Download 5FU MMC - ANZGOG

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Chemotherapy in Anal cancer
?Lessons for vulva
ANZGOG 2013
Michelle Vaughan
Anal v vulval etiology
Anal
Age
Path
HPV
60s
All grades
70-85%
Precursor
AIN
Risks
Sex/smoking
Vulval
Type1
35-65
More G3
>60%
Type 2
55-85
More G1
<15%
VIN
Sex/smoking
Lichen sclerosis
-
VULVAL & ANAL CANCER
LOCAL CONTROL is dominant aim of treatment
Indolent natural history
Mets are rare (<10% as a 1st event)
Chemo given to help RT with local control
(Uncommon paradigm for chemotherapists!)
RCTs in ANAL CANCER
n
UKCCCR/ACT
585
Add chemo?
1996/2010
EORTC
QUESTION
110
1997
RTOG
291
Need MMC?
1996
RTOG
644
Cis v MMC?
2008/11
UKCCCR/ACT
940
(2009)
ACCORD -03
307
Chemo induct?
HD RT?
5yr LFR %
5yr PFS %
5 yr OS %
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Does chemo add to RT?
n
Compared
ACT I
585
EORTC
110
5yr Local
failure %
5yr PFS %
5 yr OS %
RT
- 25
+15
60  35
35  50
ns
RT + 5FU/MMC
- 15
+20
50 35
40  60
ns
Chemo improves local control & PFS 15-25%
Chemo doesn’t affect survival
Arnott Lancet 1996 & Northover BJC 2010, Barteleink JCO 1997
Strong effect on Loco-regional relapse
Northover 2010 BJC 102:1123
Insignificant survival benefit
HR 0.86
CI 0.7 – 1.04
Northover 2010 BJC 102:1123
Anal cancer: Is MMC necessary?
RTOG
n
Compared
4yr Local
failure
291
5FU MMC RT
5FU RT
+20% -20%
35  15
4yr PFS
OS
ns
50 70
YES, unfortunately it is.
Flam 1996 JCO 14:2527-39
Anal cancer: Is MMC necessary?
RTOG
n
Compared
4yr Local
failure
291
5FU MMC RT
5FU RT
+20% -20%
35  15
4yr PFS
OS
ns
50 70
YES, unfortunately it is.
Bother.
Flam 1996 JCO 14:2527-39
MMC is toxic
…So can we replace it?
Cisplatin instead of MMC?
n
RTOG
98-11
ACT II
UKCCCR
644
940
Compared
5FU MMC RT
5yr LFR
5yr PFS
OS
+ 8%
-10
-7
25 33
5868
7178
5% col
75
85
5FU Cis RT
MMC + 5FU remains the standard
Adjani JAMA 2008 & ASCO 2011, James ASCO 2012
G3-4 Toxicity: Cis v MMC
Haem
Infection
Non haem
Severe long
RTOG
10mg x 2
CIS
MMC
44
61
10
17
65
61
10
11
ACTII
12mg x 1
CIS
MMC
13
25
3
3
74
74
-
Can we reduce the MMC dose?
Dose
Haem tox G 3-4
RTOG
10mg/m2 D1 + 29
61%
UKCCCR ACT II
12mg/m2 D1
25%
TOXICITY: Better with D1 only mitomycin
EFFICACY???: Who knows?
So, What MMC dose?
• We will never know
• Either is reasonable
• If you use the RTOG 10mg/m2 D1 & D29
remember to:
– Do weekly FBC
– Dose reduce if nadirs wcc < 2.4!
SUMMARY
Anal cancer is similar to Vulval cancer
In anal cancer several large RCTS say:
- Chemo adds PFS to RT
- MMC adds PFS to 5FU chemo
- MMC is better than cisplatin in 1 of 2 trials
- More haem tox
?Argue for 5FU/MMC
thank you
Delayed deaths problematic
• Marked excess OTHER deaths in the CRT
group, peaking at 5 years (+9% p0.001):
– Cancer 2yr
– Cardiovasc
– Pulmonary
3 v 1%
5 v 3%
1 v 0%
(13yr =12 v 6% p= 0.03)
Northover 2010 BJC 102:1123
Details of excess deaths:
• Cardiovascular– Spread in time course,
median time about 1 year
• Second cancers - Mostly lung cancer
(reflecting shared etiology), 8 v 2 in 1st 5 years,
26 v 16 after 5 years
SO: Late (+ acute) chemo toxicity possibly
cancelling out survival benefit from reduction
in anal cancer death in this population
ANAL CANCER RCTs (full)
UKCCCR
n
Compared
585
5FU MMC RT
RT
ACT I 1996
Northover 2010
EORTC 22861
110
Bartelink 1997
RTOG 87-04
291
Flam 1996
RTOG 98-11
644
Ajani 2008/11
UKCCCR#
Conroy 2009
5FU MMC RT
5FU RT
5FU MMC RT
5FU Cis RT
5 yr CFS %
5yr PFS %
5 yr OS %
- 25
+10
+13
57  32
37  47
34  47
53 58
- 16
+32
+18
48 32
(4577)
(42  60)
-18
+12
+22
34 16*
59 71*
51 73*
54  58
67 76
-8
+ 10#
+ 7#
33 25
58  68
7178
940
5FU MMC RT
5FU Cis RT
ns
ns
75 3yr
?
307
5FU Cis induct
HD RT
28
83
70
78
ACT II 2009
ACCORD-03#
5FU MMC RT
RT
5yr LFR %
P<.001 P <0.01 P<0.05
*4yr
#abs
only
(x)=from graph