1 / 35

Systemic therapy for Advanced Hepatoma & Cholagiocarcinoma

Systemic therapy for Advanced Hepatoma & Cholagiocarcinoma. นายแพทย์ ชัยยุทธ เจริญธรรม หน่วยมะเร็งวิทยา ภาควิชาอายุรศาสตร์. รักษาประคับ ประคอง. แนวทางการรักษามะเร็งตับ ( ระยะโรค , ความแข็งแรงผู้ป่วย , ความแข็งแรงของตับ ). HCC. Stage D PST >2, Child–Pugh C.

amadis
Download Presentation

Systemic therapy for Advanced Hepatoma & Cholagiocarcinoma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Systemic therapy for Advanced Hepatoma & Cholagiocarcinoma นายแพทย์ ชัยยุทธ เจริญธรรม หน่วยมะเร็งวิทยา ภาควิชาอายุรศาสตร์

  2. รักษาประคับ ประคอง แนวทางการรักษามะเร็งตับ(ระยะโรค, ความแข็งแรงผู้ป่วย, ความแข็งแรงของตับ) HCC Stage DPST >2, Child–Pugh C Stage 0PST 0, Child–Pugh A Stage A–CPST 0–2, Child–Pugh A–B Very early stage (0) 1 HCC <2cmCarcinoma in situ Early stage (A) 1 HCC or 3 nodules<3cm, PST 0 Intermediate stage (B) Multinodular,PST 0 Advanced stage (C)Portal invasion, N1, M1, PST 1–2 End stage (D) 1 HCC 3 nodules < 3 cm Portal pressure/bilirubin Increased Associated diseases Normal No Yes ยา Resection Transplantation Ablation TACE มีโอกาสหายขาด ระงับหรือบรรเทาโรค Adapted from Llovet JM, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:698-711

  3. Yau et al. Cancer 2008.

  4. อุปสรรคของการรักษามะเร็งตับด้วยยาอุปสรรคของการรักษามะเร็งตับด้วยยา • HCC tumor biology (พันธ์ดื้อ) • disruption in p53 pathway : resistance to apoptosis • DNA topoisomerase alpha over-expressed/ up-regulated : resistance to Topoisomerase inhibitors • intrinsic drug resistance mediated by an enhanced cellular drug efflux mechanism – MDR1, p-gp, MRP • Pharmacokinetic properties of cirrhotic liver (ตับไม่เอื้อ) • total liver mass is reduced • distortion of the liver architecture leads to significant intra-hepatic shunting and reduced extraction of protein-bound substances. • affects the absorption, plasma protein binding, distribution and renal excretion of drugs.

  5. ตัวอย่างของการศึกษาที่ใช้ยาเคมีบำบัดในการรักษามะเร็งตับตัวอย่างของการศึกษาที่ใช้ยาเคมีบำบัดในการรักษามะเร็งตับ

  6. การใช้ยาSorafenib NCCN 2013 For Unresectable HCC (tumor extent or location, liver function reserves), Child A or B APASL 2009 for advanced stage patients who are not suitable for loco-regional therapy and who have Child-Pugh liver function class A. (Grade A) may be used with caution in patients with Child-Pugh liver function class B. (Grade C) JSH 2010 Sorafenib is the first choice of treatment as a standard of care in Extrahepatic spread with Child-Pugh A liver function Sorafenib is also a treatment of choice for TACE refractory patients with Child-Pugh A liver function.

  7. การศึกษาอ้างอิงที่ใช้ยาSorafenibรักษามะเร็งตับการศึกษาอ้างอิงที่ใช้ยาSorafenibรักษามะเร็งตับ SHARP1 Asia-Pacific2 1.00 1.00 Sorafenib (n=299) Median: 10.7 months Sorafenib (n=150)Median: 6.5 months 0.75 0.75 Placebo (n=303) Median: 7.9 months Placebo (n=76) Median: 4.2 months Survival Probability Survival Probability 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 HR (S/P): 0.69 95% CI: 0.55-0.87 P=0.00058 HR (S/P): 0.68 95% CI: 0.50-0.93 P=0.014 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 4 8 12 16 20 0 0 Months from Randomization Months from Randomization 1. Llovet JM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378-390. 2. Cheng AL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25-34.

