Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer

18Fluorodeoxyglucose PET is prognostic of progression-free and overall survival in locally advanced pancreas cancer treated with stereotactic radiotherapy

PURPOSE

This study analyzed the prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) for locally advanced pancreas cancer patients undergoing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-five previously untreated, unresectable pancreas cancer patients received a single fraction of 25-Gy SBRT sequentially with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. On the preradiation PET-CT, the tumor was contoured and the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic tumor burden (MTB) were calculated using an in-house software application. High-SUVmax and low-SUVmax subgroups were created by categorizing patients above or below the median SUVmax. The analysis was repeated to form high-MTB and low-MTB subgroups as well as clinically relevant subgroups with SUVmax values of <5, 5-10, or >10. Multivariate analysis analyzing SUVmax, MTB, age, chemotherapy cycles, and pretreatment carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 was performed.

RESULTS

For the entire population, median survival was 12.7 months. Median survival was 9.8 vs.15.3 months for the high- and low- SUVmax subgroups (p <0.01). Similarly, median survival was 10.1 vs. 18.0 months for the high MTB and low MTB subgroups (p <0.01). When clinical SUVmax cutoffs were used, median survival was 6.4 months in those with SUVmax >10, 9.5 months with SUVmax 5.0-10.0, and 17.7 months in those with SUVmax <5 (p <0.01). On multivariate analysis, clinical SUVmax was an independent predictor for overall survival (p = 0.03) and progression-free survival (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

PET scan parameters can predict for length of survival in locally advanced pancreas cancer patients.

A phase II study of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S-1 followed by chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 followed by chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer received four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of 30-min intravenous infusions of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and oral S-1 40 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle. Those without disease progression received chemoradiotherapy of 30 Gy in ten fractions with 250 mg/m(2) of gemcitabine on days 1 and 8.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were treated. Median follow-up time was 431 days (range 133-1,014 days). Four cycles of induction chemotherapy were completed in 18 patients, and 16 patients received chemoradiotherapy, which was completed without delay in all. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with induction chemotherapy were neutropenia (50%); anemia (20%); thrombocytopenia (10%); febrile neutropenia (5%); nausea (10%); anorexia (10%); and vomiting, fatigue, dehydration, stomatitis, and rash (5%). Grade 3-4 toxicities among those receiving chemoradiotherapy were neutropenia (13%) and anemia (6%). Median progression-free survival was 8.1 months. Median overall survival was 14.4 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 54.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The regimen of induction chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 followed by chemoradiotherapy used in the present study demonstrated promising activity in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Further consideration of radiation schedule and duration of induction chemotherapy is required to enhance the efficacy of this strategy.

Novel agents for the treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

Pancreatic cancer is a particularly challenging malignancy, given its usually advanced stage at diagnosis and its rather limited treatment options. Gemcitabine has been standard therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer for well over a decade. The addition of capecitabine or erlotinib to gemcitabine has resulted in modestly improved, although still poor, overall survival. The majority of the recently completed randomized trials, however, have failed to demonstate an improvement of newer treatments over single-agent gemcitabine. Efforts currently underway center on new cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, as well as novel targeted agents inhibiting various molecular pathways. Newly discovered proteins and cellular elements involved in tumor growth and invasion are potential therapeutic targets, and have become the focus of current trials, as well as future clinical trials. A better understanding of the biology of the disease at the basic science level, and epidemiology and risk factors from a public-health perspective, are needed. Continued research is clearly warranted with the goal of improving survival and optimizing treatment outcomes in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Chemoradiotherapy with concurrent gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without sequential chemotherapy with gemcitabine/cisplatin vs chemoradiotherapy with concurrent 5-fluorouracil in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer--a multi-centre randomised phase II study

Background:

No standard treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) is defined.

Patients and methods

Within a multi-centre, randomised phase II trial, 95 patients with LAPC were assigned to three different chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens: patients received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 50 Gy and were randomised to concurrent 5-fluorouracil (350 mg m⁻² per day on each day of radiotherapy, RT-5-FU arm), concurrent gemcitabine (300 mg m⁻²), and cisplatin (30 mg m⁻²) on days 1, 8, 22, and 29 (RT-GC arm), or the same concurrent treatment followed by sequential full-dose gemcitabine (1000 mg m⁻²) and cisplatin (50 mg m⁻²) every 2 weeks (RT-GC+GC arm). Primary end point was the overall survival (OS) rate after 9 months.

Results:

The 9-month OS rate was 58% in the RT-5-FU arm, 52% in the RT-GC arm, and 45% in the RT-GC+GC arm. Corresponding median survival times were 9.6, 9.3, and 7.3 months (P=0.61) respectively. The intent-to-treat response rate was 19, 22, and 13% respectively. Median progression-free survival was estimated with 4.0, 5.6, and 6.0 months (P=0.21). Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were more frequent in the two GC-containing arms, no grade 3/4 febrile neutropaenia was observed.

Conclusion:

None of the three CRT regimens tested met the investigators' definition for efficacy; the median OS was similar to those previously reported with gemcitabine alone in LAPC.

