QUIMIOTERAPIA DE
INDUCCION EN TUMORES DE CABEZA Y CUELLO
¿TODAVIA EN DISCUSION?
Ricardo Hitt
CENTRO INTEGRAL ONCOLOGIA CIOCC. MADRID
SEOM , SALAMANCA 2013
Ricardo Hitt 1
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• Ensayos Fases II: en ocasiones demuestran una evidencia de beneficio en los pacientes tratados llegando a ser un tratamiento estándar sin estudios de confirmación. Ejemplos: MOPP enf Hodgkin,
Glevec en Gist, BEP tumores germinales.
• Suelen ser estudios con población seleccionada y en centros de referencia
Ricardo Hitt 2
DISEÑO ENSAYOS
• ENSAYOS FASES III
: cuales son los objetivos actualmente?• Incremento supervivencia: la mayoría de las enfermedades se tratan en 2º, 3º, ó 4º líneas
• Tiempo a la progresión: aplicable en tumores metastásicos
• Intervalo libre de enfermedad: mas real cuando se valora la Remisión Completa
• Preservación de órganos: válido solo en
enfermedades resecables y CURABLES con cirugía.
Ricardo Hitt 3
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• META ANÁLISIS: que nivel de evidencia se puede tener en poblaciones heterogéneas ?
• En puntuales MA se mezclan estudios diseñados para diferentes enfermedades, con pronósticos diferentes, localizaciones diversas, tratamientos dispares y conclusiones que difieren de las
observadas en la práctica clínica. Ejemplo: MACH (Pignon), incluye: tumores resecables, irresecables, Laringe, Orofaringe, Cavidad Oral, Platinos, Platinos subóptimos, No Platinos, diferentes técnicas y dosis de Radioterapia, etc
Ricardo Hitt 4
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• En Tumores de Cabeza y Cuello (TCC) que esta demostrado?:
• Ensayos Fases II: beneficios de la inducción en
centros y población seleccionada, Ejemplos: PPF , TPF + QTRT, se consiguen mejores resultados en las diferentes supervivencias. Desventajas : en
ocasiones datos no reproducibles , requiere una amplia experiencia y un importante manejo de soporte.
Ricardo Hitt 5
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• ENSAYOS FASES III : datos concluyentes
• Tumores Resecables : EORTC , VETERANOS: la quimioterapia de Inducción seguida de Rt
permite reemplazar a la cirugía en tumores de laringe e hipofaringe, logrando semejante
supervivencia pero con preservación de órganos.
• ECOG Forastiere: QTI , RT, QTRT demuestran igual supervivencia global pero mejor tasa de preservación de laringe con QTRT y QTI. A 10 años mejoría de ILE con QTI
Ricardo Hitt 6
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• ENSAYOS FASES III : datos concluyentes
• Esquemas de inducción con Taxanos superior a PF clásico. Ejemplos :
• PPF vs PF seguido QTRT estándar
(Hitt et al JCO 2005)
• TPF vs PF seguido de QTRT no
estándar (Posner and Vermonken NEJM 2007)
Ricardo Hitt 7
British Journal of Cancer 2000; 83: 1594-1598
GETTEC, French
318, HNSCC, oropharynx stage II-IV
Induction C/T
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1 5-FU 1000mg/m2, D1-D5
q3w, 3 cycles
Operable: Surgery RT Inoperable: RT
Operable: Surgery RT Inoperable: RT
Ricardo Hitt 8
chemotherapy
No chemotherapy
Overall survival p=0.03
chemotherapy
No chemotherapy
