Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps in diagnosis and treatment
•
7 gefällt mir•1,445 views
The document summarizes current standards and next steps in treating gastric cancer. It discusses trends showing falling incidence of distal gastric cancer but rising incidence of proximal gastric cancer. It reviews primary staging procedures and treatments for gastric cancer including surgery, adjuvant treatments, and treatments for advanced cases. It provides evidence that adjuvant chemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy can increase overall survival rates compared to surgery alone.
![Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps Philippe ROUGIER, Sce HGE-Oncologie Digestive HEGP, 75015 PARIS [email_address] UFR PIFO UVSQ Université Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yveline](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20rougiergastric-110414152158-phpapp02/85/mon-2011-slide-20-p-rougier-gastric-and-pancreatic-cancers-part-i-1-320.jpg)
![Gastric cancer: a global disease ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],www.cancer.gov Kamangar F et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2137–50 20 / 100 000 <10 / 100 000 10 - 20 / 100 000 Incidence (males)]()
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps in diagnosis and treatment
Ähnlich wie Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps in diagnosis and treatment (20)
Mehr von European School of Oncology
Mehr von European School of Oncology (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps in diagnosis and treatment
- 1. Gastric cancer: Current standards and next steps Philippe ROUGIER, Sce HGE-Oncologie Digestive HEGP, 75015 PARIS [email_address] UFR PIFO UVSQ Université Versailles-Saint Quentin en Yveline
- 3. Gastric cancer: trend of age-adjusted mortality rate but GE-junction incidence is rising 14/04/11 *Standardized to world population Year 80 60 40 20 0 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Japan Denmark US white Annual rates per 100,000
- 15. S1 compound in adjuvant (2007) Benefit on DFS & OS at 3 year (+ 12% and + 10.4%) Benefit non dependant on age or sexe… mainly stage II and IIIa tumors 100 50 0 2 3 4 5 1 Ans HR = 0,68 [0,52-0,87] p = 0,0024 Overall survival (n = 1 059) 100 50 0 2 3 4 5 1 Ans HR = 0,62 [0,50-0,77] p < 0,0001 Disease free Survival (n = 1 059) % % ASCO GI 2007 – D’après Sasako et al., Tokyo, Japon, abstr. 8 actualisé ; lancet 80,5 % 70,1 % Surgery + S-1 Surgery only 72,2 % 60,1 % Surgery + S-1 Surgery only
- 25. MAGIC Trial gastric cancer: 2/3, low esophageal adenocarcinoma: 1/3 of pts D Cunningham et al. N Engl J Med 2006 ; 355: 11-20. CSC Perioperative CT S Benefit to CSC arm 2-y survival 50% 415 + 9% 5-y survival 36% 23% + 13% Medial survival 24 mo 20 mo + 4 mo
- 26. ___ S ___ CT + S years French trial: Gastric Cancer + cardia FNCLCC 94012 - FFCD 9703 results: Overall survival and resection rate At risk 5-year survival:S: 24% (16-33%) vs S+CT: 38% (28-47%) = +14% p=0.021 resection R0: S: 74% vs S+CT: 87% = +13% p=0.04 Logrank p = 0.021 Hazard Ratio = 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.95) Boige, V et al. ASCO 2007 # 4510 gastric cancer: 1/4, low esophageal adenocarcinoma: 3/4 of pts