  8. การศึกษาอ้างอิงที่ใช้ยาSorafenibรักษามะเร็งตับการศึกษาอ้างอิงที่ใช้ยาSorafenibรักษามะเร็งตับ GIDEON : Global Investigation of Therapeutic Decisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and of its Treatment with Sorafenib

  9. GIDEON study: Child-Pugh A vs. B Global Investigation of Therapeutic Decisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and of its Treatment with Sorafenib ASCO 2011

  10. Sorafenib long-term data: Initial presentation of treatment-related AEs (any grade) by cycle Most Sorafenib-treated patients first experienced HFSR and other common AEs within the first two treatment cycles Patients with AE (%) Cycle 1 cycle = 6 weeks HTN, hypertension Hutson TE, et al. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2432–40.

  11. อาการข้างเคียงจากการรักษาของ Sorafenibในการศึกษาอ้างอิง SHARP & AP trial *AEs, as defined by CTCAE version 3.0 that occurred in at least 10% of patients in either study group 1. Llovet JM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378-390. 2. Cheng AL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25-34.

  12. Suggested Interventions for skin toxicity (Sorafenib 800 mg/day) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Supportive measures (control callus, cream, cushion) Topical therapy Decrease dose to 400mg/d for 7-28 days If symptoms resolve, increase to full dose If symptoms persist, interrupt treatment for 7 days Resume tx at 400mg QD when toxicity < grade 1

  13. Suggested Interventions for skin toxicity Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Supportive measures (control callus, cream, cushion) Topical therapy Interrupt treatment for 7 days Resume tx at 400mg/d when toxicity <grade 1 Consider further dose reduction if symptoms recur If toxicity <grade 1 for 7-28 days, may increase by one dose level

  14. Prophylactic effect of urea-based cream on the hand-foot skin reaction associated with sorafenib in advanced HCC • N = 868 Patients with advanced HCC treated with SOR • Urea-based cream was given twice daily for up to 12 weeks starting on Day 1 (Arm A) vs BSC was at the physician’s discretion and excluded urea-based creams. (Arm B) (1:1) • Results • All-grade HFSR- lower in Arm A (56.0%) vs Arm B (73.6%); p<0.0001. • Grade ≥2 HFSR tended to be lower in Arm A (21.9%) vs Arm B (29.2%), p=0.1638. • The median time to the first HFSR event was 2.5 fold longer in Arm A (84 days, 95% CI 45-93 days) vs Arm B; (34 days, 95% CI 29-43 days) , p<0.001. Ren et al. J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 (suppl; abstr 4008)

  15. Sorafenib unanswered questions • The mechanism of action of sorafenib in HCC that mediates clinical benefits • Benefits/Safety in patients with Child B • Optimal dose • The mechanism of resistance

  16. Phase III trials in advanced HCC • First-line • Sorafenib/Doxorubicin vs Sorafenib/Placebo • Sorafenib/Erlotinib vs Sorafenib/Placebo • Sorafenib vs Sunitinib (failed, ASCO 2011) • Sorafenib vs Brivanib • Sorafenib vs Linifanib • Second-line • Brivanib vs BSC (failed, EASL 2012) • Everolimus vs BSC • Ramucirumab vs BSC • ADI-PEG 20 vs BSC

  17. Conclusion: Systemic therapy for HCC • Sorafenib is the only approved systemic agent for the treatment of HCC • Many other molecular-targeted agents are at the early stages of development in HCC • Rational design clinical trial with combination therapy holds promise to improve outcome and remain to be seen

  18. Systemic Therapy for Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma

  19. Challenges of systemic therapy inCholangiocarcinoma • Heterogeneous disease • Gall bladder cancer • Cholangiocarcinoma • Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (Peripheral type, mass forming) • Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma • Different location are truly the same pathology and biology ?

  20. Challenges to define standard chemotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma ? • Lack of well conducted randomized controlled trial • Most studies are small, non randomized phase II • Many studies comprise a mix of BTC, GBC and either PC or HCC.

