PHILADELPHIA-"We tend to
think of colorectal cancer (CRC), gastric
cancer, and pancreatic cancer as
homogenous diseases with monolithic
approaches to therapy, but in reality
we have a very large, heterogeneous
population of patients whose individual
risks we have just begun to understand.
Few patients get on study, and
we base all of our standard treatments
on those small numbers of patients.
That leaves many questions unanswered,"
stated Daniel G. Haller, MD,
of the University of Pennsylvania in
Philadelphia.
Patients have not yet begun to be
selected prospectively for trials based
on simple measures such as performance
status, polymorphisms that predict
toxicity, or predictive markers for
response. The question Dr. Haller asks
is should studies be continued simply
because there is a response without
considering the fact that agents may
have become more toxic and more
expensive?
Colorectal Cancer
The major issues in chemotherapy
for metastatic CRC are whether there
are optimal first- and second-line regimens,
advantages of single-agent vs
combination chemotherapy, patient
selection, selection of drugs based on
predictive markers, duration of therapy
(continuous vs fixed), sequencing
of chemotherapy, and optimal endpoints
for clinical trials (overall survival,
time to disease progression, or
clinical benefit).
Avenues of investigation for treatment
of metastatic CRC include the
desire to substitute oral fluoropyrimidines
for infusional agents because of
their suitability for combination regimens
with oxaliplatin(Drug information on oxaliplatin) (Eloxatin) and irinotecan(Drug information on irinotecan) (Camptosar) and use with
irradiation. According to Dr. Haller,
the key new agents for investigation
are probably epidermal growth factor
receptor inhibitors such as cetuximab(Drug information on cetuximab)
(Erbitux) and antiangiogenesis agents
such as bevacizumab(Drug information on bevacizumab) (Avastin).
"Unless we've been living in a crypt,
we all know about the N9741 data
showing that FOLFOX (fluorouracil
[5-FU], leucovorin, oxaliplatin) is a
good candidate for first-line use," Dr.
Haller stated (see Table 1). FOLFOX
was similarly effective for second-line
use (see Table 2).
Researchers trying to determine the
optimal sequence for deploying the
various 5-FU/irinotecan and 5-FU/
oxaliplatin regimens have thus far not
identified any significant difference in
the sequences tested. "There really is
no difference between FOLFOX-6 and
FOLFIRI (5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan)
in the meaningful endpoint of
response," Dr. Haller added. "The
main differences are in toxicity."
Molecular profiling studies are
seeking prognostic markers to identify
patients with good survival who do
not need adjuvant chemotherapy and
predictive markers to identify patients
who will benefit from therapy. The
biologic markers of prognosis in
CRC most likely to enter trials are
thymidylate synthase levels, microsatellite
instability, and allelic loss in chromosome
18.
"Looking at our progress in firstline
treatment of metastatic CRC, we
find that response rate and survival
have both increased," Dr. Haller
revealed.
In adjuvant treatment, the MOSAIC
trial comparing infusional 5-FU/
leucovorin with or without oxaliplatin
(FOLFOX-4) showed that
FOLFOX produced improvements in
3-year disease-free survival (77.8% vs
72.9%, P < . 01). This difference is
both statistically significant and clinically
relevant, according to Dr. Haller.
Other trials have shown that an improvement
in 3-year survival translates
into a 5-year-survival advantage.
The question of how to identify
subgroups of patients with different
potentials for benefit or toxicity remains
an important one. A recent
pooled analysis of data from adjuvant
rectal cancer trials showed that T and
N stages have independent prognostic
significance. Single risk factors of N+
disease confined to the wall or N- disease
extending beyond the wall without
adherence or invasion are both
associated with survival and disease
control. This analysis concluded that
the new T and N stages best reflect
prognosis and should be used to
present information to patients.
Gastric Cancer
The direction for treatment of patients
with gastric cancer is less clear.
The V 325 phase III trial attempted to
learn whether adding docetaxel(Drug information on docetaxel) (Taxotere)
to the standard regimen of cisplatin(Drug information on cisplatin)
and 5-FU was beneficial. Interim
analysis suggests significant
improvements in response rate, progression-
free survival, and overall survival
from the three-drug regimen.
"This is a very active combination
but it is not the easiest to give. We have
had a lot of discussion about the fact
that a quarter of the patients, many of
whom were responding, stopped therapy
because they saw no point in continuing,"
Dr. Haller said.
With regard to adjuvant chemotherapy,
interpreting results from previous
individual trials is complicated
by the fact that many used suboptimal
chemotherapy regimens. Meta-analyses
are consistent with possible survival
benefits. "The de facto standard, as
with rectal cancer, has become chemoradiation,"
Dr. Haller stated. "The
question remains: Does every one of
these patients need radiation therapy,
or are some going to benefit simply
from better surgery and adjuvant
chemotherapy?"
The MAGIC trial of neoadjuvant epirubicin(Drug information on epirubicin) (Ellence), cisplatin, 5-FU
(ECF), surgery, and postoperative ECF
vs surgery alone showed a small survival
advantage for the combination
regimen. In a slightly larger trial, with
better patient selection, Dr. Haller believes
that this would have been a definitively
positive result.
Pancreatic Cancer Gemcitabine(Drug information on gemcitabine) (Gemzar) combinations
have attracted much attention in
the treatment of patients with pancreatic
cancer. "All of these have had
promising phase II data and not-so-
promising phase III data," Dr. Haller
said. "One of the issues is that we may
not know how to give gemcitabine
most effectively. It is a pro-drug and
may not reach its full potential when
given over 30 minutes rather than prolonged
infusion."
Data on the irinotecan/gemcitabine
combination presented at the
American Society of Clinical Oncology
(ASCO) 2003 meeting suggested
that although there was a better response
rate with the combination than
with gemcitabine alone, it did not
translate into a survival advantage. A
phase III trial of gemcitabine/cisplatin
was similarly disappointing, Dr. Haller
concluded.
