Identification, molecular characterization, clinical

Download Report

Transcript Identification, molecular characterization, clinical

Individualizing Therapy for
Gastrointestinal Malignancies
2010 Update
Thomas J. Semrad MD, MAS
Assistant Professor of Medicine
UC Davis Cancer Center
Disclosure
• Consulting or Advisory: Genomic Health, Inc
Individualizing Therapy in Colorectal
Cancer
• Tumor
– MSI
– KRAS, BRAF, and others
• Host
– Pharmacogenetics
Colon Cancer Is More Than One Disease
Chromosome Instability: 85%
Microsatellite
Instability: 15%
KRAS Mutation: 40%
BRAF
Mutation:
10%
CIMP
Watch this Space!!!
Microsatellite Instability (MSI)
• Defective DNA Mismatch
Repair (dMMR)
Nature Reviews Cancer 2004;4,769-780.
MSI Identifies a Subset of Stage II and III
Colon Cancer with a Lower Risk of Relapse
MSI
MSS
Untreated Patients
JCO 2010;28:3219-3226
MSI Predicts for Lack of Benefit from
Adjuvant 5FU
Stage II
Stage III
MSI
MSS
JCO 2010;28:3219-3226
E5202
mFOLFOX6
High Risk
(MSS and
18qLOH)
Surgery
R
mFOLFOX6 +
bevacizumab
Tumor Block Risk
Assessed Based
on MSI / 18q LOH
Low Risk
(MSI or no loss
18q)
Observation
Accrual Goal 3,125
Adjuvant 5FU: QUASAR
Lancet 2007;370:2020-2029
RT-PCR for RNA Quantification from Fixed
Paraffin-Embedded Tumor Tissue
Reporter
Forward
Primer
R
Probe
Quencher
Q
Polymerization
Reverse
Primer
R
Q
Strand Displacement
and Cleavage of Probe
Q
R
Polymerization
Completed
Clark-Langone, BMC Genomics: 2007; 8:279.
Cronin et al. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:35-42.
QUASAR: Pre-Specified Primary Endpoint:
Recurrence Risk
Is there a significant relationship
between the risk of recurrence
and the pre-specified continuous
Recurrence Score in stage II colon
cancer patients randomized to
surgery alone?
RECURRENCE SCORE
Calculated from Tumor
Gene Expression
STROMAL
FAP
INHBA
BGN
CELL CYCLE
Ki-67
C-MYC
MYBL2
GADD45B
REFERENCE
ATP5E
GPX1
PGK1
UBB
VDAC2
Kerr et al., ASCO 2009, #4000
QUASAR Results: Colon Cancer Recurrence Score
Predicts Recurrence Following Surgery
Prospectively-Defined Primary Analysis in Stage II Colon Cancer (n=711)
35%
Risk of Recurrence at 3 years
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
p=0.004
5%
0%
| |
0
||| || | | | | |||| ||| ||||| ||||||||||||| |||| ||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||| ||| || | || ||||||| | | | |||| |
10
20
30
40
50
60
|
70
Recurrence Score
Kerr et al., ASCO 2009, #4000
QUASAR Results: Recurrence Score, T Stage, and MMR
Deficiency are Key Independent Predictors of Recurrence in
Stage II Colon Cancer
Kerr et al., ASCO 2009, #4000
Nature Reviews Cancer 2009; 9, 489-499
Mutated KRAS Predicts Absence of
Benefit From EGFR-Targeted Antibodies
Mutated KRAS
Wild-type KRAS
N Engl J Med 2008;359:1757-65
What We Thought We Knew: CRYSTAL
N Engl J Med 2009;360:1408-17
Cetuximab Does Not Improve DFS
in Stage III CRC
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3508)
MRC COIN
Cetuximab and Oxaliplatin
• Advanced
Colorectal Cancer,
first line therapy
• No Prior
Chemotherapy for
Metastatic Disease
• PS 0-2
• Good Organ
Function
• No prior EGFR IHC
A
5FU or capecitabine
Oxaliplatin
Second Line Therapy:
Irinotecan based
Primary Endpoint:
B
C
5FU or capecitabine
Oxaliplatin
Cetuximab
5FU or cap
