Gastric and Esophageal Cancers: ASCO 2013 Poster Discussion Section
David H. Ilson, MD, PhDGastrointestinal Oncology ServiceMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
ASCO 2013 Gastric / Esophageal Cancer Poster Discussion
Abst 4026: Does induction chemo added to chemoradiotherapy improve response in Esophageal and GEJ Cancer?
LB Abst 4024, Abstract 4025
– S-1 in metastatic gastric cancer
Does increasing the frequency / dose of cisplatin + S-1 improve outcome?
How does S-1 + Cisplatin compare to 5-FU + Cisplatin in China?
Abst 4027: Italian Trial of D1 vs D2 surgery
– Withdrawn, Dr. Degiuli could not attend
– Data not provided for review
Esophageal and GEJ Adenocarcinoma: Consensus on Adjuvant Therapy
T2-3 or N+: Something more than surgery alone should be done
Preop chemo ECF, CF improves overall survival in some but not all trials
– MAGIC (ECF): 13% ↑ OS at 5 yr
– FFCD / FNLC (CF): 14% ↑ OS at 5 yr same as MAGIC, no epirubicin
Cunningham NEJM 355: 11; 2006, Ychou J Clin Oncol 29: 1715; 2011
Van Hagen et al NEJM 366: 2074; 2012
5 weeks of chemo + RT Surgery vs Surgery alone
Paclitaxel 50mg/m2 + Carboplatin AUC=2 weekly
RT 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy
Surgery within 6 weeks after completion of chemoRT (THE/TTE)
CROSS Trial
HR 0.67 95% CI (.49 - .91) P=0.012
CROSS: Overall Survival
HR 0.67 95% CI (0.49 - 0.91)
CRTx
Surgery
•5-year survival 47% versus 34%, HR 0.66
•Squamous path CR 49%, Adeno 23% (p = 0.008)
Preop Chemo vs Chemo RT: Stahl
Arm Pts R0 pCR N0 Median Survival
3 yr OS Local Control
Chemo 59 70% 2% 37% 21 mos 28% 59%
Chemo RT
60 72% 16% 64% 33 mos 47%P = 0.07
77%P = 0.06
Stahl J Clin Oncol: 27: 836; 2009
•EUS, laparoscopy staged pts•Siewert I-III, T3-4 adenocarcinoma
Duration of Chemo on Positive Trials MAGIC, FFCD chemo only: 4-6 months chemo
pre / post op
– 5 year OS: 13%, HR 0.69 – 0.75
Stahl, chemo vs chemoRT: 4 months chemo, vs 3 mos chemo + 1 mo chemoRT preop
– 3 year OS: 19%, HR 0.67 (p = 0.07)
CROSS, chemoRT: 5 weeks chemo during RT
– 5 year OS: 13%, HR 0.66
Duration of Chemo on Positive Trials MAGIC, FFCD chemo only: 4-6 months chemo pre / post
op
– 5 year OS: 13%, HR 0.69 – 0.75
Stahl, chemo vs chemoRT: 4 months chemo, vs 3 mos chemo + 1 mo chemoRT preop
– 3 year OS: 19%, HR 0.67 (p = 0.07)
CROSS, chemoRT: 5 weeks chemo during RT
– 5 year OS: 13%, HR 0.66
Survival benefits = for short course vs protracted chemo
Does extended chemo improve outcome?
