The Role of Preoperative Approaches in Localized Gastro Esophageal Cancers
-
Upload
garrett-heaph -
Category
Documents
-
view
56 -
download
0
description
Transcript of The Role of Preoperative Approaches in Localized Gastro Esophageal Cancers
The Role of Preoperative Approaches in Localized Gastro Esophageal Cancers
David H. Ilson, MD, PhDGastrointestinal Oncology ServiceMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Gastric and Esophageal Cancer
Gastric and Esophageal Cancer: 1.39 million cases
– 1.09 million deaths (78%) Esophageal Cancer: 386,000 deaths
Gastric Cancer: 700,000 deaths
Estimate 50% are locally advanced (700,000)
– A 10% increment in survival = 70,000 lives saved
Kamangar et al, J Clin Oncol 24: 2137-50; 2006
Esophageal and Gastric CancerUS Incidence in 2007
36,820 new cases
– Esophageal: 15,560
– Gastric: 21,260
Esophageal: 90% fatality rate
Decline in Gastric Cancer Incidence
Increase in Adeno of the esophagus , GE JX, cardia
Jemal et al, CA 57: 43-66; 2007
Esophageal Cancer: Surgery 1980’s, 1990’s
Akiyama: 913 pts (Squamous), TTE (2, 3 field), 5 yr O.S. 43%
Ando: 419 pts (93% Squamous), TTE (2, 3 field) / THE, 5 yr O.S. 40%
Hulscher: 220 pts (Adeno), THE vs TTE: 5 yr O.S. 29-39%
Akiyama Ann Surg 220:364;1994 Ando Ann Surg 232:225:2000, Hulscher NEJM 347:1662;2002
Esophageal CancerMULTIMODALITY STUDIES
Chemo followed by Surgery
Concurrent RT + Chemo + / - Surgery
Esophageal Cancer:Adjuvant Therapy
Pre Operative—Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
– Negative U.S., Positive U.K. trialsChemo + RT
– Most common U.S. practice
– Mixed results, Phase III
Esophageal Cancer: Preop Chemotherapy
Negative Trials U.S. INT 113
– 3 pre, 3 post op cycles of 5-FU + Cisplatin
– 440 pts
– Adeno 54%, Squamous 46%
– No improvement in R0 resection rate, disease free or overall survival
– Path CR 2.5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Kelsen et al, NEJM 339: 1979; 1998
Esophageal Cancer: Preop Chemotherapy Positive trials U.K. MRC OEO-2
– 2 preop cycles of 5-FU + Cisplatin
– 802 pts
– Adeno 66%, Squamous 31%
– 6% increase in R0 resection rate, 9% increase in 2 year OS
– Path CR 4% U.K. MAGIC: pre and post op ECF in
gastric cancer
– 25% of 500 pts had GE junction or distal esophageal adeno
– No improvement in R0 resection rate, 13% increase in 5 year OS
– No Path CRsMRC Lancet 359: 1727; 2002 Cunningham NEJM 355: 11; 2006
ASCO 2007: Boige et al, Abs 4510: Preop Chemo in Esophageal and Gastric Cancer: FFCD / FNLCC
CT = 5-FU + Cisplatin
Preop Chemo in Esophageal Adeno: ASCO 2007, Abs 4510
Survival benefit for preop chemo with CF (cisplatin and 5-FU)
14% improvement in 5 yr OS, HR 0.69
– Similar to survival for gastric cancer in MAGIC trial
13% rate of improvement in R0 resection rate
Major impact was reduction in systemic recurrence
– Local: 26% for surgery, 24% for chemo + surgery
– Systemic: 56% for surgery, 42% for chemo + surgery
Epirubicin (ECF in MAGIC trial) may not be needed
OEO-05 (U.K. MRC): Preop ECF versus CF in esophageal cancer (U.K.)