- 28. R0 Resection Rate Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves The R0 resection rate in 2 out of 3 studies P = n.s. P = 0.04 P = 0.04 MAGIC (n=503) ACCORD (n=224) EORTC (n=114) CTX CHIR CTX CHIR CTX CHIR 69% 66% 87% 74% 82% 67%
- 29. Survival Hazard Ratios Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves the survival in stage 2 and 3 gastric cancer in 2 out of 3 studies MAGIC (n=503) ACCORD (n=224) EORTC (n=114) CTX CHIR CTX CHIR CTX CHIR 0.75 (0,.60; 0.93) 0.69 (0.50; 0.96) 0.84 (0.52; 1.35)
- 30. Neoadjuvant Therapy eficacy is confirmed in a Meta-Analysis ASCO 2010 Ronellenfitsch, U. et al. ASCO 2010 #4022
- 32. Neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer: different strategies Post-operative Chemoradiotherapy (trend to perioperative CT in academic centers) Peri-operative Chemotherapy (ECF- 5FU/cisplatin) Post-operative Chemotherapy (S-1 or combination) Postoperative CT
- 34. PALLIATIVE chemotherapy … improves survival and quality of life Efficacy : 11 m vs 4,3 m, p < 0,00001 Cochrane DatabaseSystRev. 2010 Mar 17;3:CD004064 in selected patients < 1 years Chemo BSC HR 95%CI Murad Cancer 1993 FAMTX 30 10 0,33 0,17 - 0,64 Pyrhonen BJC 1995 FEMTX 21 20 0,25 0,25 - 0,47 Scheithauer Ann Hematol 1996 ELF 52 51 0,49 0,33 - 0,74 total 103 81 0,39 0,28 - 0,52
- 38. Méta-analyse GASTRIC (Données individuelles) GASTRIC metaanalyse group, ASCO 2009
- 41. Moiseyenko V et al, ASCO 2005 Van Cutsem E et al. JCO 2006; 24: 4991-7 Tax325 trial Docétaxel 75 mg/m 2 J1 CDDP 75 mg/m2 J1 5FU 750 mg/m2 PC J1 à J5 / 3 sem CDDP 100 mg/m2 J1 5FU 1000 mg/m2 PC J1 à J5 / 4 sem VS n OR TTP OS TCF CF 221/227 224/230 37% 0.01 25% 5.6 0.0004 3.7 9.2 0.02 8.6 Tox grade 3-4 Non hematol : 81% / hematol 82% 30% febrile neutropenia VS Non hematol : 75% Hematol : 56% 13% febrile neutropenia Docetaxel (taxoter ® ) ?
- 42. Alternatives to DCF less toxic as efficients ? … P236 – JFHOD 2011 S. Pernot et al T-FOX (Tax 50mg/m 2 + FOLFOX4) N = 46
- 44. REAL-2 trial ASCO 2006 - D. Cunningham et al., abstract 4017 actualisé
- 46. FNLCC-GERCOR-FFCD 0307 FOLFIRI / ECX as first line CT : primary objective : Time to First line treatment Failure p (Log-rank) = 0.008 HR ( B vs A) = 0.77 [0.63;0.94] ECX 1 rst line : 4.24 m [3.48; 4.65] FOLFIRI 1 rst line : 5.09 m [4.53; 5.68] Overall Survival : ECX 1 ère ligne) : 9.49 m. [ 8.77; 11.14] FOLFIRI 1 ère ligne) : 9.72 m . [8.54; 11.27] p (Log-rank)= 0.95 HR (B vs A)= 1.01 [0.82; 1.24] less toxicity with FOLFIRI = Guimbaud R et al ASCO 2010 Bras A 209 108 33 8 4 2 1 1 1 Bras B 207 123 50 19 6 3 2 1 0 TTF 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Time (months) 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
