0920 Vergote - Role of Radical Surgery PDF
-
Upload
nefvi-desqi-andriani -
Category
Documents
-
view
18 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 0920 Vergote - Role of Radical Surgery PDF
Ignace Vergote, MD, PhD University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, European Union
Leuven
Essen
Role of Radical Surgery and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer:
Report on the Consensus Paper
Role of Radical Surgery and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian
Cancer: Report on the Consensus Paper
Vergote I, du Bois A, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):6-11.
Randomized Trial Comparing Primary Debulking Surgery (PDS) With
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) Followed by Interval Debulking (IDS) in
Stage IIIC-IV Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer
12th Biennial Meeting IGCS Bangkok 2008
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Randomized Trial Comparing Primary Debulking Surgery (PDS) With
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (NACT) Followed by Interval Debulking (IDS) in
Stage IIIC-IV Ovarian, Fallopian Tube and Peritoneal Cancer
12th Biennial Meeting IGCS Bangkok 2008
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Randomization
Randomized EORTC-GCG/NCIC-CTG Trial on NACT + IDS vs PDS Ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer
FIGO stage IIIc-IV (N = 718)
Primary debulking surgery
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy
3 x platinum-based CT
Interval debulking (not obligatory)
Interval debulking if no PD
3 x platinum-based CT
≥3 x platinum-based CT ≥3 x platinum-based CT
Primary endpoint: Overall survival
Secondary endpoints: Progression-free survival, quality of life, complications
48 patients excluded from 1 center → N = 670
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: ITT Overall Survival
Median survival
PDS: 29 months
IDS: 30 months
HR for IDS:0.98
(0.84, 1.13)
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Optimal Debulking and Treatment Arm: PP1
• Optimal = no residual tumor
• Suboptimal = 1-10 mm residual
• Other >10 mm
(51% R0)
(19% R0)
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Optimal Debulking and Treatment Arm: PP1
• Optimal = no residual tumor
• Suboptimal = 1-10 mm residual
• Other >10 mm
(51% R0)
(19% R0)
In the multivariate analysis,
having no residual tumor is the
most important independent
prognostic factor both
after PDS AND IDS!
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Survival Per Country: ITT
PDS R0 63%
PDS R0 11%
PDS vs PDS+IDS vs IDS: ITT Overall Survival
(years)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
O N Number of patients at risk : Debulking
195 263 150 51 13 2
41 54 34 11 1 0
211 298 193 46 13 2
Primary only
Primary + Interval
Interval only
Overall survival
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: ITT Survival Time: WHOPS
EORTC 55971
Events / PatientsUpfront debulking Neo-adj. chemo
Statistics (O-E) Var.
HR & CI*:(Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemo)
|1-HR|% ± SD
Survival time: WHO PSSurvival time: WHO PSSurvival time: WHO PS
*90% CI everywhere
Treatment effect: p>0.1
better betterChi-square=0.01, df=2: p>0.1
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemoTest for heterogeneity
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.00.8
2 32 / 40 35 / 44 0.6 16.5
Total 252/ 334 245/ 334 3.2 122.6
(75.4 %) (73.4 %)
3% ±9
increase
1 107 / 141 105 / 143 0.9 52.1
0 113 / 153 105 / 147 1.6 54
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: ITT Survival Time: Age
EORTC 55971
Events / PatientsUpfront debulking Neo-adj. Chemo
Statistics (O-E) Var.