Esophageal Cancer: Met Analysis Preop Chemo: ASCO 2007, Abs 4512
Individual patient data for preop chemo in squamous cell and adenocarcinoma
9 trials OS: 2102 pts
7 trials DFS: 1849 pts
Slightly more than 50% of patients had squamous ca
Primary endpoint: overall survival improved by a HR of 0.87 (p = 0.0033)
– Translates only into 4.3% improvement in OS
Primary End-point: Overall Survival
Patients at risk
Control 1054 321 144 74 38 20Chemo pre-op 1047 361 153 90 52 31
Su
rviv
al
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Absolute benefit at 5 years:4.3 %
Patients at risk
Control 1054 321 144 74 38 20Chemo pre-op 1047 361 153 90 52 31
Su
rviv
al
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Absolute benefit at 5 years:4.3 %
Meta Analysis of Preop Chemo: Esophageal Cancer (Abs 4512)
Overall Survival Benefit independent of histology– Adeno: 20% 27%
– Squamous: 16% 20%
Other endpoints:– R0 resection rate improved by 5%
Conclusions:– 4.3% OS improvement, 5% impact on resection rate
modest
– Greater effect for adeno then squamous cell carcinoma
Chemoradiotherapy: Esophageal CancerRTOG Trial 85-01: Non operative Tial
mskcc dhi 1999
Esophageal CaSquamous Adeno
6400 cGyAlone
5000 cGy + 5FU + Cisplatin
+ 2 cycles 5FU + Cisplatin
Local Recurrence: 45%
Surgeon’s argument for resection after ChemoRT
RTOG 85-01: Adeno vs Squamous Carcinoma
5 year Survival:
– Squamous Cancer: 21% (107 pts)
– Adenocarcinoma: 13% (23 pts)
Differential outcome by histology
Long term survivors: Primary Chemo RT
– Adeno and Squamous Cancer
– Without surgery
Cooper et al JAMA 1999
Chemoradiotherapy Alone (5-FU/Cis/RT) or ChemoRT Surgery: FFCD 9102
Author Pt No.
Histol. Therapy Med. Surv.
O.S. Local Control
Bedenne 259 Squam Chemo RT + S
17.7 mos
34%
2 yr
66%
Squam Chemo RT
19.3 mos
40%
2 yr
57%
455 pts treated, 259 responders randomized: Non responders excluded.
Bedenne et al JCO 25: 1160; 2007
Preop ChemoRT Surgery: Esophageal Cancer
Path CR in 10-40%
5 yr OS 25-35%
Phase III: small, inconclusive (<100-250 patients)
– Curative Resection rates increased RT + chemo in some trials
– Local Recurrence reduced
– Trends toward ↑ Survival
– Path CR: ↑ Survival
Prognostic Factors after Chemo RT
Patients achieving a pathologic CR have 50-70% long term survival
Some series indicate pts with 90% treatment effect have similar survival to path CR pts
Superior survival for N0 versus N1 disease
Superior survival for T0-1 versus T2-4 post treatment
Early response during induction chemotherapy on PET scan: Prognostic for improved survival
Molecular prognostic factors
Preop ChemoRT: Phase IIITrial Therapy Patients %
Adeno%R0 Resection
Path CR
OS or Med Surv
S / CRT
FFCD Surgery 282 0% 69% -- 26% 5 yr
CRT 81% 26% 26%
Walsh* Surgery 110 100% NS -- 6% 3 yr*
CRT NS 25% 32%*
Urba Surgery 100 75% 90% -- 16% 3 yr
CRT 88% 28% 32%
Burmeister Surgery 256 80% 59% -- 19 mos
CRT 80% 16% 22 mos
*1 of 4 trials positive
Preop ChemoRT: Phase IIITrial Therapy Patients %
Adeno%R0 Resection
Path CR
OS or Med Surv
S / CRT
FFCD Surgery 282 0% 69% -- 26% 5 yr
CRT 81% 26% 26%
Walsh* Surgery 110 100% NS -- 6% 3 yr*
CRT NS 25% 32%*
Urba Surgery 100 75% 90% -- 16% 3 yr
CRT 88% 28% 32%
Burmeister Surgery 256 80% 59% -- 19 mos
CRT 80% 16% 22 mos
*1 of 4 trials positive
Preop ChemoRT: Phase IIITrial Therapy Patients %
Adeno%R0 Resection
Path CR
OS or Med Surv
S / CRT
FFCD Surgery 282 0% 69% -- 26% 5 yr
CRT 81% 26% 26%
