li et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
Van Cutsem et al, WCGIC 2015
CORRECT CONCURRego
(n=505)Placebo(n=255)
Rego(n=136)
Placebo(n=68)
G≥3 AE 54 16 54 14
Treatment
modification*76 38 75 22
AEs and dose modifications: CORRECT and CONCUR
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
Li et al, Lancet Oncol 2015
*interruption, delay, dose reduction
27 April 2016
22 September 2015
Pending
TAS-102: indication and approval
mCRC pts, pretreated or not considered candidates for available tx
F3TMP
(inactive form)
TPI
FTYTPase
F3TDPFTD
FTD incorporationinto DNA
F3TTP
FTD
TPI
TAS-102
DNA dysfunction
Inhibition oftumor growth
FTD:TrifluorothymidineTPI:Tipiracil-HCl
Molar ratio = 1:0.5
+
15mg tablet 20mg tablet
TAS-102: mechanism of action
mCRC pts
treated with ≥
2 tx lines
refractory to
all standard tx*
Placebo +
BSC
TAS 102+
BSC
R
1 : 2
N= 800
Primary end-point: OS
RECOURSE trial – Study design
N= 534
N= 266
About 20% rego-pretreated
Mayer et al, NEJM 2015*PD during or ≤3 months after all active drugs
Recourse trial – Primary end-point OS MET
Mayer et al, NEJM 2015
TAS-102 mOS = 7.1 mos
Placebo mOS = 5.3 mos
HR=0.68 (95%CI 0.58-0.81)
p<0.001
Carried out at 89% of events (138 additional events)
Cut off October 8th, 2014: 712 events
Mayer R, et al. ASCO GI 2016 Abstract 634
0 6 12 282 4 8 10 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Su
rviv
al
dis
trib
uti
on
fu
nc
tio
n
Months from randomization
0
50
100
Trifluridine/tipiracil
No. at Risk:
Placebo
Trifluridine/tipiracil
(N=534)
Placebo
(N=266)
Median OS (months) 7.2 5.2
Stratified log-rank test: p<0.0001
HR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.59, 0.81]
Alive at 12 months, % 27 17
266 01232 163 114 71 56 43 27 16 14 8 6 4
534 04499 406 308 231 180 137 95 59 38 20 14 10
Recourse trial – updated OS
Mayer RJ, Van Cutsem E, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1909-1919.
Subgroup Favours trifluridine/tipiracil Favours placebo Events / N HR (95% CI)
All patients 574 / 800 0.68 (0.58-0.81)
KRAS status
Wild type
Mutant
280 / 393
294 / 407
0.58
0.80
(0.45-0.74)
(0.63-1.02)
Time since diagnosis of first metastasis
<18 months
≥18 months
131 / 166
443 / 634
0.84
0.64
(0.58-1.21)
(0.53-0.78)
Geographic region
Japan
US, Europe & Australia
227 / 266
347 / 534
0.75
0.64
(0.57-1.00)
(0.52-0.80)
Age
<65 years
≥65 years
316 / 448
258 / 352
0.74
0.62
(0.59-0.94)
(0.48-0.80)
Gender
Male
Female
348 / 491
226 / 309
0.69
0.68
(0.56-0.87)
(0.51-0.90)
ECOG performance status
0
1
298 / 448
276 / 352
0.73
0.61
(0.58-0.93)
(0.48-0.79)
Primary tumor site
Colon
Rectum
361 / 499
213 / 301
0.68
0.64
(0.55-0.85)
(0.48-0.85)
Number of prior regimens
2
3
≥4
106 / 140
137 / 173
331 / 487
1.05
0.74
0.59
(0.68-1.63)
(0.51-1.08)
(0.47-0.73)
Prior use of regorafenib
Yes
No
94 / 144
480 / 656
0.69
0.69
(0.45-1.05)
(0.57-0.83)
Refractory to fluoropyrimidine
part of last prior regimen 329 / 455 0.75 (0.59-0.94)
0.3 0.5 1 2.0
Hazard ratio: Trifluridine/tipiracil vs. placebo (95% CI)
Recourse trial – subgroup analysis OS
Mayer RJ, Van Cutsem E, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1909-1919.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Trifluridine/tipiracil Placebo
p<0.001
Response rateDisease control rate
44%
16%
PlaceboTrifluridine/tipiracil
Trifluridine/tipiracil
(N=112) %
Placebo
(N=57) %
CR 0 0
PR 1.6 0
SD 42.4 15.9
ORR (%) 1.6 0.4
Recourse trial – RR & DCR
REGO vs TAS– Efficacy
CORRECT RECOURSE
Rego(n=500)
Placebo(n=253)
TAS-102(534)
Placebo (266)
mPFS 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.7
HR 0.49 0.48
mOS 6.4 5.0 7.1 5.3
HR 0.77 0.68
RECOURSE trial – Safety profile
Lab abnormalities, %TAS-102 (n=533) Placebo (n=265)
All Gr Gr ≥3 All Gr Gr ≥3
Leukopenia 77 21 5 0
Anemia 77 18 33 3
Neutropenia 67 38 <1 0
Thrombocytopenia 42 5 8 <1
Adverse events, %TAS-102 (n=533) Placebo (n=265)
All Gr Gr≥ 3 All Gr Gr ≥3
Febrile neutropenia 4 4 0 0
Adapted from Mayer et al, NEJM 2015
REGO vs TAS: how can we choose?
Toxicity profile
Previous treatments toxicities
Previous treatments efficacy
Biomarkers ???
… COST !!!
Mayer et al, NEJM 2015
Recourse trial: Subgroup analysis for OS
CORRECT
Clinical selection in advanced lines is essential
TAS-102 mPFS = 2.0 mosPlacebo mPFS = 1.7 mos
HR= 0.48 (95%CI 0.41-0.57)p<0.001
RECOURSE
Mayer et al, N Eng J Med 2015
Grothey et al, Lancet 2013
How can I optimize the tx of my MCRC pt?
Use a comprehensive & carefull approach (clinical & molecular)
Plan a strategy
Modulate therapy
Assess & re-think the strategy
DON’T BE DOGMATIC, BUT RATHER PRAGMATIC!
Grazie per l’attenzione!