1 / 31

Background

Maintenance treatment with capecitabine + bevacizumab versus observation after induction treatment with chemotherapy + bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer Phase 3 CAIRO3 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG).

carter
Download Presentation

Background

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. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine + bevacizumab versus observation after induction treatment with chemotherapy + bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer Phase 3 CAIRO3 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) Miriam Koopman, L Simkens, A ten Tije, G Creemers, O Loosveld, F de Jongh, F Erdkamp, Z Erjavec, A van der Torren, J van der Hoeven, P Nieboer, J Braun, R Jansen, J Haasjes, A Cats, J Wals, L Mol, O Dalesio, H van Tinteren, C Punt

  2. Background • The value of chemotherapy-free intervals has been tested in the OPTIMOX2, COIN and GISCAD studies, and is still a matter of debate1-3 • The optimal duration of chemotherapy and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is unknown • The benefit of bevacizumab added to chemotherapy in the NO16966 study (FOLFOX/CAPOX +/- bevacizumab) may have been compromised due to the low percentage of patients that received treatment until disease progression4 • Drug holidays are preferred by many patients 1Chibaudel et al. J ClinOncol 2009 2Adams et al. Lancet Oncol 2011 3Labianca et al. Ann Oncol2011 4Saltz et al. J ClinOncol 2008

  3. Study rationale CAIRO3 study was designed to investigate the efficacy of observation versus maintenance treatment with capecitabine + bevacizumab after induction treatment with 6 cycles of capecitabine, oxaliplatin + bevacizumab (CAPOX-B)

  4. CAIRO3 treatment Pre-study induction treatment with 6 cycles of 3-weekly CAPOX- B Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2b.i.d. orally day 1 – 14 Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2i.v. day 1 Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg i.v. day 1 Maintenance treatment Capecitabine 625 mg/m2b.i.d. orally continuously Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg i.v. day 1, 3-weekly

  5. CAIRO3 main inclusion criteria Histological proof of metastatic CRC Age  18 years, WHO PS 0-1 Stable disease or better after first-line treatment with 6 cycles of CAPOX- B Eligible for further treatment with CAPOX- B No intention of radical resection of metastases Adequate organ functions Written informed consent

  6. Study design PFS1 PFS2 capecitabine + bevacizumab observation Re-introduction CAPOX-B SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B PD PD R

  7. Definition of PFS1 PFS1 capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B Re-introduction CAPOX-B PD PD R • PFS1: time from randomization until first progression after observation or maintenance treatment

  8. Definition of PFS2primary endpoint PFS1 PFS2 capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B Re-introduction CAPOX-B PD PD R Primary endpoint: PFS2 • time from randomization to progression upon re-introduction of CAPOX- B • PFS2 is considered to be equal to PFS1 for patients in whom CAPOX- B is not reintroduced after PFS1 for any reason

  9. Definition of TT2PD PFS1 TT2PD capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B any treatment incl. CAPOX-B PD PD R • TT2PD = time to second progression of disease, time from randomization to progression upon any treatment including CAPOX-B, given after PFS1

  10. Statistical design • Endpoints were calculated from time of randomization upon progression/death (i.e. not including 6 x CAPOX-B induction) • Sample size was calculated to detect a hazard ratio of 0.78 which translates into an increase of PFS2 from 9 to 11.5 months • 525 events were required, providing 80% power to detect a decrease of 22% in the hazard of progression (α=0.05, 2-tailed test) • Stratified as well as adjusted HR's with corresponding p-values will be shown using stratified cox proportional hazard models adjusting for covariates with imbalances at baseline

  11. Duration and evaluation of treatment • Treatment was to be continued until progression, unless: • unacceptable toxicity • patient refusal • continuation not considered in the interest of the patient • Evaluation of tumor response and toxicity every 9 weeks (RECIST, NCI-CTC criteria, 3.0)

  12. Accrual and follow-up • 74 Dutch hospitals • 558 patients were randomized between May 2007 and June 2012 • Cut-off data 19-04-2013 (updated from abstract) • Median duration of follow-up is 40 months

  13. Baseline characteristics stratification parameters

  14. Baseline characteristics other * Covariates of which the differences are statistically significant

  15. CAIRO3 study profile 558 patients enrolled 279 patients maintenance 279 patients observation 148 patients (53%) - ongoing maint. - no treatment - other treatment 67 patients (24%) - ongoing obs. - no treatment - other treatment 212 patients (76%) re-introduction CAPOX-B 131 patients (47%) re-introduction CAPOX-B

  16. Results: PFS1 PFS1 capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B Re-introduction CAPOX-B PD PD R • PFS1: time from randomization until first progression

