Cancer Center Cancer Center Stanford University Stanford University Gynecologic Cancer Treatment ASCO 2006 Update: ASCO 2006 Update: Gynecologic Cancers Gynecologic Cancers Amreen Husain, M.D. Amreen Husain, M.D. Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Division of Gynecologic Oncology Division of Gynecologic Oncology Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford University School of Medicine
40
Embed
Cancer Center Stanford University Gynecologic Cancer Treatment ASCO 2006 Update: Gynecologic Cancers Amreen Husain, M.D. Assistant Professor Division of.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
ASCO 2006 Update:ASCO 2006 Update:
Gynecologic CancersGynecologic Cancers
Amreen Husain, M.D.Amreen Husain, M.D.Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
Division of Gynecologic OncologyDivision of Gynecologic Oncology
Stanford University School of MedicineStanford University School of Medicine
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
OverviewOverview
• Ovarian cancerOvarian cancer• Benefit of adding a third drug?Benefit of adding a third drug?
• Intraperitoneal vs. intravenous?Intraperitoneal vs. intravenous?
• Benefit of Prolonged “maintenance” therapyBenefit of Prolonged “maintenance” therapy
• Use of Bevacizumab in ovarian cancerUse of Bevacizumab in ovarian cancer
• Endometrial cancerEndometrial cancer• Adjuvant therapy – radiation vs. chemotherapy? Adjuvant therapy – radiation vs. chemotherapy?
• laparoscopy vs. laparotomy?laparoscopy vs. laparotomy?
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Ovarian CancerOvarian Cancer
Benefit of adding a third cytotoxic agent?Benefit of adding a third cytotoxic agent?
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
GOG0182-ICON5:
Phase III Randomized Trial of Paclitaxel and Carboplatin vs Combinations with Gemcitabine, PEG-Lipososomal
Doxorubicin, or Topotecan in Patients with Advanced-Stage Epithelial Ovarian or Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma
GOG, MRC, SWOG, ANZGOG,GOG, MRC, SWOG, ANZGOG,M Negri, and NCI-CTSUM Negri, and NCI-CTSU
Bookman, ASCO 2006
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
GOG0182-ICON5: SchemaGOG0182-ICON5: SchemaR
A N
D O
M I
Z E
R A
N D
O M
I Z
E
x8Carboplatin AUC 5 (d1)Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (d1)Doxil 30 mg/m2 (d1, every other cycle)
GOG 172• N = 416, Stage III, Optimal (<1cm) • Randomized trial
• Group 1Paclitaxel 135 mg/m2/24hCisplatin 75 mg/m2 q 21 days x 6
• Group 2Paclitaxel 135 mg/m2/24hCisplatin 100 mg/m2 IP D2Paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 IP D8q 21 days x 6
• Quality of life:• Greater short term decline• No difference after 12 months
Armstrong et al, NEJM 2006
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Figure 2
By Treatment GroupP
ropo
rtio
n S
urvi
ving
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Months on Study0 12 24 36 48 60
l IV
IP
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Wensel ASCO 2006
Patient-Reported FACT-O Scores
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Pre-Randomization Pre-4th Cycle 3~6 Weeks Post 6thCycle
12 Months Post 6thCycle
IV IP
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Baseline Quality of Life and Tolerance for Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Baseline Quality of Life and Tolerance for Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A GOG StudyAdvanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A GOG Study
• To determine if patient-reported baseline QOL scores are associated with number of IP cycles To determine if patient-reported baseline QOL scores are associated with number of IP cycles completed in the GOG 172completed in the GOG 172
• Results –Results –
higher FACT-O scores significantly more likelyhigher FACT-O scores significantly more likely• to complete more IP cycles (OR: 1.27 for every 10 points; 95% CI: 1.11 ~ 1.46; p<0.001), to complete more IP cycles (OR: 1.27 for every 10 points; 95% CI: 1.11 ~ 1.46; p<0.001), • to tolerate 6 cycles of IP therapy (OR: 1.31 for every 10 points; 95% CI: 1.11 ~ 1.56; to tolerate 6 cycles of IP therapy (OR: 1.31 for every 10 points; 95% CI: 1.11 ~ 1.56;
p=0.002)p=0.002)• Conclusions – Conclusions –
– Baseline QOL associated with tolerance to IP chemotherapy and may be useful in Baseline QOL associated with tolerance to IP chemotherapy and may be useful in identifying those at risk for serious toxicitiesidentifying those at risk for serious toxicities
Wensel ASCO 2006
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Wensel ASCO 2006
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
• Question of abstracts 5004Question of abstracts 5004(Markman et al.)(Markman et al.)