HR & CI*:(Upfront debulking Neo-adj. Chemo)
|1-HR|% ± SD
Survival time: AgeSurvival time: AgeSurvival time: Age
*90% CI everywhere
Treatment effect: p>0.1
better betterChi-square=0.23, df=2: p>0.1
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. ChemoTest for heterogeneity
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.00.8
>70 55 / 70 59 / 77 -1.4 27.7
Total 253/ 336 245/ 334 3.1 122.7
(75.3 %) (73.4 %)
3% ±9
increase
50-70 172 / 229 155 / 210 3.3 81.4
<50 26 / 37 31 / 47 1.2 13.6
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: ITT Survival Time: Histology
EORTC 55971Events / Patients
Upfront debulkingNeo-adj. chemoStatistics
(O-E) Var.HR & CI*
:(Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemo)|1-HR|% ± SD
Survival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: HistologySurvival time: Histology
*90% CI everywhere
Treatment effect: p>0.1better betterChi-square=4.92, df=7: p>0.1
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemoTest for heterogeneity
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.00.8
unknown 13 / 17 21 / 24 -2.4 8.2
Total 253/ 336 245/ 334 9.2 120.4(75.3 %) (73.4 %)
8% ±9increase
other 1/ 2 6/ 6 -0.7 1.2
mixed 2/ 3 0/ 0 0 0
unclassifiable 22 / 26 28 / 34 2.3 11.8
undifferentiated 29 / 43 40 / 56 -2.3 17
endometroid 7/ 11 2/ 5 2.1 1.9
clear cell 5/ 6 4/ 4 0.8 1.9
mucinous 7/ 8 8/ 11 0.6 3.2
serous 167 / 220 136 / 194 8.8 75.3
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: ITT Survival Time: FIGO Stage
EORTC 55971
Events / PatientsUpfront debulkingNeo-adj. Chemo
Statistics (O-E) Var.
HR & CI*:(Upfront debulking Neo-adj. Chemo)
|1-HR|% ± SD
Survival time: Figo stageSurvival time: Figo stage
*90% CI everywhere
Treatment effect: p>0.1better betterChi-square=3.7, df=1: p=0.05
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. ChemoTest for heterogeneity
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.00.8
IV 67 / 76 57 / 81 10.1 30.4
Total 252/ 334 245/ 334 3.8 123.1(75.4 %) (73.4 %)
3% ±9increase
III 185 / 258 188 / 253 -6.4 92.7
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
NACT + IDS vs PDS: PP1 Overall Survival: Largest Metastatic Tumor Size
• <5 cm: HR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.93
EORTC 55971Events / Patients
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemoStatistics
(O-E) Var.HR & CI*
:(Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemo)|1-HR|% ± SD
OS: Largest metastatic tumor sizeOS: Largest metastatic tumor sizeOS: Largest metastatic tumor sizeOS: Largest metastatic tumor size
*90% CI everywhere
Treatment effect: p>0.1better betterChi-square=8.8, df=3: p=0.03
Upfront debulking Neo-adj. chemoTest for heterogeneity
0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.00.8
>200 mm 22 / 26 21 / 24 -0.8 10.3
Total 236/ 315 233/ 320 1.8 114.4(74.9 %) (72.8 %)
2% ±9increase
100-199 mm 92 / 105 83 / 113 8.4 43
50-99 mm 69 / 90 64 / 88 6.9 32.5
0-49 mm 53 / 94 65 / 95 -12.7 28.6
Vergote I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):943-953.
Algorithm for Ovarian Cancer
Vergote I, du Bois A, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):6-11.
Epithelial ovarian cancer
Surgical skills and resources available?
Send patient to another
unit and do not abuse
neoadjuvant therapy
Advanced stage
FIGO IIB-IV Early stage
FIGO I-IIA
No Yes
Comprehensive
surgical staging
75% 25%
FIGO IIB-IIIB FIGO IIIC-IV
25% 50%
Algorithm for Ovarian Cancer
Vergote I, du Bois A , et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):6-11.
FIGO IIB-IIIB FIGO IIIC-IV
25% 50%
Patient fit for extended radical surgery?