Dz-free survival p=0.11
GETTEC, French
Ricardo Hitt 9
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1994; 86: 265-272 Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004; 96: 1714-1717
GSTTC, Italy
237, HNSCC, stage III/IV
Induction C/T Operable: Surgery RT Inoperable: RT
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1 5-FU 1000mg/m2, D1-D5
q3w, 4 cycles
Oral cavity Oropharynx Hypopharynx Para-nasal
sinus
Operable: Surgery RT Inoperable: RT
A
B
A B
Operable 29% 27%
Inoperable 71% 73%
Ricardo Hitt 10
All pts
Operable
group Inoperable
group Overall
survival
Overall survival Overall
survival
Inoperable Operable
A 24% 3%
B 42% 31%
p value 0.04 0.01
3-yr distant metastasis rate
Ricardo Hitt 11
100 pts, HNSCC stage III/IV
RT alone
CCRT
RT: 66-72Gy, conventional, 1.8-2Gy/fx
5yr OS RFS Dist. Mets- free survival
OS with primary site preserve
Local control without resection
RT 48% 51% 75% 34% 45%
CCRT 50% 62% 84% 42% 77%
p value 0.55 0.04 0.09 0.004 <0.001
Oral cavity 4%
Oropharynx 44%
Hypopharynx 16%
Larynx 36%
Aldelstein DJ et al
Cancer 2000; 88: 876-883
Cisplatin: 20mg/m2/d 5FU: 1000mg/m2/d
Infusion, D1-D4 D22-D25
Primary site resection +/- neck dissection
Residual dz or recurrence
Survival benefit from better local control
Ricardo Hitt 12
New England Journal of Medicine 1991; 324: 1685-1690
Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group
332 pts,
laryngeal SCC stage III/IV
Surgery
Surgery +/- RT C/T x 2
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1
5FU 1000mg/m2/d x 5d q3w
RT: 5000cGy/25fx
Adjuvant RT
Definitive RT
RT: 6600-7600cGy
C/T x 1
Residual disease Poor
respond
2yr DFS OS Recur at primary
Recur at regional
Distant mets
Laryngectomy- free survival
Surgery 75% 68% 2% 5% 17%
C/T RT 65% 68% 12% 8% 11% 39%
p value 0.12 0.98 0.001 NS 0.001 T1/T2 9%
T3 65%
T4 26%
Glottis 37%
Supraglottis 63%
Ricardo Hitt 13
Journal of National Cancer Institute 1996; 8: 890-899
EORTC
194 pts,
hypopharynx SCC stage II/III/IV
Surgery
Surgery +/- RT C/T x 2
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1
5FU 1000mg/m2/d x 5d q3w
RT: 5000cGy/25fx
Adjuvant RT
Definitive RT
RT: 7000cGy
C/T x 1
Residual disease Poor
respond
5yr DFS OS Recur at local
Recur at regional
Distant mets
Laryngectomy- free survival
Surgery 32% 35% 17% 23% 36%
C/T RT 25% 30% 12% 19% 25% 35%
p value NS NS NS NS 0.041
T2 20%
T3 75%
T4 5%
Pyriform
sinus 78%
Aryepiglottic
fold 22%
Ricardo Hitt 14
New England Journal of Medicine 2003; 349: 2091-2098
RTOG 91-11
518 pts,
laryngeal SCC III/IV
Surgery +/- RT C/T x 2
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1 5FU 1000mg/m2/d x 5d
q3w
CCRT
RT
CCRT:
RT 7000cGy/35fx
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, q3w
C/T x 1 Residual
disease Poor
respond
5yr DFS OS Intact
larynx
LR control
Distant mets
A: RT 27% 56% 70% 56% 22%
B: CCRT 36% 54% 88% 78% 12%
C: C/TRT 38% 55% 75% 61% 15%
p 0.02(C v A)
0.006(B v A) NS 0.005(B v C) 0.001(B v A)
0.004(B v C)
0.001(B v A) 0.03(B v A)
RT alone
Speech/swallow : similar
T2 12%
T3 78%
T4 10%
Supraglottis 69%
Glottis 31%
Ricardo Hitt 15
UNRESECTABLE SCCHN
Paccagnella JNCI (Nov 2004)
OVERALL SURVIVAL