Rationale for Induction Chemo ChemoRT
Establish safety / tolerance of chemo prior to adding RT
Improve dysphagia in 70-80% of patients
– Reduce need for feeding tube placement
Increase in pathologic response to therapy
– Increase in R0 resection
Assess response to chemo on early PET scan
– MUNICON trial: PET non responders can stop ineffective chemo and go to early surgery
– U.S. CALGB 80803: PET non responders have chemo changed during chemoRT to increase pathologic CR
Randomized Phase II Trial of Extended versus Standard Neoadjuvant Therapy
for Esophageal CancerNCCTG (Alliance) Trial N0849
SR Alberts1, GS Soori2, Q Shi1,3, DA Wigle1, RP Sticca4, RC Miller1, JL Leenstra5, PJ Peller1, T-T Wu1, HH Yoon1, TF Drevyanko6, SJ Ko7, BI
Mattar8, DA Nikcevich9, RJ Behrens10, MF Khalil11, GP Kim7
1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; 2Missouri Valley Cancer Consortium, Omaha, NE; 3Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Rochester, MN; 4Meritcare Hospital CCOP, Fargo, ND; 5St. Vincent
Regional Cancer Center CCOP, Green Bay, WI; 6Iowa Oncology Research Association CCOP, Des Moines, IA; 7Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; 8Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; 9Essentia Health Duluth Clinic CCOP, Duluth, MN; 10Iowa Oncology Research
Association, Des Moines, IA; 11Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA
Abstract 4026
GoalsPrimary• To compare the pathologic complete response (PCR) rate
between patients receiving standard neoadjuvant +/- DOCSecondary• To assess and compare the adverse event (AE) profile• To assess and compare the overall survival (OS) and
disease-free survival (DFS)• To assess and compare the clinical tumor response rate
measured before surgery• To evaluate the profiles of pharmacogenetic and proteomic
biomarkers and FDG PET/CT measures
Schema
Randomization portion
Early toxicity assessment portion
DOC 5FU/Oxaliplatin/RT
Docetaxel 60 mg/m2 day 1, Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, and Capecitabine 1250 mg/m2/day days 1-14 x 2 cycles [DOC]; 5-FU 180 mg/m2/day continuous IV through radiation + Oxal 85 mg/m2 days 1,15,29 + 50.4 Gy radiation (chemo-RT)
DOC 5FU/Oxaliplatin/RT
5FU/Oxaliplatin/RT
R
Induction Chemo prior to ChemoRT
Small, underpowered study looking for a large difference in path CR (25% 45%)
No improvement in RO resection 94-100%
No improvement in pCR: higher rate, 48%, without induction chemo
– Comparison to SWOG S0356: 93 pts, CIV 5-FU, oxaliplatin, RT surgery
– Path CR 28%
Survival data pending
– 42 patient trial
Induction Chemo prior to ChemoRT
Was only 2 cycles of DOC enough?
– Data argue similar benefit for 5 weeks of chemo + RT vs 4-6 months of chemo
Is induction chemo harmful due to delay of RT?
– Anal cancer (RTOG): induction 5-FU / cisplatin prior to chemoRT worsened local control and OS
– Protracted preop chemo 3-4 months does not worsen outcome
This trial reinforces chemoRT, without added chemotherapy, as the standard or care
Advanced EsophagoGastric Cancer Chemotherapy: What regimen to use?
Oxali:
EOX or EOF
Cape:
ECX or EOX
XP FLO FUFIRI S-1 Cis
DCF ECF
Pts 489 513 160 109 170 305 221 126
%RR 44% 45% 41% 34% 32% 54% 36% 45%
TTP, mos 6.7 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.0 6.0 5.6 7.4
OS, mos 10.9 10.4 10.5 10.7 9.0 13.0 9.2 8.9
S-1
S-1: oral fluorouracil formulation
Tegafur, 5-FU prodrug +