Oxaliplatin
5FU or cap
Oxaliplatin
Overall Survival in KRAS
wild-type
Secondary Endpoints:
OS in KRAS mutant
OS in “all wild-type”
PFS, RR
QOL
Health Economics
12 Weeks
OxMdG: mFOLFOX6 with slightly different LV
CapOx: Oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 D1; Capecitabine 1000mg/m2 D1-14 every 21 days, reduced to
850mg/m2 July 2007 due to toxicity
CapOx or OxMdG chosen before randomization; N=815 per arm
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3502)
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3502)
Biomarkers
Total
1316
Population
N
Arm A
Arm B
1630
815
815
Assessed for
mutation
1316 (81%)
648
668
KRAS mutated
565 (43%)
268
297
BRAF mutated
102 (8%)
57
45
NRAS mutated
50 (4%)
18
32
KRAS wild-type
729 (55%)
367
362
“All wild-type”
581 (44%)
289
292
ITT
All WT
581
KRAS
565
BRAF
102
NRAS
50
KRAS & NRAS
11
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3502)
Median Overall Survival (Months)
COIN: Survival by Subgroup
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3502)
COIN: Response Rates
KRAS WT
KRAS Mutated
Arm A
Arm B
Arm A
Arm B
N
367
362
268
297
ORR at 12 weeks
50%
59%
41%
40%
Odds Ratio (B vs. A)
Overall Response
Odds Ratio (B vs. A)
OR 1.44
P = 0.015
57%
64%
OR 1.35
P = 0.049
OR 0.97
P = 0.877
46%
43%
OR 0.88
P = 0.449
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3502)
???
Front Line Chemotherapy Plus EGFRTargeted Antibody - KRAS Wild Type
P-value
PFS
(months)
P-value
OS
(months)
P-value
57
1.44
8.6
0.959
17.9
1.037
+ cetuximab
64
0.015
8.6
0.60
17.0
0.68
CRYSTAL
FOLFIRI
40
2.07
8.4
0.696
20.0
ASCO GI 2010
N = 1198
0.796
+ cetuximab
57
<0.0001
9.9
0.0012
23.5
0.0093
OPUS
FOLFOX4
37
2.544
7.2
0.570
NR
7.7
0.0163
NR
Trial
Arm
RR (%)
MRC COIN
OxFdG / XELOX
ASCO 2010
N = 1630
OR
HR
HR
NA
JCO 2009
N = 337
+ cetuximab
61
0.011
PRIME
FOLFOX4
48
8.0
0.80
19.7
ASCO GI 2010
N = 1183
NR
0.83
+ panitumumab
55
0.07
9.6
0.02
23.9
0.07
CAUTION: CROSS TRIAL
COMPARISONS!!
BRAF Mutation:
Prognostic and/or Predictive?
BRAF Mutated
Trial
CRYSTAL
Combined
CRYSTAL &
OPUS
Arm
RR (%)
FOLFIRI
15
+ cetuximab
19
Chemotherapy
13
+ cetuximab
22
OR
P-value
NR
0.9136
1.6
0.4606
PFS
(months)
P-value
OS
(months)
P-value
5.6
0.934
10.3
0.908
8.0
0.8656
14.1
0.7440
3.7
7.1
HR
0.69
0.267
9.9
14.1
HR
0.63
0.079
KRAS and BRAF Wild Type
Combined
CRYSTAL &
OPUS
Chemotherapy
49
+ cetuximab
61
2.27
<0.001
7.7
10.9
0.64
<0.001
21.1
24.8
0.84
0.041
JCO 28:15s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3506)
www.abcam.com
Predictors of Benefit from
Bevacizumab in Colon Cancer
?? VEGF Pathway Polymorphisms
JCO 2005; 23: 7342-7349
JCO 2009; 27: 5519-5528
N9741
JCO 2010; 28: 3227-3233
Pharmacogenetic Hypotheses Can Be
Tested in Cooperative Group Trials
JCO 2010; 28: 3227-3233
Conclusions: I
• MSI
– Prognostic in Stage II and III
– Predicts lack of benefit from 5FU in Stage II
• KRAS mutations
– Predict lack of benefit from cetuximab
• BRAF mutation
– May NOT be a good predictor for lack of benefit from
cetuximab
– Suggests an awful prognosis
Conclusions: II
• No evidence for benefit of either bevacizumab
or cetuximab in adjuvant setting
• Does cetuximab combine better with
irinotecan than oxaliplatin?
• Pharmacogenetic data is needed from
cooperative group trials