Yes No
45% 5%
Pathological diagnosis
Upfront debulking
surgery aiming at
complete resection
Primary
chemotherapy
(or palliation)
12% 33%
FIGO IIIC and extra-
ovarian metastases
<5 cm
– see also table 1
FIGO IIIC and extra-
ovarian metastases
>5 cm – or FIGO IV
– see also table 1
Debulking to no residual seems feasible
with reasonable morbidity (see table 1)
Yes No Essen
Leuven
8%
25%
Essen
Leuven
25%
8%
Algorithm for Ovarian Cancer
Vergote I, du Bois A, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):6-11.
Essen Leuven
No interval
debulking
Interval
debulking
Tumor spread
was reason for
upfront chemo
(see GOG152)
Pt characteristics
improved (see table 1)
Initially operated
w/o maximal effort
3 courses
carboplatin
paclitaxel IV
Interval debulking
(IDS; see table 1)
No unterval
debulking (pts not fit
for IDS)
PD
No PD
13%
30%
25%
2%
5%
5%
2-3%
Primary
chemotherapy
(or palliation)
Criteria for Primary Chemotherapy and Interval Debulking Surgery in FIGO
Stage IIIc and IV: Diagnosis
Diagnosis Essen Criteria Leuven Criteria
Biopsy Biopsy with histologically proven epithelial ovarian
(or tubal or peritoneal) cancer FIGO stage IIIc-IV
Cytology – Or FNAC proving the
presence of carcinoma cells
in patients with suspicious
pelvic mass
• If CA125 (KU/L)/CEA
(ng/mL) ratio is >25,
• If the serum CA125/CEA
ratio is ≤25, imaging or
endoscopy is obligatory
to exclude a primary
gastric, colon, or breast
carcinoma
Criteria for Primary Chemotherapy and Interval Debulking Surgery in FIGO
Stage IIIc and IV: Abdominal Disease
Essen Criteria Leuven Criteria
• Involvement of the superior mesenteric artery
• Diffuse deep infiltration of the radix mesenterii of the small bowel
• Diffuse and confluent carcinomatosis of the small bowel involving such
large parts that resection would lead to a short bowel syndrome (eg,
resection >1 m) or total gastrectomy
• Multiple parenchymeous liver
metastases in both lobes
• Intrahepatic metastases
• Tumor involving large parts of the
pancreas (not only tail) and/or
• Duodenum
• Infiltration of the pancreas and/or
• Duodenum and/or
• the large vessels of the
ligamentum hepatoduodenale,
truncus coelicaus, or behind the
porta hepatis
• Tumor infiltrating the vessels of
the lig. hepatoduodenale or
truncus coeliacus
Criteria for Primary Chemotherapy and for Interval Debulking Surgery in FIGO Stage IIIc
and IV: Extra-Abdominal Disease Essen Criteria Leuven Criteria
• Multiple parenchymal
lung metastases
(preferably histologically
proven)
All excluding:
• Resectable inguinal
lymph nodes
• Solitary resectable
retrocrural or paracardial
nodes
• Pleural fluid containing
cytologically malignant
cells without proof of the
presence of pleural
tumors
• Nonresectable lymph
node metastases/
• Brain metastases
Criteria for Primary Chemotherapy and for Interval Debulking Surgery in FIGO
Stage IIIc and IV: Other Patient Characteristics
Essen Criteria Leuven Criteria
• Impaired performance status and comorbidity not allowing a
“maximal surgical effort” to achieve a complete resection
• Patients’ nonacceptance of potential supportive measures
as blood transfusions or temporary stoma
Criteria for Interval Debulking
Essen Criteria Leuven Criteria
• Upfront surgical effort in an
institution without expert
surgical skills/infrastructure
• Barrier for initial surgery has
disappeared (eg, improved
medical condition)
• Not, if reason for primary
surgery was tumor growth
pattern diagnosed during
surgery by an expereinced
gynecologic oncologist under
optmal circumstances (as in
GOG 152 study)
• No progressive disease, and
• In case of extra-abdominal
disease at diagnosis the extra-
abdominal disease should be
in complete response or
resectable, and
• Performance status and
comorbidity allowing a
maximal surgical effort to no
residual diseases
How to Select Patients?