Will 12 months of paclitaxel prolong Will 12 months of paclitaxel prolong survival in patients with clinical survival in patients with clinical complete remission after primary complete remission after primary treatment?treatment?
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Progression-Free Survival
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 24 48 72 96
Months After Registration
Paclitaxel 12 coursesPaclitaxel 3 courses
At Risk150146
Failed102115
Medianin Months
2214
P=0.01P=0.01
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Overall Survival
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 24 48 72 96Months After Registration
Paclitaxel 12 coursesPaclitaxel 3 courses
At Risk150146
Deaths6680
Medianin Months
5346
P=0.27P=0.27
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Increased PFS butIncreased PFS but::
• More time on first line treatment and toxicityMore time on first line treatment and toxicity• Equal treatment free interval= equal Equal treatment free interval= equal
symptoms and toxicity-free survivalsymptoms and toxicity-free survival• Potential for decreased tolerance to Potential for decreased tolerance to
subsequent treatment (g 2-3 neuropathy)subsequent treatment (g 2-3 neuropathy)• No increased in survivalNo increased in survival
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Comparison with other trials
16%27.4%
Platinum refractory resistant,
up to 3 regimens
Single agent BV 15 mg/kg
q 3 wk
Current Study(N = 44)
Prior Treatment Setting
Efficacy Results ORR 6-mo PFS
Study Treatment
42% DDP sensitiveup to 2 prior
regimens
42% DDP sensitive
up to 2 prior regimens
28%57%
18%39%
BV 10 mg/kg q 2 wks + low dose oral
cytoxan
Single agent BV 15 mg/kg q
3 wk
NCI 5789**(N = 29)
GOG 170-D*(N = 63)
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
GI PerforationsGI Perforations
• Five GI perforations observed in this trialFive GI perforations observed in this trial– Four occurred within 9 weeks of initiating therapyFour occurred within 9 weeks of initiating therapy– Perforation confirmed surgically in 4 cases; 5th developed Perforation confirmed surgically in 4 cases; 5th developed
large pelvic abscesslarge pelvic abscess– One fatality out of 5 GIP cases despite surgical intervention One fatality out of 5 GIP cases despite surgical intervention
• IND Action letter (NIH) - Oct 4, 2005 IND Action letter (NIH) - Oct 4, 2005 – Alerted investigators of risk of GI perforationsAlerted investigators of risk of GI perforations– CTEP database: 144 pts with 1 perforation and 3 fistulas (2.8%)CTEP database: 144 pts with 1 perforation and 3 fistulas (2.8%)– Total 4+5/144+44= 4.8% risk of perforationTotal 4+5/144+44= 4.8% risk of perforation
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Bevacizumab: Clinical implications
• Activity confirmed in relapsed ovarian cancer
• Should be avoided in heavily pretreated patients with:
– Extensive bowel involvement
– Bowel obstruction
– Bowel wall thickening
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Endometrial cancerEndometrial cancer
– Adjuvant therapy – radiation vs. chemotherapy? Adjuvant therapy – radiation vs. chemotherapy?
– laparoscopy vs. open surgery?laparoscopy vs. open surgery?