CDHP: DPD inhibitor +
Oxo (potassium oxonate): reduces bowel toxicity, inhibiting orotate PRT
Developed as orally absorbed 5-FU preparation with potentially less bowel toxicity
Japan: toxicity hematologic, dose 80 mg/m2/d x 3 weeks + cisplatin, 2 week rest
U.S. / Europe: toxicity diarrheal, dose 50 mg/m2/d x 3 weeks + cisplatin, 2 week rest
Gastric Cancer: S-1 vs S-1 + Cisplatin, Spirits
S-1 S-1 + Cis p
Number 150 148
RR 31% 54% 0.002
PFS 4mos 6mos 0.001
OS 11mos 13 mos 0.04, HR 0.77
1 year 47% 54%
2 year 15% 24%
Grade 3/4 Neut
11% 40%
Grade 3/4 Diarrhea
3% 4%
Grade 3/4 Nausea
1% 11%
S-1 40-60 mg/body BID x 4 weeks every 6 weeks
Vs
S-1 x 3 weeks + Cisplatin 60 mg/m2 day 8, every 5 weeks
S-1 + Cisplatin a new standard in Japan
Koizumi Lancet Oncol 9: 215; 2008
Gastric Cancer: S-1 + Cisplatin vs 5-FU + Cisplatin, FLAGS
S-1 5-FU p
Number 521 508
RR 29% 32% 0.40
OS 8.6 mos 7.9 mos 0.20
PFS 4.8 mos 5.5 mos 0.92
Second Line Chemo
29.6% 33.3%
Grade 3/4 Neut
32.3% 63.6%
Grade 3/4 Stomatitis
1.3% 13.6%
Toxic Deaths
2.5% 4.9%
S-1 50 mg/m2 x 21 days + Cisplatin 75mg/m2 every 4 weeks
vs
5-FU 1000 mg/m2 days 1-5 + Cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks
S-1 + Cisplatin less toxic, no difference in RR, PFS, OS
Ajani JCO 28: 1547; 2010
LB Abstract 2024, Ryu et al Non inferiority trial of escalated S-1 + cisplatin
– PFS primary endpoint
Increase cisplatin exposure by 60%
Increase S-1 exposure by 10%
Standard S-1 + Cisplatin
– Cisplatin 60 mg/m2 D-1 + S-1 80-120 mg/body/day D1-21
Cycled every 5 weeks vs
– Cisplatin 60 mg/m2 D-1 + S-1 80-120 mg/body/day D 1-14
Cycled every 3 weeks
3 week vs 5 week Schedule of S-1 + Cisplatin (Abstract LBA 4024)
Large, adequately powered and well conducted study
Non inferiority for the 3 week schedule was demonstrated
No meaningful difference in PFS (2 weeks), no improvement in OS, non significant 10% increase in RR
3 week vs 5 week Schedule of S-1 + Cisplatin (Abstract LBA 4024)
Greater hematologic toxicity, need for more frequent administration of cisplatin offer no advantage
No quality of life component
– Likely worsened QOL with a 60% increase in cisplatin exposure
Current 5 week schedule should remain standard
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER33
Rui-hua Xu*, Guo-ping Sun, Hui-shan Lu, Yun-peng Liu, Jian-ming Xu, Mei-zuo Zhong, He-long Zhang, Shi-ying Yu, Wei Li, Xiao-hua Hu, Jie-
jun Wang, Ying Cheng, Jun-tian Zhou, Zeng-qing Guo, Zhong-zhen Guan
A Phase study of S-1 Plus Cisplatin Versus ⅢA Phase study of S-1 Plus Cisplatin Versus ⅢFluorouracil Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Fluorouracil Plus Cisplatin in Patients With
Advanced Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Junction Advanced Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Junction AdenocarcinomaAdenocarcinoma
* Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou GD, CHINA
(Abstract 4025)
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Objectives
Primary Endpoint:
To access Progression Free Survival (PFS) in the patients with advanced dvanced
Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma treated with S1 plus
Cisplatin to Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin in the first line treatment.
Second Endpoint:
To compare the two treatment arms with respect to overall survival (OS),
time to failure (TTF), overall response rate ( ORR) and safety profile.