- 49. Gastric Cancer : targeted therapies 14/04/11 Targets Agent Randomised trials Phase Line Résults Métalloprotéase Marimastat Bramhall BJC 2002 III 2 Négative mTOR Okamoto et al. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2009 Everolimus GRANITE III 2-3 ongoing HER2 Lapatinib Trastuzumab ToGA III 1 Positive VEGF Shah MA et al. JCO 2006 Bevacizumab MRC-STO3 AVAGAST III III Périop 1 ongoing Négatif EGFR Cetuximab Panitumumab EXPAND REAL-3 MEGA III III IIR 1 Périop 1 ongoing ongoing ongoing HGF/c-Met GSK 089 AMG 102 MEGA IIR 1 ongoing Anti-VEGFR2 PXL108454 + taxol ImClone CP12-0922 IIR 2 ongoing
- 52. Patients’ Characteristics Highest recruitment was from Korea, Japan, China and Russia F, fluoropyrimidine; C, cisplatin a n=287; b n=293 Characteristics F+C n=290 F+C + trastuzumab n=294 Sexe, % male / Female 75 / 25 77 / 23 Age, median (range) years 59.0 (21–82) 61.0 (23–83) weight, median (range) kg 60.3 (28–105) 61.5 (35–110) Région, n (%) Asia C/S America Europe other 166 (56) 26 (9) 95 (32) 9 (3) 158 (53) 27 (9) 99 (33) 14 (5) Type CG ( centralised) Intestinal Diffus Mixe 74.2 a 8.7 a 17.1 a 76.8 b 8.9 b 14.3 b Gastrectomy 21.4 24.1
- 53. Months 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 FU/cap + cisplat n= 290 FU/cap + cisplat + trastuzumab n= 294 Événements RR = 0,74 (IC: 0,60-0,91) p = 0,0046 Van Cutsem E et al., ASCO 2009 13,8 m 11,1 m IHC3+ or 2+FISH+ : 11,8 m vs 16 m Primary objective : overall survival ( 10 m => 13 m) 5FU or cape-CDDP + trastuzumab vs 5FU or cape-CDDP phase III ToGA IHC 3+ et/ou FISH+ 0,0
- 54. Efficacité (survie): analyse de sous-groupe Risk ratio 0.2 1 2 5 0.4 0.6 3 4 All All 584 0.60, 0.91 0.74 GEJ Primary site 106 0.42, 1.08 0.67 Stomach 478 0.60, 0.96 0.76 Region Asia 319 0.61, 1.11 0.82 C/S America 52 0.21, 0.90 0.44 Europe 190 0.44, 0.89 0.63 Other 23 0.48, 3.08 1.22 0–1 ECOG PS 527 0.56, 0.89 0.71 2 57 0.51, 1.79 0.96 279 0.84 <60 Age group 0.62, 1.14 >60 305 0.49, 0.88 0.66 Fluoropyrimidine 5-FU 73 0.40, 1.23 0.70 Capecitabine 511 0.60, 0.95 0.75 Category Subgroup N 95% CI HR Diffuse GC type 51 0.56, 2.05 1.07 Intestinal 438 0.54, 0.88 0.69 Mixed 91 0.51, 1.46 0.86 1–2 No. metastatic sites 298 0.68, 1.26 0.93 >2 285 0.43, 0.77 0.57 No Yes Prior gastrectomy 451 133 0.72 0.81 0.57, 0.91 0.49, 1.34 Favours T Favours no T
- 55. Efficacité (survie): selon le statut HER2 Subgroup Median OS (months) All 11.1 13.8 vs Pre-planned analysis IHC0/FISH+ IHC1+/FISH+ IHC2+/FISH+ IHC3+/FISH+ IHC3+/FISH- 7.2 10.2 10.8 12.3 17.7 10.6 8.7 12.3 17.9 17.5 Exploratory analysis IHC0 or 1+/FISH+ IHC2+/FISH+ or IHC3+ 8.7 11.8 10.0 16.0 vs vs vs vs vs vs vs 0.92 1.24 0.75 0.58 0.83 0.48, 1.76 0.70, 2.20 0.51, 1.11 0.41, 0.81 0.20, 3.38 Hazard ratio 95% CI 0.74 0.60, 0.91 1.07 0.65 0.70, 1.62 0.51, 0.83 Risk ratio Favours T Favours no T 584 61 70 159 256 15 131 446 N 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 2 3 4 5
- 56. Algorythme for characterisation of HER2 in GC/JOG 0 FISH/SISH* + – Eligible for trastuzumab +1 +3 IHC Tumoral tissue +2 *cut off for FISH, SISH = HER2:CEP17 ratio ≥2
- 58. Anti HER1 (EGFR) Acanti-EGFR (Acanti-EGFR : Cmab, Pmab) TKI (erlotinib, gefitinib) Surexpression : > 50% Mutations Kras / Braf : rare.