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Wolfson, ASCO 2006Stage I (31%), II (13%), III (45%), IV (11%)
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
By Randomized Treatment
Pro
port
ion
Sur
vivi
ng
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Months on Study0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
Treatment Group Alive Died Total Whole Abdm RT 39 66 105
Alive Died Total
Cispt+Ifos 48 53 101
Estimate 5 year survival - WAI - 34%CIM - 47%
• CIM improves PFS CIM improves PFS and OS compared and OS compared whole abdomino whole abdomino pelvic irradiationpelvic irradiation
• With increased With increased vaginal, decreased vaginal, decreased distant recurrencedistant recurrence
• More acute anemia More acute anemia & neuropathy, less & neuropathy, less chronic GI toxicitychronic GI toxicity
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
• Adjuvant chemotherapy is more effective with less long term toxicity Adjuvant chemotherapy is more effective with less long term toxicity
than radiotherapy in reducing recurrence and prolonging the survival than radiotherapy in reducing recurrence and prolonging the survival
of patient with optimally debulked uterine CSof patient with optimally debulked uterine CS
• Future therapeutic trials for this patient population should consider Future therapeutic trials for this patient population should consider
at least adjunctive vaginal brachytherapy and 3 cycles of CIM as a at least adjunctive vaginal brachytherapy and 3 cycles of CIM as a
“control arm”“control arm”
GOG 150 - Conclusions
Wolfson, ASCO 2006
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Early endometrial ca – laparoscopy GOG LAP2Early endometrial ca – laparoscopy GOG LAP2
Laparoscopy Laparoscopy (n=1696)(n=1696)
Laparotomy Laparotomy
(n=920)(n=920)
RRAANNDDOOMMIIZZEE
•2616 patients2616 patients
•Clinical stage I/IIAClinical stage I/IIA
•2:1 randomization2:1 randomization
•Lymph node fromLymph node from
R & L pelvic/PAR & L pelvic/PA
•1996-20051996-2005
Walker, SGO 2006Walker, SGO 2006
Results – Results – • 23% conversion rate for poor 23% conversion rate for poor
exposure, bleedingexposure, bleeding• Length of stay shorter with Length of stay shorter with
laparoscopy, 2 vs 4 dayslaparoscopy, 2 vs 4 days• OR time longer with OR time longer with
laparoscopy, 3.3h vs. 2.2hlaparoscopy, 3.3h vs. 2.2h• Fewer G2 or higher morbidityFewer G2 or higher morbidity• Acceptable alternativeAcceptable alternative
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Early endometrial ca – laparoscopy GOG LAP2 - QOLEarly endometrial ca – laparoscopy GOG LAP2 - QOL
Laparoscopy Laparoscopy
(n=524)(n=524)
Laparotomy Laparotomy
(n=258)(n=258)
RRAANNDDOOMMIIZZEE
•782 patients782 patients
•Clinical stage I/IIAClinical stage I/IIA
•FACT-G – physical, FACT-G – physical, emotional, social well emotional, social well being before, 1,3,6 being before, 1,3,6 wks and 6 mos after wks and 6 mos after surgerysurgery
Kornblith et al, SGO 2006Kornblith et al, SGO 2006
Results – Results – •QOL significantly higher with QOL significantly higher with
laparoscopy at 1 wk, 3 wks, and 6 laparoscopy at 1 wk, 3 wks, and 6
wks after adjusting for baseline wks after adjusting for baseline
scoresscores• No difference at 6 monthsNo difference at 6 months• OR time longer with OR time longer with
laparoscopy, 3.3h vs. 2.2hlaparoscopy, 3.3h vs. 2.2h• no difference in acute peri-no difference in acute peri-
operative morbidity or wound operative morbidity or wound
complicationscomplications
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Pre
dict
ed P
roba
bilit
y of
Suc
cess
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
BMI
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
74% success
Predicted Probability of Successful Laparoscopy by BMI - Updated
% SUCCESSFULLAPAROSCOPY
BMI
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Median Number of Nodes at Each Site
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Left PA Right PA Left Pelvic RightPelvic
Lymph Node Location
Nu
mb
er o
f N
od
es
Open Arm
Scope Arm
Successful Scope
Convert to Open
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
Pelvic Cytology: Randomization Arm
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
positive susp missing
Cytology Result
Per
cen
t
open
scope
p= 0.010
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
• Laparoscopy is an acceptable alternative to laparotomy for uterine cancer treatment and staging.
– Surgeons were encouraged to convert to laparotomy when they encountered metastatic disease.
– Conversion to laparotomy is advised when incomplete staging results would yield inadequate information for treatment planning.
– Previously reported QOL improvement and decreased hospital stay, fewer grade > 2 complications makes laparascopic staging desirable from a patient perspective.
– Survival results are pending.
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University
Gynecologic Cancer Treatment
ReviewReview
• Ovarian cancerOvarian cancer– 33rdrd agent does not improve outcome agent does not improve outcome– Intraperitoneal therapy for selected patientsIntraperitoneal therapy for selected patients– Prolonged therapy does not improve outcome.Prolonged therapy does not improve outcome.
• Endometrial cancer Endometrial cancer – Laparoscopy is an alternative for selected patientsLaparoscopy is an alternative for selected patients– Adjuvant therapy –chemotherapy better than radiationAdjuvant therapy –chemotherapy better than radiation
Cancer CenterCancer CenterStanford UniversityStanford University