Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery What is the Benefit? · Director Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery. Department...
Transcript of Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery What is the Benefit? · Director Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery. Department...
1
Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery What is the Benefit?
Radiation RulesMihir R. PatelDirector Trans-Oral Robotic SurgeryDepartment of Otolaryngology / Head & Neck Surgery27 July 2017
2Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Early Treatment Paradigms
DE-Revolution
Impact of ENE
TORS for Unknown Primary
TORS at EMORY
Summary
Outline – Benefit of TORS
3Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV-Related OPSCC Demographic
Marur S, et al. Curr Opin Oncol. 2014;26(3):252-258.
4Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV-Related OPSCC: Cancer Cured
• Cured of cancer at age 55• 20 years of post-RT related morbidities
• 2nd primary• Carotid vascular disease• ? immune system
• lymphopenia > 60 mos.• T-cells CD4+ / CD8+• B-cells
• 56 Gy leads to fibrosis of pharyngeal constrictor
• Dysphagia• Xerostomia
5Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
CRT
• Standard treatment for OPSCC• RT 70 Gy
• OP & Bilateral Cervical Nodes• Early/ Late Complications
• Mucositis, Xerostomia, Dysphagia, Tissue Fibrosis
• High dose Cisplatin added to RT regimen 70 Gy
• 29% PEG dependency @ 2yrs• > 30% constrictor 70 Gy • > 50% = stricture / aspiration
• late toxicity in OP• 56% = CRT• 30% = RT
TORS
• Morbidity• 0% Orocutaneous fistula• 2% Tongue swelling/
numbness• 8% Bleeding
• 3% (5 cases to OR)• 1% MI
• Swallow Function• 9% Dysphagia• 7% PEG
• 5% excluding 3 salvage cases
• Margins• 4% positive
Early Data: What is the trade off?
Machtay M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3582-3589. Weinstein GS, et al. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(8):1701-1707.
6Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Optima: A phase II dose and volume de-escalation trial for high- and low-risk HPV+ oropharynx cancers
Patient Selection: HPV+ OPC low-risk (≤T3, ≤N2B, ≤10 PYH) OR high-risk (T4 or ≥N2C or > 10 PYH)
• 3 cycles induction carboplatin + nab-paclitaxel1) Low-risk ≥ 50% - low-dose RT 50Gy 2) Low-risk 30-50% - low-dose CRT 45Gy 3) High-risk poor response - CRT 75Gy
• CRT = paclitaxel, 5-FU, hydroxyurea, + 1.5Gy BID RT • Primary site biopsy + neck dissection post de-escalated treatment (RT50, CRT45)
Primary endpoint - 2-year PFS Secondary endpoints - pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and toxicity
Results: 62 patients enrolled: 28 low-risk
• Low-Risk: 71.4% RT50 21.4% CRT45 • 2-year PFS and OS were both 100% for low-risk• Grade ≥3 mucositis 15.8% - RT50 46.4% - CRT45 60.0% - CRT75 (p = .033) • Grade ≥3 dermatitis 0% - RT50 21.4% - CRT45 30.0% - CRT75 (p = .056)• PEG-tube dependency post-treatment
• 3 months 0% - RT50 14.8% - CRT45 70.0% - CRT75 (p < .001)• 6 months 0% - RT50 3.7% - CRT45 20.0% - CRT75 (p = .066)
• pCR rate: 94.4% RT50 92.3% CRT45 Melotek J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl): Abstract 6066.
7Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
TORS De-Intensification
8Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
A personalized approach using hypoxia resolution to guide curative-intent radiation dose-reduction to 30 Gy: a novel de-escalation paradigm for HPV-associated oropharynx cancers (OPC)
Patient Selection: HPV+ OPC low-risk: ≤T3, ≤N2B, ≤10 PYH Primary tumors were excised and analyzed for DNA repair foci ex-vivo
• pre-RT dynamic 18F-FMISO (fluoromisonidazole) PET to assess tumor hypoxia (defined as > 1.2 tumor to muscle SUV ratio) in cervical lymph nodes
• No hypoxia after initiation of CRT• 30Gy over 3 weeks - tumor bed + neck• 2 cycles of concurrent high-dose cisplatin or carboplatin/ 5-FU
• If persistent hypoxia• Standard dose of 70Gy over 7 weeks with chemo
• Neck dissection (ND) was done 4-months post CRT • Weekly DWI MRI, ctDNA, whole exome & RNA sequencing were performed
Results: 19 patients – 3 T0, 11 T1, 5 T2; 5 N1, 3 N2a, 11 N2b
• pre-RT 18F-FMISO scans• 6 No hypoxia – 30Gy• 13 + hypoxia• 12 intra-treatment 18F-FMISO scans
• 3 were + hypoxia - 70Gy CRT • 15 patients de-escalated to 30Gy • complete pathologic response in 8 of 9 patients• To date, 18 of 19 patients (95%-6 pending ND) remain disease free
Riaz N, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl): Abstract 6076.
9Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
• Straight Forward– advanced lesions surgically contraindicated (ie T3 / 4)– advanced nodal disease (ie N2c / N3)– lesions with high chance of avoiding adjuvant therapy (ie T1 / T2N1)
• In Between– p16+/- smokers amenable to TORS– p16+ non-smokers requiring postoperative radiation (ie N2a / b)
• Difficult– p16+ Low-Risk T1/2 N2a/b non-smokers with high likelihood of needing
postoperative CRT (ie suspicion of extracapsular (ENE) spread on scan / or > 4 nodes)
SELECTION RELIES ON IMAGING
Tumor Board Discussion
10Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV OPSCC Pre-Op CT ENE Characteristics
• Lymph node characteristics:• Necrosis (small versus > 75% “cystic”)• Lobular contours• Perinodal stranding (subtle vs gross) • Gross invasion of adjacent structures• Matted/conglomerate appearance• Size
Overall impression of rENE: yes/ no• any stranding “yes”
subtle
gross
11Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV OPSCC Pre-Op CT versus Pathology
rENE
Radiologist 1 13/24
Radiologist 2 12/24
All pECS Macro pENE
Pathology 8/24 5/24
Sensitivity All pENE
Specificity All pENE
Specificity Macro pENE
Radiologist 1 100% 69% 58%
Radiologist 2 100% 75% 63%
1. High inter-observer agreement • (k < .001) except subtle stranding
2. Size > 3 cm significant correlation with macro pENE but not predictive
3. Subtle stranding was not a predictor of macro pENE
12Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV Pre-OP CT Results: False Positives
• High sensitivity (100%) for detecting pENE in OP SCC than previously reported
• Low specificity, especially for macroscopic pENE (53%-64%)
• FP rate is unacceptably high to base treatment decisions when compared to previously published criteria for rENE in non-HPV SCC
13Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
PET in HPV-Related OPSCC
95% PPV of predicting N+ disease
Gold Standard for ENE: Gross Pathology
15Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
HPV-Related Nodal Pathology• Stage 1: Level I – IV
• < 10 % Occult Met• n = 181
• cN1 = 56 (31%)• pN1 = 28 (15%)• cN2a = 42 (23%)• pN2a = 48 (27%)• cN2b < 5 nodes = 83 (46%)• pN2b < 5 nodes = 105 (58%)
• Hazard Ratio• ENE (30%) = 1.17• Adjuvant RT = 0.59• 5 or > nodes = 3.08• 96% LRC vs. 92% with CRT
alone
4.1 cm
Zenga J, et al. Laryngoscope.2017;127(3):597-604.
16Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Gross Pathology: TORS Radical Tonsillectomy
17Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
4.1 cm
HPV-Related Recurrences
Zenga J, et al. Laryngoscope.2017;127(3):597-604.
18Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
To TORS or Not to TORS• 61yF T1N0M0 Tonsil• former smoker > 10 pk year• Radiation Treatment Summary
2015• GTV70
• involved tonsil, right soft palate, right base of tongue, right retromolar trigone, and glossotonsillar sulcus to create a CTV 70.
• CTV54 • bilateral neck nodes levels II-IV • retropharyngeal nodes • The CTVs were expanded 3 mm
to create PTVs• PTV70 treated to 70 Gy 35
fractions • PTV54 treated to 53.9 Gy 35
fractions
19Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Morbidity of CRT Failures
20Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University2
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
UPENN(60)
UPMC (51) OSU (11) Emory (7) Multi (21)
Identified Unknown Unknown
PET / CT + Panendoscopy
TORS Endoscopy
TORS HPV+ HNCUP Identification Rate
21Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
①Neck mass – PE = No Primary②+ Neck FNA – SCCa p16
• El-Naggar & Westra. 2011• P16 → Surrogate Marker for HPV+ in the
setting of HNCUP ③− PET/CT ④− MicroDL w/ biopsies
OP HNCUP• HPV → Surrogate Marker for OP Primary in
HNCUP • El-Mofty et al. 2008• Vent et al. 2013
2005: HNCUP Linked to HPV
El-Naggar AK, et al. Head Neck. 2012;34(4):459-461. El-Mofty SK, et al. Head Neck Pathol. 2008;2(3):163-168. Vent J, et al. Head Neck. 2013;35(11):1521-1526.
22Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Is it necessary to identify HPV+ HNCUP?• HPV patients have favorable OS
• Projected HNCUP• 2 – 5 %• 200 – 500 est. / year• Emory
• 93% p16+ OPSCC• 7 HPV+ HNCUP
• 5 identified (71%)
• No unified treatment strategy• RT Neck + Surgery• RT Neck + Surgery + Tongue Base• C + RT Neck + Tongue Base + Tonsil + RPN• C + RT to Neck + Pharynx (all sites)
Chaturvedi AK, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(32):4294-4301.
23Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
TORS Approach to HPV+ OPSCC HNCUP• PET / CT
• No Definitive Primary
• Telescopic Panendoscopy• Directed Biopsies
• Ipsilateral to Neck Mass• Nasopoharynx
• Robotic-assisted Panendoscopy (TORS)
• Palatine Tonsillectomy• Effective method for identifying unknown tonsil
primary• Ipsilateral to adenopathy
• Lingual Tonsillectomy
2
7.3 cm
24Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
TORS Approach to HPV+ OPSCC HNCUP• PET / CT
• No Definitive Primary
• Telescopic Panendoscopy• Directed Biopsies
• Ipsilateral to Neck Mass• Nasopoharynx
• Robotic-assisted Panendoscopy (TORS)
• Palatine Tonsillectomy• Effective method for identifying unknown tonsil
primary• Ipsilateral to adenopathy
• Lingual Tonsillectomy
2
1.3 mm
25Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Pre-TORS ERA Treatment (2013-2014)
26Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
TORS ERA Treatment (2015-2016)
27Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Pre-TORS vs. TORS Treatment
28Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
TORS
• Tumor Characteristics (n = 51)• Tonsil = 26 (51 %) • BOT = 25 (49 %)
• T1 = 23 (45 %) • T2 = 25 (49 %) • T3 = 2 ( 4 %)• T4a = 1 ( 2 %)• Neck
• N0 = 7 (14 %)• N1 = 6 (12 %) • N2a = 21 (41 %) • N2b = 15 (29 %) • N2c = 1 ( 2 %)• N3 = 1 ( 2 %)
• Pre-Operative Imaging• 5 of 51 (10 %) Unknown• 13 of 51 (25 %) + Nodes on
PET• 3 cases PET noted rN+ but pN-• 10 cases N2b vs. N2a on Path
• ENE• 22 of 51 (43 %)
• 9 micro (< 1.0 mm)
• Margins• 1 of 51 (2 %) positive
Emory Experience (2015-2016)
Control (n = 14)• DHT 3 weeks post TORS + SND Ib - IV• MBSS
Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallow (FEES) (n = 8)
• 3-5 days post-TORS + SND Ib – IV• Personalized therapeutic program
Decline on MBSimp• base of tongue retraction• pharyngeal residue• anterior hyoid excursion
Penetration-Aspiration Score• Control = 4 (p = 0.001)• FEES = 2.5 (p = 0.086)
Early FEES post-TORS
30Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pre-Op MBSS 3-5 Days Post-Op FEES 3 Week Post-Op MBSS
Intervention Control
Swallow Function after TORS
• FOIS (Functional Oral Intake Score)7 = PO diet, no restriction6 = PO diet, specific food limits5 = PO diet, multiple consistency & special preparation / compensation4 = PO diet, one consistency3 = tube dependent, consistent PO2 = tube dependent, min PO1 = NPO
31Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
CRT
• NRG - HN002• ARM 1
• 60 Gy in 6 wks + cisplatin• ARM 2
• 60 Gy in 5 wks
TORS
• ECOG 3311 – Phase II• ARM 1
• T1/T2 N0 /1 – observation• ARM 2
• T1/T2; N2a / 2b; < 2 mm ENE• 50 Gy adjuvant RT• 60 Gy adjuvant RT
• ARM 3• > 2 mm ENE; > 4 nodes; +
margin• 66 Gy + weekly
cisplatin
Quality of Life & Swallow Outcomes
HHPV OPSCC Re-Defining the Standard
32Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Summary – Still looking for answers• Low-Risk Disease – Are we still treating to 70 Gy + cisplatin?
• How much more can we de-escalate• Recommend patients for clinical trials
• cure • quality of life• ECOG-ACRIN 1308
• Phase 2 selecting for low risk• IC w/ cis / paclitaxel/ cetuximab followed by 54 Gy• significantly improved swallow outcomes
• TORS may aid de-escalation• TORS + 36Gy 20 fractions BID 1-12 days + docetaxel
• Intermediate / High Risk• Does ENE matter• patients amenable to TORS where path data is needed based on newer markers• Facilitate development of new drugs
33Winship Cancer Institute | Emory University
Acknowledgement
Kelly Summers, PAMartha Ryan, NPTraci Switzer, NPNabil Saba, MDDong Shin, MD
Conor Steuer, MDMark El-Deiry, MD
Amy Chen, MDArturo Solares, MD
Kelly Magliocca, DDSH. Michael Baddour, MD
Danielle Gainor, MD
Jonathan Beitler, MDKristen Higgins, MDMark McDonald, MD
Pat Hudgins, MDAshley Aiken, MD
Kristen Baugnon, MDChristopher Griffith, MD
Georgia Chen, PhDRafi Ahmed, PhD
Meryl Kaufman, SLPBeth Seelinger, SLP
Lauren Ottenstein, SLP