5 years: CF 23%; control : 19% (ns) 10 years: CF 16% vs 9% (ns)
unresectable
5 years: 21% vs. 16%
10 years: 8% vs. 6%
P= 0.04
Ricardo Hitt 16
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005; 23: 8636-8645
382 pts, HNSCC stage III/IV
CF x 3 PCF x 3
Hitt R et al, Spain Paclitaxel 175mg/m2, D1 Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D2 5FU 500mg/m2/d, D2-D6
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, D1 5FU 1000mg/m2/d, D1-D5
Oral cavity 13%
Oropharynx 34%
Hypopharynx 23%
Larynx 30%
q3w
q3w
CCRT
Cisplatin 100mg/m2, q3w RT 7000cGy/35fx
CR or PR>80%
Poor
responder
Salvage surgery
Resectable 35%
Unresectable 65%
Ricardo Hitt 17
Induction
CR neutropenia mucositis Median survival
Time to tx failure
PCF 33% 37% 53% 43m 36m
CF 14% 36% 16% 37m 26m
p value <0.001 <0.001 0.03 0.03
Hitt R et al, Spain
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005; 23: 8636-8645
Dose density
Cisplatin 5FU Paclitaxel
PCF 91% 98% 99%
CF 81% 91%
p value <0.001 <0.001
Ricardo Hitt 18
Time to Treatment Failure
PF (n= 193), 112 Events PFT (n= 190), 93 Events Log-rank, p=0.024
PF (median)= 17.7 (11.4 - 23.9) PFT (median)= 21.7 (14.9 - 28.4)
Ricardo Hitt 19
20
Final results of a randomized Phase III trial comparing induction chemotherapy (ICT)
with cisplatin/5-FU (PF) or
docetaxel/cisplatin/5-FU (TPF) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus CRT
alone as first-line treatment of
unresectable locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC)
SPANISH HEAD AND NECK CANCER GROUP
Hitt et.al ASCO 2009
BEST OF ASCO . Annals of Oncology (in press)
Ricardo Hitt 20
Safety: Adverse events
21
Grade 3/4 AEs,
% patients
CRT (N=118)
PF plus CRT (N=156)
TPF plus CRT (N=153)
Total ICT (TPF + PF)
(N=309)
Neutropenia 20 38 34 36
Febrile neutropenia 1 3 19 11
Thrombocytopenia 4 10 10 10
Asthenia 3 9 14 11
Mucositis 32 43 41 42
Radiation Dermatitis 4 2 0 1
Ricardo Hitt 21
22
p=0.016
% patients
CRT (N=119)
Combined ICT + CRT
(N=234)
51.7
65
Por protocolo
Secondary endpoint: LCR
Ricardo Hitt 22
ICT + CRT CRT
CRT; median 13.3months
HR=0.747;95% CI 0.575-0.971
P=0.0294
ICT + CRT; median 18.2 months
ICT + CRT CRT
(months)
Tiempo libre de evento
Ricardo Hitt 23
POR PROTOCOLO
Fracaso al tratamiento
CRT ICT + CRT
ICT + CRT; median 14.4 months CRT; median 6.1 months
HR=0.646;95% CI 0.501-0.835
P= <0.001
CRT
ICT + CRT
Ricardo Hitt 24
POR PROTOCOLO
Tiempo libre de evento
(months) CRT
ICT + CRT
CRT; median 13.8 months
Log-Rank p=0.426
ICT + CRT; median 14.3 months
CRT ICT + CRT
Ricardo Hitt 25
INTENCIÓN DE TRATAR
CRT ICT + CRT
CRT ICT + CRT
CRT; median 7.1 months Log-Rank p=0.3259
ICT + CRT; median 8.9 months
(months)
Ricardo Hitt 26
Fracaso al tratamiento
INTENCIÓN DE TRATAR
Head and Neck Cancer
Pretreatment considerations
Comorbid chronic diseases
• Pulmonary
• Cardiovascular
• Digestive Malnutrition
• Resulting from poor dietary habits or symptoms
• Severe in over 25% of patients Oral health
• Periodontal disease, infections, and caries common
• Dental rehabilitation indicated prior to radiotherapy
Schantz SP, et al. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 6th ed. 2001;797-860.