- 59. Anti-EGFR: phase II in gastric cancer 14/04/11 Essai Phase Tumeur Stade Ligne nb Agent Chimiothérapie OR (%) PFS (m) SG (mois) Fahlke ASCO 2009 II E LA/M+ 1 30 Cetux Docetaxel, CDDP 27 ND ND Pinto Br J Cancer 2009 II E, C LA/M+ (96%) 1 72 Cetux (jà PD) Docetaxel, CDDP (x 6) 41 5.0* 9.0 Kanzler ASCO 2009 II E, C LA/M+ 1 49 Cetux FU, CPT11 42 8.5 16.6 Pinto Ann Oncol 2007 II E, C LA/M+ (87%) 1 38 Cetux (jà PD) FU, CPT11 (x 12) 44 8.0* 16.0 Zhang ASCO GI 2009 II E LA/M+ 1 52 Cetux Cape, CDDP 48 5.2* ND Han Br J Cancer 2009 II E M+/ récid. 1 40 Cetux (jà PD) FU, LOHP (x 12) 50 5.5* 9.9 Kim Invest New Drugs 2009 II E M+ / récid. 1 44 Cetux (jà PD) Cape, LOHP (x 8) 52 6.5 11.8 Woell ASCO 2009 II E LA/M+ 1 51 Cetux CPT11, LOHP 63 5.7* 8.7 Lordick Br J Cancer 2010 II E M+ 1 52 Cetux FU, LOHP 65 7.6* 9.5 Yeh ASCO 2009 II E LA/M+ 1 35 Cetux FU, CDDP 69 10.0 15.0 Tebbutt Br J Cancer 2010 IIR E, C, O M+ 2 38 Cetux Docetaxel 6 2.1 5.2
- 61. Ab Anti-VEGF : AvaGast trial Y. Kang et al., ASCO 2010, LBA #4007 Phase III 1 ère ligne (M+ ou LA ) ADK gastriques ou JOG
- 63. Overall Survival Y. Kang et al ., ASCO 2010 , LBA 4007 10,1 m vs 12,1 m HR = 0,87 ( p = 0.1 ) AVAGAST Survival rate 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 XP + Bev XP + Placebo Studymonths
- 64. PFS Y. Kang et al ., ASCO 2010 , LBA 4007 10,1 m vs 12,1 m HR = 0,87 ( p = 0,1 ) AVAGAST Survival rate 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 XP + Bev XP + Placebo Studymonths XP + placebo XP + Beva . HR America 6, 8 m 11,5 m 0,63 Europe 8,6 m 11,1 m 0,85 Asie – Pacifique 12,1 m 13,9 m 0,97 … Efficacity to be reevaluted ?
- 65. Overall Survival: sub-group Analysis Pan-America * 29 patients with locally advanced disease only Kang, et al. ASCO 2010 2 No Disease status ECOG performance Prior gastrectomy Region Site of primary disease No. of metastatic sites at baseline Disease measurability Histologic type All Locally advanced* Metastatic 0 Yes Europe All 1 Asia Stomach GE junction 1 Measurable Non-measurable Intestinal Diffuse Mixed Subgroup Category 2 Hazard Ratio 0 1
Hinweis der Redaktion
- L’analyse définitive des résultats a été effectuée en novembre 2006. La compliance au traitement par S-1 a été de 87,4 % à 3 mois et de 65,8 % à 12 mois. Les effets indésirables de grade 3 ou 4 les plus fréquents ont été l’anorexie (6 %), les nausées (3,7 %) et la diarrhée (3,1 %). Les résultats en termes d’efficacité confirment après 3 ans de suivi les bénéfices sur la survie globale et la survie sans rechute déjà observés à 2 ans : le taux de survie globale à 3 ans était ainsi de 80,5 %, contre 70,1 % avec la chirurgie seule (risque relatif : 0,68 [p = 0,0024]). Ce bénéfice de survie globale à 3 ans était observé dans les stades II (90,7 % versus 82,1 % [p = 0,042]) et IIIA (77,4 % versus 62,0 % [p = 0,032]) mais non IIIB (64,3 % versus 56,6 % [p = 0,192]) (analyses sur la population éligible, n = 1 034). L’analyse par sous-groupes (sexe, âge, type histologique) montre que tous les patients bénéficiaient de la CT. La CT adjuvante par S-1 apparaît donc dans cette étude efficace (notamment dans les stades les plus précoces) et bien tolérée. Elle semble avoir sa place pour le traitement adjuvant des cancers gastriques de stade II/III après résection D2 à visée curative, compliquant encore le débat opposant les schémas MAGIC et McDonald.