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Methods: Study Design
5- fluorouracil : 800 mg/m2/day CIV for 5d
Cisplatin : 20 mg/m2 IV for 4 dA cycle of chemotherapy was 28 days, a total of 6 cycles
5- fluorouracil : 800 mg/m2/day CIV for 5d
Cisplatin : 20 mg/m2 IV for 4 dA cycle of chemotherapy was 28 days, a total of 6 cycles
S-1(oral drug) : 40mg/m2 bid for 21 dCisplatin : 20 mg/m2 IV for 4 dA cycle of chemotherapy was 35 days, a total of 6 cycles
S-1(oral drug) : 40mg/m2 bid for 21 dCisplatin : 20 mg/m2 IV for 4 dA cycle of chemotherapy was 35 days, a total of 6 cycles
RANDOMIZATION
RANDOMIZATION
Unresectable or recurrent Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Gastro-oesophageal Junction Junction AdenocarcinomaAdenocarcinoma 11stst line line
Unresectable or recurrent Gastric or Gastro-oesophageal Gastro-oesophageal Junction Junction AdenocarcinomaAdenocarcinoma 11stst line line
Three stratification factors: PS Number of metastatic lesions Gastrectomy
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
S-1 + Cisplatin
N=120
5- Fu + Cisplatin
N=116
P value
Age Mean(Min, Max)
53
(25, 76)
55
(21, 76)
0.177
Gender Female 36 (30%) 31(27%) 0.577
Male 84(70%) 85 (73%)
History of disease
New diagnosis 77(64%) 73(63%) 0.8437
recurrence 43(36%) 43(37%)
Tissue typing Low differentiation
57(48%) 65(57%)0.1574
Moderate
differentiation28(24%) 17(15%)
High
differentiation1( 1%) 4( 3%)
History of drug allergy
Yes 13 (11%) 3 (2.6%) 0.0112
No 106(89%) 113 (97%)
Demography in two groups
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
S-1 + Cisplatin
N=120
5- Fu + Cisplatin
N=116
P value
ECOG PS 0 28 (23%) 29 (25%) 0.5692
1 85(71%) 83 (72%)
2 7(6 %) 4 (3 %)
The number of metastatic
lesions
1 18 (15%) 18 (16%) 0.9120
≥1 102(85%) 98 (84%)
Gastrectomy Yes 55(45.83%) 52(44.83%) 0.8767
No 65(54.17%) 64(55.17%)
The three stratification factors (general status, number of metastatic lesions, gastrectomy) between the two groups had no significant difference.
Demography in two groups
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Progression-Free Survival ( PFS)Primary endpoint:
S-1 : 5.5 months
5-Fu : 4.6 months
The two groups had no
significant difference
( P=0.859 ) .
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Overall Response ( ORR)
Primary endpoint:
S-1: 32.5% 5-Fu: 30.2% The two groups had no significant difference( P=0.7 ) .
The efficacy confirmed After 4 weeks S-1: 22.5% 5-Fu: 21.6% The two groups had no significant difference ( P=0.8605 ) .
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Overall Survival( OS)
Secondary endpoint :
S-1 : 10.0 months 5-Fu : 10.5 months The two groups had no significant difference ( P =0.820)。
中山大学肿瘤防治中心 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
Safety Assessment
The two groups of AE and SAE had no significant difference ( P= 0.377 , 0.948 ) .
The two groups of drug related AE/SAE had no significant difference ( P=0.292 , 0.141 ) .
The two groups of leading the drop due to AE had no significant difference ( P=0.587 ) .
S-1 + Cisplatin vs 5-FU + Cisplatin (Abstract 4025)
Stat Design: Equivalence for PFS
– One sided alpha 0.025, 80% power: 252 pts
– Underpowered: Requires a much large sample
– Very large confidence intervals
No difference between conventional infusional 5-FU + Cisplatin vs S-1 + Cisplatin
S-1 + Cisplatin acceptable but not necessarily better than other alternatives
Less toxicity for FU/Cis than the 5-FU/Cis arm of the FLAGS trial
– Lower doses of both 5-FU and cisplatin
The Future
We do not need any more 600 pt trials with S-1!
Characterize the biologic differences and potential biomarkers in the 3 subtypes of upper GI adenocarcinoma
– Esophageal / GEJ
– Distal Gastric, Intestinal
– Distal Gastric, Diffuse
Evaluation of novel targeted agents in populations enriched for a biomarker or target
Colorectal Cancer 5-FU Dosing, Gastric Cancer: Oxaliplatin vs Cisplatin
FLO vs FLP
– Oxaliplatin 85/m2 vs Cisplatin 50/m2 q 2 weeks
24 hr CIV 5-FU 2000-2600/m2 + LV 200/m2 bi-weekly
210 pts randomized
TTP primary endpoint
Non inferiority for Oxaliplatin
Oxaliplatin superiority for patients > 65
FLO FLP P
TTP 5.8 mo
3.9 mo
.077
OS 10.7 mo
8.8 mo
NS
% RR 35 % 25% NS
Al-Batran JCO 26: 1435; 2008