Ricardo Hitt 27
CRT: Significant increase in acute toxicity
Acute adverse effects: Grade ≥3
p<0.05
ns
p<0.01
Wendt TG, et al. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1318–1324
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Xerostomia Nausea/emesis
Leukopenia Dermatitis Mucositis
RT alone (n=140) CRT (n=130)
Ricardo Hitt 28
CRT: Late toxicity
• Analysis of 230 patients receiving CRT in 3 studies (RTOG 91-11, 97-03, 99-14)
• Factors associated with development of severe late toxicitya
o Older age (p=0.001), advanced T-stage (p=0.0036), larynx/hypopharynx primary (p=0.004), neck dissection after RT (p=0.018)
12% 10%
27%
13%
43%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Patients (%)
Any severe late toxicity
Feeding tube dependence
>2 yrs post-RT
Pharyngeal dysfunction
Laryngeal
dysfunction DeatH
a Chronic grade 3-4 pharyngeal/laryngeal toxicity and/or requirement for feeding tube >2 years after registration and/or potential treatment-related death within 3 years
Machtay M, et al. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 3582-3589 29 Ricardo Hitt
TREMPLIN study: Organ preservation with Erbitux + RT after induction TPF
Lefebvre J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–859
71% could receive the full Erbitux protocol 43% could receive the full cisplatin protocol
Previously untreated SCC larynx/hypopharynx Suitable for total laryngectomy
Erbitux
R
≥PR
Total laryngectomy + postoperative RT TPF
(3 cycles, q3w) (n=153)
RT (70 Gy)
<PR
56 pts 60 pts
116 (76%) pts
q3w: every 3 weeks; R: randomized
Primary endpoint: larynx preservation 3 months post treatment
Secondary endpoints: Preservation of larynx function 18 months after end of treatment, OS, tolerance to and compliance with treatment, feasibility of salvage surgery
Cisplatin RT (70 Gy)
Ricardo Hitt 31
TREMPLIN study: High rate of protocol
modification due to acute toxicity with Chemo + RT
Lefebvre J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–859
Cisplatin + RT n=58* (%)
Erbitux + RT n=56 (%) Protocol modification due to
acute toxicity 33 (57.0) 19 (33.9)
Grade 3–4 mucositis 27 (46.6) 25 (44.6)
Grade 3–4 in-field skin toxicity 15 (25.9) 32 (57.1) Grade 3–4 laryngoesophageal toxicity 5 (8.6) 5 (8.9)
Renal toxicity (any grade) 9 (15.5) 0 (0.0)
* 2 patients did not start treatment in the cisplatin arm
Ricardo Hitt 32
TREMPLIN study: Erbitux preserves organ function in locally advanced SCCHN
Lefebvre J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–859
*3 months after end of treatment
**18 months after end of treatment
For patients who were randomized (n=116 [76%])
Primary endpoint*
● Chemo + RT is associated with acute and long-term toxicity
● Erbitux + RT shows a manageable, well-tolerated profile
Erbitux + RT Chemo + RT
Secondary endpoints**
92 87
95
89 82
93
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall survival Larynx function preservation Larynx preservation
Patients (%)
Ricardo Hitt 33
TREMPLIN study: Overall survival (ITT)
Lefebvre J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–859
100
80
60
40
20
0
Overall survival in %
Patients at risk