- Randomized comparison between chemotherapy plus best supportive care with best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Glimelius B , Ekstr K , Hoffman K , Graf W , Sj 駭 PO , Haglund U , Svensson C , Enander LK , Linn � T , Sellstr H , Heuman R .Department of Oncology, University of Uppsala, Sweden.BACKGROUND: The extent to which chemotherapy may relieve tumour-related symptoms, improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with gastric cancer is not known in spite of the extensive use of this treatment modality. The aim of this study was to estimate any gain in the quantity and quality of life produced by chemotherapy in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1991 and February 1995, 61 patients with gastric cancer were randomized to either chemotherapy in addition to best supportive care or to best supportive care. Chemotherapy was allowed in the latter group if the supportive measures did not lead to palliation. Chemotherapy was the ELF-regimen consisting of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and etoposide, or, in elderly patients with poor performance, a 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimen (FLv). Quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 instrument. RESULTS: More patients in the chemotherapy group (45%, 14/31) had an improved or prolonged high quality of life for a minimum period of 4 months compared to those in the best supportive care group (20%, 6/30, P < 0.05). A similar difference was seen in the treating physician's evaluation of whether the patient was subjectively improved or continued to do well for at least 4 months (17/31, 55% versus 6/30, 20%, P < 0.01). Overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy group (median 8 vs. 5 months) although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). After corrections for imbalances in pretreatment characteristics, chemotherapy treatment was, however, associated with a survival benefit (P = 0.003). Also, the quality-adjusted survival time and time to disease progression were longer for patients randomized to chemotherapy (median 5 vs. 2 months, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that chemotherapy can add to both quantity and quality of life in advanced gastric cancer. The number of patients who benefit from treatment is, however, still rather limited.
- Not a unique standard chemo. At egal efficacy options with good tolerability are needed
- La place de la polychimio, par rapport à la monochimio, a peut- être été sur-estimée car les nombreux essais les ayant comparés sont anciens et par toujours en ITT donc ont pu sous-estimer les pb de sur-toxicités liées aux polychimio. L’ ECF (Epirubicine, Cisplatine et 5-FU continu) reste le schéma de référence en dépit de son maniement difficile. Les taux de réponse sont compris entre 40 et 50% mais le bénéfice en terme de survie est faible comparé au FAMTX (9 versus 6 mois). L’association 5-FU et Cisplatine (sous sa forme classique sur 5 jours ou sous forme de l’association de LV5FU2-Cisplatine) est largement utilisée. Une étude comparative rétrospective semble suggérer une équivalence d’efficacité et une meilleure tolérance du LV5FU2-Cisplatine par rapport au schéma classique. L’ ELF (5-FU, Acide Folinique et Etoposide) est un protocole intéressant chez les malades présentant une contre-indication aux anthracyclines et au cisplatine. 5 FU continu - CDDP versus ELF ( VP16 - Ac Fol - 5FU) versus FAMTX ( 5FU - Adria - Métothrexate HD) ECF : 5FU 200 mg/m2 continu jusqu’à progression Epiadriamycine 50 mg/m2 / 3 semaines CDDP 60 mg/m2/ 3 semaines
- Not a unique standard chemo. At egal efficacy options with good tolerability are needed