  17. PFS1 • adjusted HR 0.41, p <0.001

  18. Treatment until PFS1

  19. Results: PFS2primary endpoint PFS1 PFS2 capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B Re-introduction CAPOX-B PD PD R Primary endpoint: PFS2 • time from randomization to progression upon re-introduction of CAPOX- B • PFS2 is considered to be equal to PFS1 for patients in whom CAPOX- B is not reintroduced after PFS1 for any reason

  20. Primary endpoint PFS2 • adjusted HR 0.77, p 0.007

  21. Treatment until PFS2

  22. Treatment until PFS2

  23. Results: TT2PD PFS1 TT2PD capecitabine + bevacizumab observation SD or better after 6 cycles CAPOX- B any treatment incl. CAPOX-B PD PD R • TT2PD = time to second progression of disease, time from randomization to progression upon any treatment given after PFS1

  24. Treatment until 2nd progression other than CAPOX-B

  25. TT2PD • adjustedHR 0.63, p <0.001

  26. Overall Survival • adjusted HR 0.80, p 0.035 • preliminary survival analysis

  27. Toxicity (grade 3-4) during observation/maintenance

  28. Drugs administered during metastatic disease

  29. Conclusions - I • Maintenance treatment with capecitabine plus bevacizumab after 6 cycles CAPOX-B is feasible, and significantly prolongs PFS1 and PFS2 • The number of patients that was eligible for re-introduction of CAPOX-B is lower than expected • When any treatment after PFS1 is considered, maintenance treatment also significantly prolongs the time to second progression (TT2PD) • There is a non-significant benefit in median OS for maintenance treatment, which is significant in the adjusted analysis

  30. Conclusions - II • The percentage of patients that received 4 or 5 effective drugs during their metastatic disease is comparable in both treatment arms • Therefore, time on treatment appears to be an additional relevant factor for overall survival in this study • Our data support the use of maintenance treatment with capecitabine plus bevacizumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity after induction treatment of 6 cycles with CAPOX-B

  31. DCCG CAIRO3 study - acknowledgements Investigators: C. Smorenburg, Alkmaar; R.Hoekstra, Almelo; C.Rodenburg, Amersfoort; G.Timmers, Amstelveen; A.Cats, M.Geenen, W. van Leeuwen, D.Richel, C.Punt, O.Leeksma, J.OttenAmsterdam; J.Douma, Arnhem; P.Nieboer,Assen; F.Valster, Bergen op Zoom; P. van den Berg Blaricum; O.Loosveld, A.TenTijeBreda; D.Kehrer, Capelle a/d IJssel; M.Bos, Delft; Z.Erjavec,Delfzijl; H.Sinnige, Den Bosch; H.SleeboomDen Haag; J.Berends, Den Helder; A.Imholz, Deventer; S.Hovenga, Drachten; E.Balk, Ede; G.Creemers, M.Dercksen, Eindhoven; M.Legdeur, Enschede; A.Smals, Geldrop; M. van Hennik, Gorinchem; A.van der Torren, Gouda; G.Hospers, R.de Jong, Groningen; M.Temizkan, Harderwijk; J.Wals, Heerlen; V.Derleyn, Helmond; E. Siemerink, Hengelo;J.Schrama, Hoofddorp; J.Haasjes, Hoogeveen; M.Polee, Leeuwarden;E. Batman, A.Gelderblom, J. van der Hoeven Leiden; R.Jansen, Maastricht; M.Los, Nieuwegein; C.Punt, C.Mandigers, Nijmegen; A.Vos, Oss; M.den Boer, Roermond; F.de Jongh, Rotterdam; J.Braun, Schiedam; F.Erdkamp, Sittard; G.Veldhuis, Sneek; C.Kruijtzer, Tiel; H.Roerdink, J. van Riel, Tilburg; S.van der Vegt, E.Voest, Utrecht; G.Vreugdenhil, Veldhoven; M.Werter, Venlo; P.Schiphorst, Winterswijk; A.vanBochove, Zaandam; H.Seinen, Zevenaar; A.Honkoop, Zwolle Statisticians:H, van Tinteren, O.Dalesio, Amsterdam Central Datamanagement:L.Mol, F.van Leeuwen, IKNL Nijmegen Independent Data Monitoring Committee:E. de Vries, E. vd Wall, J. Nortier, M. Buyse, K. Roest Supported by: Dutch Cancer Foundation, and unrestricted scientific grants from Roche, Sanofi-Aventis Contact: email-address: M.Koopman-6@umcutrecht.nl

More Related