Review of the ESMO consensus conference on metastatic CRC ... · Clinical presentation: Tumour...
Transcript of Review of the ESMO consensus conference on metastatic CRC ... · Clinical presentation: Tumour...
2
Review of the ESMO consensus conference on metastatic CRCBasis strategies ad groups (RAS, BRAF, etc)
Michel Ducreux
Disclosure• Participation to advisory boards:
– ROCHE
– MERCK SERONO
– AMGEN
– SANOFI
– BAYER
– LILLY
– CELGENE
– SERVIER
• Speaker in symposiums:
– ROCHE
– MERCK SERONO
– SANOFI
– LILLY
– CELGENE
• Research funding:
– ROCHE
– MERCK SERONO
– PFIZER
ESMO consensus on mCRC 2016
Chairs: Co-Chairs of working groups
E Van Cutsem A Sobrero Advanced mCRC
D Arnold R Adam Local and ablative treatment, oligometastasis
A Cervantes H Van Krieken Molecular Pathology and Biomarkers
Contributors
D Aderka
E Aranda
A Bardelli
A Benson
G Bodoky
F Ciardiello
A D’Hoore
A Diaz Rubio
JY Douillard
M Ducreux
A Falcone
A Grothey
T Gruenberger
K Haustermans
V Heinemann
P Hoff
K Köhne
R Labianca
P Laurent-Puig
B Ma
T Maughan
K Muro
N Normanno
P Österlund
W Oyen
D Papamichael
G Pentheroudakis
P Pfeiffer
T Price
C Punt
J Ricke
A Roth
R Salazar
W Scheithauer
HJ Schmoll
J Tabernero
J Taieb
S Tejpar
H Wassan
T Yoshino
A Zaanan
First step is biology…
Akt
SOS
FOS Myc
P13K
FKHRmTOR
PTEN
MEK 1/2
MAPK
BADGSK-3
Shc
Grb-2
Ras
Raf
Junp27
Cyclin D-1
LigandLigand
Signal
Adapters
and Enzymes
Signal
Cascade
EGFR dimer
Transcription
Factors
STAT
Extended Ras and RAF
testing
EXON 1 EXON 2 EXON 3 EXON 4
EXON 1 EXON 2 EXON 3 EXON 4
EXON 1 EXON 15 EXON 16
KRAS
NRAS
BRAF
N/A 4% 7%
12 13 59 61 117 146
5% 6% 0%
12 13 59 61 117 146
6%
600
Schwartzberg LS et al. ASCO 2013 (abst. 3631)
Recommendation 3: RAS testing
RAS mutational status is a negative predictive biomarker for
therapeutic choices involving EGFR antibody therapies in the
metastatic disease setting [I, A]
RAS testing should be carried out on all patients at the time of
diagnosis of mCRC [I, A]
RAS analysis should include at least KRAS exons 2, 3 and 4
(codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117 and 146) and NRAS exons 2, 3 and 4
(codons 12, 13, 59, 61 and 117)
Molecular Pathology and Biomarkers
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Recommendation 5: BRAF testing
Tumour BRAF mutation status should be assessed alongside the
assessment of tumour RAS mutational status for prognostic
assessment (and/or potential selection for clinical trials) [I, B]
Recommendation 6: MSI testing
MSI testing in the metastatic disease setting can assist clinicians in
genetic counselling [II, B]
MSI testing has strong predictive value for the use of immune check-
point inhibitors in the treatment of patients with mCRC [II, B]
Molecular Pathology and Biomarkers
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Recommendation 9: emerging technologies
Although CTC number correlates with prognosis in patients with
mCRC, the clinical utility of CTC assessments is not yet clear and
therefore cannot be recommended [IV, D].
The utility of liquid ctDNA biopsies to guide treatment decisions is
currently under investigation in clinical trials, but cannot yet be
recommended in routine practice [V, D].
Whole genome, whole exome and whole transcriptome analysis
should be carried out only in a research setting [V, D].
Molecular Pathology and Biomarkers
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
HER2 positive patients.. A specific
subgroup??