  21. Overall survival : Chemo VS BSC 6 M VS 2.5 M, P <0.01 6 M VS 2.5 M, P=0.05, N=53 : PCA 6.5 M VS 2.5 M, P=0.1, N=37 : CCA Favorable QOL outcome : Chemo VS BSC – 36%VS10%,P <0.01 both sites Quality adjusted survival : Chemo VS BSC –4 M VS 1M,P <0.01 both sites FELv /FLv Chemo :FELv, FLv (age >60,PS <70)

  22. Chemotherapy in Cholangiocarcinoma • ยาเดี่ยว • Fluoropyrimidine : 5-FU, capecitabine, tegafur, S1 • Platinums : Cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin • Antimetabolites : Gemcitabine, MMC • Anthracyclines : Doxorubicin, Epirubicin • Topoisomerase I inhibitors : Irinotecan • Taxanes : Paclitaxel, Docetaxel • สูตรยาคู่ • FU + Platinums/ Gemcitabine • Gemcitabine + Platinums/ FU • สูตรผสมที่ใช้ยาตั้งแต่ 3 ตัวร่วมกัน – ECF, FAM, PIAF

  23. 104 trials (3 randomized, 112 trial arms), N = 2810 From January 1985 to July 2006 15% trials published 1993 – 1999 85% trials published after 2000 No. pt range from 5 – 65/trial (mean 25.1) Pooled RR = 22.6% (95% CI 21.0% - 24.2%) Pooled TCR (tumor control rate=CR+PR+SD) = 57.3% TTP 4.1 months OS 8.2 months

  24. Comparison of Regimens • 2-drug VS 1-drug • Higher RR 28.0 vs 15.3%, P=0.000 • Higher TCR 61.0 vs 50.4%, P=0.000 • Higher TTP 4.4 vs 3.4 months, P=0.015 • Higher OS 9.3 vs 7.5 months, P=0.061 • 3 or more-drug VS 2-drug • Lower RR 19.1 vs 28.0%, P=0.000 • no difference in OS 9.0 vs 9.3 months • 3 or more-drug VS 1-drug • Higher TCR 58.9 vs 50.4%, P=0.028 • Higher TTP 5.2 vs 3.4 months, P=0.016 • Trend OS 9.0 vs 7.5 months, P=0.086

  25. Gemcitabine (G) combined with P(cisplatin or oxaliplatin) • the highest increases RR and TCR • provide best possible evidence that this combination chemotherapy may improve survival in these diseases • Subgroup analysis concerning the three most important drugs demonstrated that • G alone is not superior to FU • Platinums increase the activity of both G and FU • greater with G compared with the addition to FU

  26. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 in a 30-min infusion on d 1 and 8 Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on d1, 21-d cycle

  27. RR 21%, TCR 52%, TTP 8.5 M, OS 10.5 M

  28. Randomized studies of chemotherapy in biliary tract cancer

  29. Randomized clinical trials usinggemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer Randomized : gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2+ cisplatin 25 mg/m2 vs. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 alone Valle JW, et al.J Clin Oncol 2009;27(15s). Okusaka T,et al. Br J Cancer 2010;103(4):469–74.

  30. Randomized clinical trials usinggemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced biliary tract cancer Randomized : gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2+ cisplatin 25 mg/m2 vs. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 alone Valle JW, et al.J Clin Oncol 2009;27(15s). Okusaka T,et al. Br J Cancer 2010;103(4):469–74.

  31. Target agents in development N RR PFS OS Single target agent Erlotinib 39 BTC 25% Progression free at 6 M Philip et al. JCO 2006 35 HCC 35% Progression free at 6 M Lapatinib 17 BTC 0% 1.8 M Ramanathan et al.ASCO 2006,abs4010 17 HCC12% 1.8 M Sorafenib 31 BTC/GB 6% 2 M 6 M El-Khoueiryet al. ASCO 2007,abs 4639 Double target agents Erlotinib + Bevacizumab 6 GB 20% (20 evaluable) Holen et al. ASCO 2008, abs 4522 27 CCA Target agent + Chemotherapy Bevacizumab+ GemOX 10 BTC 27% (11 evaluable) Clark et al. ASCO 2007, abs 46259 GB Cetuximab + GemOx 22 BTC 58% (19 evaluable) Gruenberger et al. ASCO2008, abs 4586

  32. Conclusion : Systemic Therapy for CCA • Chemotherapy is the standard for advanced cholangiocarcinoma • Level 1 evidence is gemcitabine and cisplatin • Other combination regimens also have activity • The future in this disease should lie in targeted therapies (which agent ?, combination?)

More Related