Chemo + RT 60 56 (0.93) 51 (0.84) 32 (0.78) 13 (0.70) Erbitux + RT 56 52 (0.93) 45 (0.82) 25 (0.71) 11 (0.71)
Months
Up to 18 months HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.26, 3.66), log-rank: p=0.68 Up to 36 months HR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.34, 2.08), log-rank: p=0.50
Erbitux + RT Chemo + RT
0 12 24 36 48 60
ITT: intent to treat
Ricardo Hitt 34
TREMPLIN study:
Pronounced late toxicity profile for Chemo + RT
Lefebvre J, et al. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:853–859
Cisplatin n=58* (%)
Erbitux n=56 (%) Residual renal dysfunction at last
evaluation (all grade 1) 13 (22.4) 0 (0.0)
4 cycles 5 cycles 6 cycles
3%
5%
14%
Grade 3/4 mucosal toxicity 2 (3.5) 1 (1.8)
Grade 3/4 osteoradionecrosis 1 (1.7) 1 (1.8)
Grade 3/4 xerostomia 6 (10.3) 5 (8.9)
Grade 3/4 subcutaneous fibrosis 4 (7.0) 1 (2.0)
Grade 3/4 neuropathy 2 (3.4) 0 (0.0)
*2 patients did not start treatment in the cisplatin arm
Ricardo Hitt 35
DISEÑO ENSAYOS CLINICOS
• META ANÁLISIS
:Datos Concluyentes
• Taxane-Cisplatin-Fluorouracil As Induction Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancers: An Individual Patient Data Meta- Analysis of the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer Group
• Pierre Blanchard, Jean Bourhis, Benjamin Lacas, Marshall R.
Posner, Jan B. Vermorken, Juan J. Cruz Hernandez, Abderrahmane Bourredjem, Gilles Calais, Adriano
Paccagnella, Ricardo Hitt, and Jean-Pierre Pignon , on behalf of the Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck
Cancer, Induction Project, Collaborative Group
• JCO Aug 10, 2013:2854-2860; DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.47.7802.
Ricardo Hitt 35
Survival curves for (A) overall survival, (B) progression- free survival, (C) locoregional failure, and (D) distant
failure.
Blanchard P et al. JCO 2013;31:2854-2860
Ricardo Hitt 36
ROLE OF PRIMARY CHEMOTHERAPY
Neoplasms in which Chemotherapy is the Primary Therapeutic Modality for Localized Tumors
-Large cell lynphoma
-Lymphoblastic lymphoma -Wilms’ tumor
-Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma -Small cell lung cancer?
-Central nervous system lymphoma
DeVita 2004
Ricardo Hitt 37
ROLE OF PRIMARY CHEMOTHERAPY
Neoplasms in which Primary Chemotherapy Can Allow Less Mutilating Surgery:
-Anal carcinoma -Bladder carcinoma -Breast cancer
-Laryngeal cancer
-Osteogenic sarcoma -Soft tissue sarcoma
Ricardo Hitt 38
ROLE OF PRIMARY CHEMOTHERAPY
Neoplasms in which Clinical Trials Indicate an Expanding Role for Primary Chemotherapy in the Future
-Non-small cell lung cancer -Bladder cancer
-Cervical cancer -Gastric cancer
-Head and Neck Cancer
-Pancreas cancer -Prostate cancer
Ricardo Hitt 39
CONCLUSIONES
La quimioterapia de inducción en tumores de cabeza y cuello tras 20 años de desarrollo ha demostrado:
PERMITIR PRESERVACIÓN DE ÓRGANOS
MEJORÍA DE SUPERVIVENCIA EN TUMORES IRRESECABLES
MEJOR CONTROL LOCO-REGIONAL EN TUMORES IRRESECABLES INCREMENTO DE TOXICIDAD CUANDO SE COMBINA CON QTRT
SER FACTIBLE SOLO EN POBLACIÓN SELECCIONADA Y CENTROS CON EXPERIENCIA
SE PODRÍA PLANTEAR ESQUEMAS MENOS TÓXICOS CON CETUXIMAB EN INDUCCIÓN?
Ricardo Hitt 40