How to Select Patients:Essen
• Essen starts with a limited open surgery via midline incision with systematic stepwise evaluation of the site not passing a “point of no return”
• First, the peritoneum of the paracolic gutters is resected, and the complete colon is mobilized, the omentum removed, and the lesser sac opened
• At this point, the pancreas, truncus coeliacus, hepatic artery, and ductus choledocus are evaluated
• Next, the small bowel is dissected, and the radix mesenterii, superior mesenteric artery, and small bowel are evaluated
Leuven Approach: Predictive Models for Optimal Cytoreduction
• CA125
• Imaging (CT-scores/PET-CT/CT peritoneography)
• Microarrays
THESE MODELS ARE SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH
Open Laparoscopy in Stage III and IV Ovarian Carcinoma (n = 228, 1995-2002)
• 55 patients (19%) with suspect ovarian mass in combination
with omental cake and/or ascites had no ovarian carcinoma
stage III or IV (metastases from other primaries, stage I-II,
benign … )1
• 90% of the patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma (n = 173)
judged to be operable were optimally debulked (Vergote et al)1
This figure of 90% optimal debulking after
laparoscopy is confirmed by 2 Italian series
(Fagotti et al2 and Angioli et al3) and is much
higher than for every published CT scoring
system, CA125 …
1. Vergote I, et al. In J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(5):776-779. 2. Fagotti A, et al. Gyncol Oncol. 2005;96(3):729-735.
3. Angioli R, et al. Gyncole Oncol. 2006;100(3):455-461.
Whole-Body Diffusion Weighted MRI and PET-CT
Improved
visualization
of total burden
of intra-
abdominal
disease
T2 DWI PET-CT 1/ Peritoneal carcinomatosis
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1
Michielsen K, et al. Int J Gyncol Cancer. 2012;22(8 supplement 3): Abstract E154.
Whole-Body Diffusion Weighted MRI and PET-CT
Improved
visualization
of total burden
of intra-
abdominal
disease
T2 DWI PET-CT
2/ Gastrosplenic
2 2 2
Michielsen K, et al. Int J Gyncol Cancer. 2012;22(8 supplement 3): Abstract E154.
Whole-Body Diffusion Weighted MRI and PET-CT
Improved
visualization
of total burden
of intra-
abdominal
disease
T2 DWI PET-CT
3/ small bowel:
meso and serosa
3
?
?
Michielsen K, et al. Int J Gyncol Cancer. 2012;22(8 supplement 3): Abstract E154.
Whole-Body Diffusion Weighted MRI and PET-CT
Improved
visualization
of total burden
of intra-
abdominal
disease
T2 DWI PET-CT
4/ sigmoid:
meso and serosa
4 4 ?
Michielsen K, et al. Int J Gyncol Cancer. 2012;22(8 supplement 3): Abstract E154.
WB-DWI and PET: Extra-Abdominal Metastases
DWI PET
WB-DWI and PET: Extra-Abdominal Metastases
DWI PET
WB-DWI is a very promising imaging tool to
predict tumor burden and operability, is superior
to PET-CT and is in selected cases replacing
laparoscopy in Leuven.
Future Study?
Future Study? Vergote I, du Bois A, et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):6-11.
• Patients fit for radical surgery and chemotherapy
• Histologically proven epithelial ovarian cancer
• Clinically FIGO stages IIIC-IV
• No metastases excluding resection (must be specified)
• Center recruiting consecutive patients (no extra selection)
• Surgery in center with excellence (proven/monitored)
Random 1:1:1
Primary surgery 3 courses primary
chemotherapy
Systemic treatment
(chemo +/- biologic) No interval debulking
Completion of
systemic treatment
(chemo +/- biologic)
Interval surgery
Completion of
systemic treatment
(chemo +/- biologic)