S.artore-Bianchi et al. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:738
ORR 35%, DCR 78% in refractory patients
PFS : 5.5 months (7.3 months HER2 +++ vs 4.2 months HER2 ++)
-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
0102030405060708090
Ch
an
ge
in
ta
rge
t le
sio
n fro
m b
ase
line
(%)
+
++
++
++
+
HER2 3+ HER2 2+ Ongoing treatmentRR
Consensus
classification: not yet…
Guinney J et al. Nature Medicine 2015;21:1350-6
CMS classification: a
prgnostic effect in mCRC
H-J. Lenz , et al., ASCO 2017, abs 3511
OS
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72Months from randomization
Pro
po
rtio
nsw
ith
ou
t ev
ent
CMS Events/Total Median (95% CI)
CMS1 85/104 15.0 (11.7-22.4)
CMS2 173/242 40.3 (36.1-43.1)
CMS3 58/68 24.3 (16.4-29.0)
CMS4 127/167 31.4 (26.3-36.9)
Logrank P-value : < .0001
Similar patterns in FIRE3
S. Stintzing, et al., ASCO 2017, abs 3510
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%CMS1 CMS2 CMS3 CMS4
Cetu
xim
ab A
rm
Be
va
ciz
um
ab
Arm
Cetu
xim
ab A
rm
Be
va
ciz
um
ab
Arm
Cetu
xim
ab A
rm
Be
va
ciz
um
ab
Arm
Cetu
xim
ab A
rm
Be
va
ciz
um
ab
Arm
57.2%50.0%
86.7%
70.0%73.7%
41.7%
77.8%
53.2%
0.76*
0.045*
0.13* 0.017*
ORR acccording to CMS in RAS wt patients
* = two-sided Fisher s p
Tumour
characteristics
Patient
characteristics
Treatment
characteristics
Clinical presentation:
Tumour burden
Tumour localisation
Age Toxicity profile
Tumour biology Performance statusFlexibility of treatment
administration
RAS mutation status Organ function Socio-economic factors
BRAF mutation status
Comorbidities, patient
attitude, expectation and
preference
Quality of life
Table 4.
Drivers for first-line treatment
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Figure 3. Standard treatment algorithm for patients with oligometastatic
disease.
RFA = radiofrequency ablation;
SBRT = stereotactic body radiation
therapy
SIRT = selective internal radiation
therapy
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Recommendation 13: conversion therapy.
In potentially resectable patients (if conversion is the goal), a regimen leading
to high RRs and/or a large tumour size reduction (shrinkage) is
recommended [II, A].
There is uncertainty surrounding the best combination to use as only few
trials have addressed this specifically:
✓ In patients with RAS wild-type disease, a cytotoxic doublet plus an anti-
EGFR antibody seems to have the best benefit risk/ratio, although the
combination of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab may also be considered
and, to a lesser extent, a cytotoxic doublet plus bevacizumab [II, A].
✓ In patients with RAS-mutant disease: a cytotoxic doublet plus
bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab [II, A].
Patients must be re-evaluated regularly in order to prevent the overtreatment
of resectable patients as the maximal response is expected to be achieved
after 12–16 weeks of therapy in most patients.
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Local and ablative treatment
(including surgery)
Treatment of metastatic disease
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Treatment of metastatic disease
Figure 5. Maintenance and second-line treatment options. CT, chemotherapy;
PS, performance status. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Treatment of metastatic disease
Recommendation 21: Third-line therapy
❖ In RAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type patients not previously treated with EGFR
antibodies cetuximab or panitumumab therapy should be considered
Cetuximab and panitumumab are equally active as single agents [I, A]
The combination of cetuximab with irinotecan is more active than cetuximab alone, in
irinotecan refractory patients [II, B]
There is no unequivocal evidence to administer the alternative EGFR antibody, if a patient is
refractory to one of the EGFR antibodies [I, C].
❖ Regorafenib is recommended in patients pre-treated with fluoropyrimidines,
oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bevacizumab and in RAS wild-type patients with EGFR
antibodies [I, B]
Regorafenib is superior to placebo in terms of OS although there are toxicity concerns in frail
patients.
❖ Trifluridine/tipiracil is recommended for patients pre-treated with
fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bevacizumab and in RAS wild-type
patients with EGFR antibodies [I, B].
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Arnold D et al, ESMO Consensus 2016
Online Ann Oncol, July 2016
Treatment of metastatic disease
A work in progress: the colorectal tract
is highly heterogeneous
Bufill. Ann Intern Med 1990; Missiaglia et al. Ann Oncol 2014; Brule. ASCO 2013 Cancer
Genome Atlas Network. Nature 2012; Bendardaf. Anticancer Res 2008
• Incidence: ~40%
(increasing)
• Older patients
• Female patients
• Microsatellite
instability
• Hypermethylation,
higher mutation
rates
• PI3KCA mutation
• BRAF mutations
• KRAS mutations
Right-sided tumours
• Incidence: ~60%
• Younger patients
• Predominantly WT
• p53 mutation
• EGFR gain
• High EGFR ligand
expression
• HER2 gain
• Better prognosis
Left-sided tumours