- Trouverpublidéfinitive Progression-free survival (PFS) non-inferiority of XP vs. FP based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was also significant showing consistency with the PP analyses. The comparison of the actual hazard ratio (HR) upper limit equal to 1.03 with the limit of 1.25 shown here is a more rigorous test than that vs. the limit of 1.4, and shows a clear difference that is statistically significant (p=0.0004) based on the ITT unadjusted analysis for non-inferiority. The test for superiority should be based on the ITT population (all patients randomized) since it is the more rigorous test in this case. As shown here, there was a trend toward superior PFS with XP vs. FP based on the ITT population unadjusted analysis (p=0.0801). This studywasalsopowered for noninferiority. Progression-freesurvivalwas 5.6 months for XP versus 5.0 months for FP, (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.63, 1.04; p = 0.08). Response rates were 41% (XP) versus 29% (FP) [p = 0.03]. Again, noninferioritywasshownbetween 5-FU and capecitabine, with a superiorresponse rate demonstrated for capecitab-ine. Medianoverallsurvivalwas 10.5 months for XP versus 9.3 months for FP (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.64, 1.13; p-value not significant). cisplatin 80 mg/m2 as a 2-h i.v. infusion on day 1 withhyperhydration plus either oral capecitabine (XP) 1000 mg/m2 twicedaily on days 1–14 every 3 weeks or 5-FU (FP) 800 mg/ m2/day by continuous infusion on days 1–5 every 3 weeks
- Median Follow-up : Bras A: 20.99 [20.99;39.33] Bras B: Non atteinte [NA; NA]
- Not a unique standard chemo. At egal efficacy options with good tolerability are needed
- Dans littérature Surexpression : 6 à 35% M+ 97% et LA 3%
- Les résultats sont éloquents : - Objectif principal atteint : supériorité de la survie globale en faveur du bras avec trastuzumab (13,8 versus 11,1 mois), avec une réduction du risque de 26 % (HR = 0,74 ; IC 95 : 0,60-0,91 ; p = 0,0046). Chez les patients FISH+ ou IHC 2+/3+, la différence était encore plus marquée : 16 mois versus 11,8 mois (HR = 0,65 ; IC 95 : 0,51-0,83) ; - Objectifs secondaires : Augmentation de la survie sans progression : 6,7 mois versus 5,5 mois (HR : 0,71 ; IC 95 : 0,59-0,85 ; p = 0,0002) ; Augmentation du taux de réponse : 47,3 % versus 34,5 % (p = 0,0017) ; Pas d’augmentation significative de la toxicité, hormis une augmentation asymptomatique de la fraction d’éjection ventriculaire gauche chez les patients sous trastuzumab. Après le cancer du sein, il s’agit de la deuxième localisation tumorale pour laquelle le trastuzumab apporte un bénéfice significatif. C’est une incontestable ouverture vers de nouveaux défis, de nouveaux schémas d’associations, et de nouveaux espoirs pour améliorer le pronostic de nos patients atteints de cancer de l’estomac.
- HER2 largement impliqué dans un sous-groupe de K sein. Avait « révolutionné la sénologie » de part efficacité de l’AC anti_HER2. Hyperexpression sur lignée cellulaire de cellules gastriques connue depuis longtemps. Surexpression ensuite retrouvée dans 6 à 35% de K gastriques Etudes cliniques précoce
- M+ 95 et LA 5%
- Kang K-Y et al. AVAGAST: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, phase III study of first-line capecitabine and cisplatin + bevacizumab or placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) . Abstract No. LBA4007, 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting
- Kang K-Y et al. AVAGAST: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled, phase III study of first-line capecitabine and cisplatin + bevacizumab or placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) . Abstract No. LBA4007, 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting