Understanding predictive and prognostic markers

Similar documents
Colon Cancer Molecular Target Agents

Toxicity by Age Group. Old Factor 1: Age. Disclosures. Predicting survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. Personalized Medicine - Decision Tools -

ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER: UNRESECTABLE OR BORDERLINE RESECTABLE (GROUP 1) CHEMOTHERAPY +/- TARGETED AGENTS. Andrés Cervantes. Professor of Medicine

The role of Maintenance treatment Appropriate endpoints according to ESMO consensus

Κίκα Πλοιαρχοπούλου. Παθολόγος Ογκολόγος Ευρωκλινική Αθηνών

Conflicts of Interest GI Malignancies: An Update on Current Treatment Options

Cetuximab with Chemotherapy as Treatment for Stage III Colon or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Does it matter which chemotherapy regimen you partner with the biologic agents?

First line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer

BRAF Testing In The Elderly: Same As in Younger Patients?

MÁS ALLA DE LA PRIMERA LÍNEA: SECUENCIA DE TRATAMIENTO. Dra. Ruth Vera Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra

What s New? Dr. Barbara Melosky

What s New in Colon Cancer? Therapy over the last decade

RECONSIDERING THE BENEFIT OF INTERMITTENT VERSUS CONTINUOUS TREATMENT IN THE MAINTENANCE TREATMENT SETTING OF METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER

THE ROLE OF PREDICTIVE AND PROGNOSTIC MARKERS IN COLORECTAL CANCER

Konzepte bei der Therapie des metastasierten kolorektalen Karzinoms

Adjuvant treatment Colon Cancer

Review of the ESMO consensus conference on metastatic CRC Basis strategies ad groups (RAS, BRAF, etc) Michel Ducreux

Page: 1 of 17. KRAS, NRAS and BRAF Mutation Analysis in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

State of the Art: Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis Dr. Iain Tan

MOSAIC study: Actualization of Overall Survival (OS) with 10 years follow up and evaluation of BRAF by GERCOR and MOSAIC investigators

Development of Conventional Chemotherapy in mcrc BSC vs. Chemo, Biochemical modulation, Oral fluoropyrimidines, Developmentof combination chemotherapy

Validated and promising predictive factors in mcrc: Recent updates on RAS testing Fotios Loupakis, MD PhD

Therapeutic Options for Patients with BRAF-mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

What to do after 1st-line failure in mcrc?

Dr. Iain Tan. Senior Consultant GI Medical Oncologist National Cancer Centre Singapore

Oncologist. The. Gastrointestinal Cancer

Adjuvant/neoadjuvant systemic treatment of colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Targeted therapies in colorectal cancer: the dos, don ts, and future directions

Advances in Chemotherapy of Colorectal Cancer

MSI and other molecular markers: how useful are they? Daniela E. Aust, Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Dresden, Germany

Incorporating biologics in the management of older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Related Policies None

TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE

Ashita Waterston Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre

KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF Variant Analysis in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Disclosures. Clinical and molecular features to guide adjuvant therapy. Personalized Medicine - Decision Tools -

clinical practice guidelines

Q11: WHAT IS THE CURRENT STANDARD FIRST LINE TREATMENT FOR METASTATIC INOPERABLE COLORECTAL CANCER?

OPTIMISING OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER

JY Douillard MD, PhD Professor of Medical Oncology

Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Annals of Oncology Advance Access published August 12, 2014

JY Douillard MD, PhD Professor of Medical Oncology

Best of ASCO 2009 / GI

Treatment of the elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patient: SIOG Recommendations

COLORECTAL CANCER. Bert H. O Neil, MD Jackie and Joseph Cusick Professor of Oncology Director, GI Malignancies and Phase I Program

Contemporary Evidence-Based Management of Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Roche setting the standards of cancer care Oncology Event for Investors, June 19

THE BEST OF ESMO 2016

Progress towards an individualized approach to therapy: colorectal cancer

The ESMO consensus conference on metastatic colorectal cancer

Basket Trials: Features, Examples, and Challenges

Metastatik Kolorektal Kanser Tedavisinde Yeni Biyobelirteçler Sonrası Panitumumab. Prof. Dr. N. Faruk Aykan Antalya 22 Mart 2014

Chemotherapy re-challenge response rate in metastatic colorectal cancer

ANTI-EGFR IN MCRC? Assoc. Prof. Gerald Prager, Medical University of Vienna, Austria

Citation for final published version: Publishers page: < /annonc/mdw645>

XXV Corso Nazionale TSLB: evoluzione o ri(e)voluzione?

Adjuvant therapy in older adults: controversies and challenges - Colorectal cancer -

REVIEW ON THE ESMO CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER

METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER: TUMOR MUTATIONAL ANALYSIS AND ITS IMPACT ON CHEMOTHERAPY SUMA SATTI, MD

The left versus right colon cancer story What is the truth?

KRAS G13D mutation testing and anti-egfr therapy

Horizon Scanning in Oncology

SURROGATE ENDPOINTS IN ONCOLOGY: OBJECTIVES, METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW, AND CURRENT STATUS

Panitumumab: The KRAS Story. Chrissie Fletcher, MSc. BSc. CStat. CSci. Director Biostatistics, Amgen Ltd

Immunotherapy for dmmr metastatic colorectal cancer. Prof.dr. Kees Punt Dept. Medical Oncology AUMC

Balancing the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer

K-Ras mutational status and response to EGFR inhibitors for treatment of advanced CRC. Monica Bertagnolli, MD. CRA Continuing Education, November 2008

Chemotherapy for resectable liver mets: Options and Issues. Herbert Hurwitz Duke University Medical Center Durham, North Carolina, USA

Perioperative chemotherapy for colorectal cancer livermetastases: what is the optimal strategy?

COLORECTAL CANCER: STATE OF THE ART

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (2014) 140: DOI /s

Is it possible to cure patients with liver metastases? Taghizadeh Ali MD Oncologist, MUMS

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Update 2015

Available at journal homepage:

Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Management Guidelines and Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Oncologist s Perspective

Reprint requests: American Society of Clinical Oncology Mill Road, Suite 800. Alexandria, VA

GI SLIDE DECK. Selected abstracts from: 31 May 4 Jun 2013 Chicago, USA ASCO Annual Meeting. 27 Sep 1 Oct 2013 Amsterdam, Netherlands ESMO-ECCO

Il paziente anziano con malattia oncologica avanzata: il tumore del colon-retto

Update on Chemotherapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer

/m 2 Oxaliplatin 85 1 Q2W 1-3 Leucovorin Q2W 5-FU Q2W 5-FU Q2W

ASCO 2017 updates in Colorectal and Gastric Cancers. May Cho, M.D.

Progress and Challenges in the Adjuvant Treatment of Stage II & III Colon Cancer

Populations Interventions Comparators Outcomes Individuals: With metastatic colorectal cancer

Vectibix. Vectibix (panitumumab) Description

Kolorektalni karcinom- novosti u liječenju. PANEL: Maja Banjin, Janja Ocvirk, Borislav Belev, Ivan Nikolić, Anes Pašić

CURRENT STANDARD OF CARE OF COLORECTAL CANCER: THE EVOLUTION OF ESMO CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

MANAGEMENT OF ADVANCED COLORECTAL CANCER

What to do after 1 st line failure?

1 st LINE ANTI-VEGF TREATMENT OF METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER (CRC)

MEDICAL POLICY. SUBJECT: GENOTYPING - RAS MUTATION ANALYSIS IN METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER (KRAS/NRAS) POLICY NUMBER: CATEGORY: Laboratory

Novel Molecularly Targeted Therapies and Biomarkers in Advanced Colorectal Cancer. Objectives

Van Cutsem E et al. Proc ASCO 2009;Abstract LBA4509.

Antiangiogenic therapy in GI cancer: current status and future directions

Description of Procedure or Service. Policy. Benefits Application

The Use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Transcription:

Understanding predictive and prognostic markers Professor Aimery de Gramont Chairman of ARCAD Foundation and GERCOR, Paris FRANCE

Understanding predictive and prognostic markers Aimery de Gramont

Prognostic marker Effect of marker on clinical endpoint M C Buyse, Eur J Cancer Suppl 5, 2007.

Chibaudel B, et al. The Oncologist 2011

QUASAR Results: Recurrence Score, T Stage, and MMR Deficiency are Key Independent Predictors of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer Risk of recurrence at 3 years 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Recurrence Score T4 stage (13%) T3 and MMR proficient (76%) MMR deficient (11%) Kerr D, ASCO 2009 O Connell JCO 2010

Predictive marker Trt Effect of treatment on clinical endpoint depends on the marker M C Buyse, Eur J Cancer Suppl 5, 2007.

HER2 and trastuzumab mechanism of action trastuzumab HER2 receptor Trastuzumab Inhibits HER2-mediated signalling in HER2-positive tumors Prevents HER2 activation by blocking extracellular domain cleavage Activates antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity

TOGA Herceptin gastric Cancer. Primary end point: OS Event 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 FC + T FC 11.1 13.8 Events 167 182 Median OS 13.8 11.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 HR 0.74 95% CI 0.60, 0.91 p value 0.0046 Time (months) No. at risk T, trastuzumab 294 290 277 266 246 223 209 185 173 143 147 117 113 90 90 64 71 47 56 32 43 24 30 16 21 14 13 7 12 6 6 5 4 0 1 0 Van Cutsem E. ASCO 2009 Bang YJ, et al. Lancet 2010 0 0

Crizotinib in locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer Shaw, et al. NEJM 2013

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and KRAS Khambata-Ford S, et al. J Clin Onc 2007;25:3230 7

Relating KRAS status to efficacy: PFS Cetuximab + FOLFIRI HR=0.63; p=0.007 mpfs wild-type (n=172): 9.9 months mpfs mutant (n=105): 7.6 months FOLFIRI HR=0.97; p=0.87 mpfs wild-type (n=176): 8.7 months mpfs mutant (n=87): 8.1 months Progression-free survival estimate 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Cetuximab + FOLFIRI mutant Cetuximab + FOLFIRI wild-type 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 FOLFIRI mutant FOLFIRI wild-type 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Months 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Months Van Cutsem E, et al. ASCO 2008

Enrichment strategy (PRIME study) KRAS 1 RAS 2 RAS/RAF 2 KRAS MT KRAS WT RAS MT RAS WT RAS/RAF MT RAS/RAF WT 40% 60% 51.7% 48.3% 57.4% 42.6% (KRAS exon 2) KRAS WT: n=656 KRAS MT: n=440 (KRAS Ascertainment rate 93%) (KRAS/NRAS exon 2,3,4) RAS WT: n=512 RAS MT: n=548 (RAS Ascertainment rate 90%) (KRAS/NRAS exon 2,3,4; BRAF exon 15) RAS/RAF WT: n=446 RAS/RAF MT: n=601 1 Douillard JY, et al. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:4697-705; 2 Oliner K, et al. ASCO 2013 #3511.

DFS in dmmr patients, pooled data Stage II (N=102) Stage III (N=63) % Disease Free 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Years Untreated 87% Treated 72% HR: 2.80 (0.98-8.97) p=0.05 % Disease Free 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Years 5 yr DFS 5 yr DFS Untreated 62% Treated 67% HR: 1.08 (0.44-2.68) p=0.86 Sargent, JCO 2009

CRC biomarkers classification Metastatic KRAS Adjuvant MMR WT Mutant dmmr pmmr BRAF NRAS. codon gene signature

Molecular Classification of CRC Molecular Classification of Colon Cancer Stage II-III Salazar, et al. ASCO 2013

Surrogate marker Effects of treatment Surrogate on surrogate and true Trt and on true endpoint S endpoint must be T must be correlated correlated Buyse et al, Biostatistics 2000;1:49; Gail, Pfeiffer and van Houwelingen, Biostatistics 2000;1:231.

PFS as a surrogate marker for OS Correlation between Experimental 5FU PFS hazard ratio and OS hazard PFS Association between PFS and OS Overall survival ratio Buyse et al, JCO 2007; 25: 5218.

ACCENT: 3yr DFS vs 5yr OS 1,3 1,2 1,1 HR for 5 Year OS 1 0,9 0,8 R 2 = 0.80 0,7 0,6 May 2004: ODAC recommends 3-yr DFS as new regulatory endpoint for FULL approval in adjuvant colon cancer 0,5 0,5 0,6 0,7 5-6 0,8 July 2013, Barcelona 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 HR for 3 Year DFS

Median number of patients in trials 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 5FU infusion Mayo Regimen 5FU HD infusion

Median number of patients in trials 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Raltitrexed Irinotecan Irinotecan Oxaliplatin Capecit. Capecit.

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Median number of patients in trials Bevacizu. Bevacizu. PTK Cetux Panitumu. Panitumu.

Median number of patients in trials 1400 1200 1000 Targeted Therapies 800 600 400 200 5FU New Chemotherapy 0 2 trials are needed for first registration 1992 2000 2008

Sample size and hazard-ratio (HR) 1200 Sample size and HR α 0.05 2-sided β 0.80 Acrual 24m Follow-up 36m Median PFS 9m Sample Size 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 HR http://hedwig.mgh.harvard.edu/sample_size/time_to_event/para_time.html

The requirement that new agents be demonstrated to be safe and effective before marketing approval is granted has led to a traditional paradigm for drug development that typically requires thousands of patients, hundreds of millions of dollars, and >1 decades to fulfill. Unless this paradigm is changed, there will not be enough patients, money, or time available to evaluate all of the promising new anticancer agents in development. New clinical trial designs and end points are necessary to permit more efficient evaluation of putative cancer treatments so that the most promising agents can move forward quickly, while disappointing agents are rapidly identified and discarded. Schilsky RL. Clin Cancer Res 2002, 8:935-8

Studies Received to Date Study Group P I Number of Patients E3200 ECOG Giantonio 820 BICC-C Pfizer Fuchs / Rothenberg 547 AVF2107g Hurwitz 923 NO16966 Cassidy / Saltz 2035 Roche/GNE N016967 Rothenberg 627 AVF2192 Kabbinavar 209 N9741 NCCTG / Sanofi Goldberg 795 NCIC CO.17 NCIC-CTG Jonker 572 OPTIMOX 1&2 Tournigand 823 C97-3 GERCOR Tournigand 226 C181 Peeters/ 1186 Van Cutsem PRIME (C203) Amgen Douillard 1183 PACCE (C249) Hecht 1054 C408 5-6 July 2013, Van Barcelona Cutsem 463 26

Studies Received to Date Study Group P I Patients CAIRO 1&2 DCCG Punt 1575 COIN Maughan 2445 FOCUS1 & FOCUS2 MRC (UK) Seymour 2577 MACRO Diaz Rubio / Aranda 480 03-TTD-01 TTD Diaz Rubio / Aranda 342 MAX AGITG Niall Tebbutt 471 HORG 99.30 HORG Souglakos 283 GONO GONO Falcone 244 N9841 NCCTG Pitot 491 AIO 22 Porschen 474 FIRE II (CIOX) AIO 177 HORIZON II 1076 HORIZON III AZ Hoff/Schmoll 1601 BOND MERCK Cunningham 329 Total 24,028 Studies recently added shown in boldface 27

Results Trial Level PFS vs. OS 28 28

Early objective response 29

30

Conclusions Type of marker: Identification Validation Goal Prognostic Easy, but often flawed Frequent, but often disappointing Helpful for therapeutic strategy Predictive Hard, needs randomized trial Very rare, needs large randomized trial Avoids ineffective therapy Decreases cost Surrogate Hard, needs metaanalysis or large randomized trial Very rare, needs large randomized trial Faster results, smaller population Decreases cost