Walsh* Surgery 110 100% NS -- 6% 3 yr*
CRT NS 25% 32%*
Urba Surgery 100 75% 90% -- 16% 3 yr
CRT 88% 28% 32%
Burmeister Surgery 256 80% 59% -- 19 mos
CRT 80% 16% 22 mos
*1 of 4 trials positive
RANDOMI
Z ATION
Cisplatin + 5-FU + RT + Surgery
Cisplatin + 5-FU + RT + Surgery
SurgerySurgery
CALGB 9781: Esophageal Cancer, Preop Chemo RT vs Surgery Alone
N = 26
N= 30
Tepper JCO 24: Abs 4012, 181, 2006
Of 500 planned patients, 56 accrued
0 2 4 6
Years from Study Entry
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
po
rtio
n S
urv
ivin
g
CALGB 9781 Overall Survival by Arm
Trimodality Arm(Cis,5FU,RT,SX)Surgery Alone
9781 Survival by ArmP =0.0130
Preop Chemo versus Preop Chemo RT: ASCO 2007, Abs 4511
Trial limited to esophageal adenocarcinoma
– Siewert’s I-III, distal esophagus, GE JX, cardia
Careful preop staging by EUS and laparoscopy
Only high risk T3-4 pts treated
Balance of pts by pre therapy stage
Therapy was feasible and tolerable
Accrual goal was not met (33% planned)
Preop Chemo, Preop Chemo RT feasible
No difference in rate of R0 resection, + RT
Higher post op mortality, + RT in multi institution trial
Strong trend favoring improved OS, + RT
– 20% at 3 years (p = 0.07)
Strong trend favoring improved local PFS, + RT
– 18% at 3 years (p = 0.06)
Preop Chemo versus Preop Chemo RT: ASCO 2007, Abs 4511
Esophageal Cancer: Preop Chemo, RT, or Both? Esophageal Adeno: Preop Chemo
– Improves survival
– More feasible in a community setting
– Higher op mortality with preop chemort Esophageal Adeno: Combined Preop RT + Chemo
– Trends toward improved OS
– Significant rate of pathologic CR
– Cost of greater toxicity
– Treated at high volume centersOperative mortality not increased with preop
therapy
Esophageal Cancer: Preop Chemo, RT, or Both? Esophageal Squamous
– Preop Chemo: less certain survival benefit
– RT + Chemo:As primary therapy without surgery is
acceptableSurgery after chemo rt: in selected patients,
as the improved local control no improvement in survival
Preop Chemo vs Chemo RT: Meta Analysis
Gebski et al, Lancet Oncol 8: 226-234; 2007
Trials Pts Mort. Reduc
HR P value
2 yr OS
Chemo 8 1724 10% 0.90 0.05 7%
Adeno 22% 0.78 0.024
Squam 12% 0.88 0.12
Chemo RT 10 1209 19% 0.81 0.002 13%
Adeno 25% 0.75 0.02
Squam 16% 0.84 0.04
Preop Therapy in Esophageal Cancer
Is radiotherapy required as part of adjuvant therapy?
Future Trial Questions
– Preop Chemo + / - RT Surgery
– Preop Chemo Surgery , Post op Chemo + / - RTCRITICS Trial: the Netherlands; ECXKorean adjuvant trial: Capecitabine + Cisplatin
New Agents In Combined ChemoRT
CALGB: Irinotecan/Cisplatin Irino/Cis/RT Surgery
– Phase II 80302, serial PET scan
ECOG: Irinotecan/Cis vs Paclitaxel/Cis + RT surgery
– Path CR’s 15%
– Adenocarcinoma
RTOG 04026: Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, RT + / - Cetuximab
SWOG S0-356: Oxaliplatin + 5-FU + XRT: preop
U.K.: MAGIC 2 Trial: Pre and post ECF + / - Bevacizumab, without RT
The Future?
Better ID of patients achieving path CR: Surgery
PET Scan: early response at 2-6 weeks during induction chemo is prognostic for improved survival
– Treatment failures referred for surgery (MUNICON)
– Failures change chemotherapy during subsequent RT
Targeted agents:
– Cetuximab: RTOG 04026, Chemort + / - Cetuximab
– Bevacizumab: MAGIC 2, ECX + / - Bevacizumab
Pharmacogenetics: chemo target polymorphisms (TS, ERCC-1)
Pharmacogenomics: patient drug metabolism
DNA Array