Is there a role for Local Tx of the Primary Tumor for Patients with Metastatic Cancer?
π«Many studies demonstrate no benefit.
πWe performed a MetaAnalysis to evaluate the average effect of Local Tx across various tumors.
A threadπ§΅#AMSM #PRIMETX
redjournal.org/article/S0360-β¦
1/25
Critics of Local Tx to the Primary Tumor
π Many providers think local control of the primary tumor in the setting of M1 dz is akin to βclosing the barn door after the horse has boltedβ
π Ian Tannock wrote a fantastic article on this back in 2000.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11759650/
2/
Supporters of Local Tx
πSome support aggressive ablation of all sites due to the enhanced ability to detect occult disease with improved imaging technologies and π toxicities with complete ablation.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35831494/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31182289/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34742582/
3/
To date,
πSome trials have demonstrated an OS benefit with Local Tx, while many others have shown no benefit.
πAs a recent meta-analysis investigated the utility of ablation of metastasis, the focus of thiswork is Local Tx to the primary tumor.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33237270/
4/
Methods
π Comprehensive search on PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Review.
π Primary outcome measures of OS and PFS.
π RCTs that included simultaneous local consolidative Tx to the primary tumor and metastases (e.g., Gomez for NSCLC) were excluded.
bit.ly/PRIME-TX_Literβ¦
5/
Results
π Literature search revealed 11 studies from 2001-2021, comprising 4,952 patients who underwent systemic therapy +/- local treatment to the primary tumor.
π Bookmark these Tables and view the different sheets to follow these tweets.
bit.ly/PRIME-TX_Tables
6/
Results: Efficacy
π OS and PFS were not significantly improved with Tx of the primary tumor.
π There was a significant difference in summary effect size on PFS between trials that used surgery and the trials that used RT as the primary local Tx modality.
7/
Results: Palliative treatment to the primary tumor in the no local treatment (control) arms
π Rates of palliative treatment to the primary tumor for symptoms or progression in the no local treatment (control) arms ranged from 6-18% (Table 2, post 6)
8/
Results: Physician-Graded Toxicity and QoL
π Only 4 studies reported QoL (3 of which were for breast cancer; Table 3, post 6)
πMore robust QoL data is needed, with particular attention to later stages where symptomatic progression and palliative needs are often more common
9/
Results: The Upfront Surgery trials (n=6/7)
π Typically large, locally advanced tumors.
π MTT initiation of systemic therapy ranged from 19 to 34d after surgery.
π Twice as many patients (4.4β 8.9%) failed to initiate systemic therapy in the local therapy arms.
10/
Discussion: RT trials
π The two primary tumor types driving the OS benefit in the low M1 population treated with RT include prostate ca (n=2 trials; #STAMPEDEArmH, #HORRAD) and NPC (n=1 trial; SYSUCC5010).
π Surgery trials investigated very different populations!
11/
Discussion: Surgery trials
π Most surgical studies were dominated by large locally advanced or initially unresectable tumors. What about smaller, more easily resectable tumors?
π Most surgical studies investigated upfront surgery (n=6/7). What about deferred surgery?
12/
Discussion: #stcsm
π #REGATTA: Gastric cancer. Upfront Surgery. S-1/Cisplatin until progression or toxicity.
π Trend to πPFS/OS.
π Tumors involving upper 1/3 of stomach may have π compliance issues with chemo.
π Deferred surgery π#RENAISSANCE?
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26822397/
13/
Discussion: #CRCSM
π#JCOG1007: 1-3 unresectable mets. Upfront surgery. FOLFOX6 or CapeOX-Bev.
πTrend to π PFS/OS.
π60d mortality 11% on #CAIRO4.
πShould regular endoscopic surveillance guide potential role of deferred primary tumor surgery?
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33560877/
14/
Discussion: #kcsm 1/2
π Upfront surgery. 1) SWOG: π OS (outdated IFN era). 2) #CARMENA: π« OS benefit (TKI era)
π Deferred nephrectomy may be preferred to select for patients who respond to systemic Tx (#SURTIME)
π Reserve for 1 IMDC risk factor?
lists.papersapp.com/Lt7VWzrOoPuN15β¦
15/
Discussion: #kcsm 2/2
Cytoreductive Nephrectomy (CN) in 2022: Where are we now?
π CN: Still Necessary, Obsolete, or Obselete but Necessary?
π 2022 ASCO and EAU Guidelines support CN in select patients.
sciencedirect.com/science/articlβ¦
sciencedirect.com/science/articlβ¦
sciencedirect.com/science/articlβ¦
16/
Discussion: #BCSM 1/2
π Upfront surgery: #ABSCG28, #MF0701.
π Deferred surgery: #TataMemorial, #E2108.
π Only one trial (MF07-01, positive margins in 0%) suggests π OS with local therapy in an enriched population of HR+ solitary bone metastases.
lists.papersapp.com/Lt7VWzrOoPuN
17/
Discussion: #BCSM 2/2
π Overall PFS is not reported in all 4 breast studies. There appears to be a distant PFS detriment with surgery (Cochrane review PMID 29542106; Tata memorial), further supported by ABSCG-28.
π Fantastic review here: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35578060/
18/
Discussion: #PCSM
π There is an OS benefit with prostate RT for < 5 bone mets (#HORRAD) or per #CHAARTED definition (#STAMPEDEArmH).
π Q: Does prostate RT provide benefit the setting of docetaxel Β± abi? A: Awaiting the #PEACE1 RT publication.
π Role for prostatectomy?
19/
Discussion: #NPXSM
π For some tumor locations (e.g., NPX), an uncontrolled primary tumor may cause substantial morbidity and even mortality. Therefore, the attainment of local control could easily impact survival.
π Fantastic prognostic model here: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32853711/
20/
Discussion: #SCLC
π#CREST (pre-IO era) delivered lower doses of thoracic consolidation (30Gy/10Fx).
π OS benefit most pronounced when only patients with residual thoracic dz were included.
π Is the role for thoracic RT for ES-SCLC in the IO-era? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31673520/
21/
Discussion: #NSCLC
π No trials of which we are aware randomized to local Tx to primary tumor alone (e.g., Gomez also treated metastases).
π PRIME-LUNG is investigating upfront SABR to the primary tumor.
π PI @ShankarSiva from @PeterMacCC
clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05β¦
22/
I want to use this moment to highlight the utility of a BCC for such a large co-author group as this to avoid email fatigue.
HT @NicholasZaorsky for his fantastic mentorship π
23/
Conclusion
π No consistent PFS/OS benefit in the overall population.
π PFS differed significantly between trials utilizing surgery vs. trials utilizing RT.
π More data needed to determine differences in subgroups (e.g., type/sequencing of Tx w/i each primary tumor type).
24/
Special thanks to all co-authors for their support!π
Please, be mindful: Site-specific discussions for each primary tumor type in this Tweetorial are the tip of the iceburg (read: hopelessly oversimplifed). When in doubt, discuss at tumor board.
Thanks for stopping by!
25/25
Here is the working link for the cited papers: lists.papersapp.com/Lt7VWzrOoPuN
What might explain πdistant PFS with breast surgery as suggested by Tata Memorial and ABSCG-28?
Here is my stab at it (HT @_ShankarSiva). Surgery may be immunosuppressive? But this hypothesis doesn't explain the clear benefit of surgery in #MF0701 & RCC
@Docace911 - any thoughts on the curves separating after 3y on MF07-01? Also, any thoughts on the theory as to why distant PFS might be worse w breast surgery?
Huge fan of your work! Obviously, this is a different Q than MDT. Please DM if you feel these are controversial topics.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.