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine administered at a fixed dose rate or in combination with cisplatin, docetaxel, or irinotecan in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: CALGB 89904

PURPOSE

The relative value of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy therapy and prolonged infusions of gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer remains controversial. We explored the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine administered at a fixed dose rate or in combination with cisplatin, docetaxel, or irinotecan in a multi-institutional, randomized, phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to one of the following four regimens: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 with cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15 (arm A); gemcitabine 1,500 mg/m(2) at a rate of 10 mg/m(2)/min on days 1, 8, and 15 (arm B); gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) with docetaxel 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (arm C); or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) with irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (arm D). Patients were observed for response, toxicity, and survival. Results Two hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled onto the study, of whom 245 were eligible and received treatment. Anticipated rates of myelosuppression, fatigue, and expected regimen-specific toxicities were observed. The overall tumor response rates were 12% to 14%, and the median overall survival times were 6.4 to 7.1 months among the four regimens.

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine/cisplatin, fixed dose rate gemcitabine, gemcitabine/docetaxel, and gemcitabine/irinotecan have similar antitumor activity in metastatic pancreatic cancer. In light of recent negative randomized studies directly comparing several of these regimens with standard gemcitabine, none of these approaches can be recommended for routine use in patients with this disease.

A comparison of phase II study strategies

The traditional oncology drug development paradigm of single arm phase II studies followed by a randomized phase III study has limitations for modern oncology drug development. Interpretation of single arm phase II study results is difficult when a new drug is used in combination with other agents or when progression-free survival is used as the endpoint rather than tumor shrinkage. Randomized phase II studies are more informative for these objectives but increase both the number of patients and time required to determine the value of a new experimental agent. In this article, we compare different phase II study strategies to determine the most efficient drug development path in terms of number of patients and length of time to conclusion of drug efficacy on overall survival.

Second- and third-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: feasibility and potential benefits in a retrospective series of 117 patients

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is effective in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC), but the benefits of second- and third-line chemotherapy remain unclear.

METHODS

We studied all patients followed consecutively for metastatic PAC, and registered at our institution between 1997 and 2006. We retrospectively analyzed the following data in terms of chemotherapy: tumor response; time to tumor progression (TTP) for each line; and overall survival (OS). Efficacy of second-line regimens was assessed using the growth modulation index (GMI).

RESULTS

Out of 117 patients, 99 (85%) received at least one line of chemotherapy, 53 (45%) received two lines and 24 (21%) had three or more lines. Median OS was 6.7 months for all 117 patients, 1.8 months for 18 patients who never received chemotherapy, 4.6 months for 46 patients who received one-line chemotherapy and 11.5 months for 53 patients who received at least two lines. Median OS from the beginning of the second-line was 4.7 months. The GMI demonstrated beneficial effects of second-line treatment on disease progression, with a GMI greater than 1.33 in 57% (30/53) of patients.

CONCLUSION

More than half the patients with metastatic PAC progression while receiving one-line chemotherapy achieved better disease control on receiving two lines of treatment.

Gemcitabine plus enzastaurin or single-agent gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a phase II, randomized, noncomparative study

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine (G) is standard therapy for pancreatic cancer. Enzastaurin (E) inhibits PKCβ and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways with a dose-dependent effect on growth of pancreatic carcinoma xenografts. Data suggest that the GE combination may improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives assessed progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and relationships between biomarker expression and clinical outcomes. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to GE or G treatment; GE arm: E 500 mg p.o. daily; loading-dose (1200 mg; Day 1 Cycle 1 only) and G 1000 mg/m(2) i.v. Days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles; G arm: G as in GE. Biomarker expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Randomization totaled 130 patients (GE = 86, G = 44); 121 patients were treated (GE = 82, G = 39). GE/G median OS was 5.6/5.1 months; median PFS was 3.4/3.0 months. GE responses: 1 complete response (CR, 1.2%), 6 partial response (PR, 7.4%), and 33 stable disease (SD, 40.7%); disease control rate (DCR=CR+PR+SD, 49.4%). G responses: 2 PR (5.3%) and 16 SD (42.1%); DCR (47.4%). No QOL differences were noted between arms. GE/G Grade 3-4 toxicities included: neutropenia (18.3%/28.2%); thrombocytopenia (14.6%/25.6%); and fatigue (11.0%/7.7%). No statistically significant relationships between biomarker expression and outcomes were observed. However, patients with low expression of cytoplasmic pGSK-3β trended toward greater OS with GE treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

OS, PFS, QOL, and RR were comparable between arms. Adding E to G did not increase hematologic toxicities. GE does not warrant further investigation in unselected pancreatic cancer patients.

Consensus on the treatment of pancreatic cancer in Spain

Pancreatic cancer (PC) represents one of the greatest oncological challenges of our century, due to its high mortality and incidence. A group of Spanish experts in PC treatment reviewed data available on different therapeutic combinations and established consensus on what would be the best strategy in PC management, depending on the stage of the disease. Surgery with complete resection may produce 5-year survival rates of 18-24%, but definitive control is still precarious. In the absence of consensus, the best evidence suggests that adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine for 6 months using the CONKO-001 regime is the treatment of choice after resection of PC for patients with acceptable functional status. This group recommends chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) in patients with factors for poor loco-regional prognosis. However, chemotherapy is an option for the treatment of locally advanced PC in patients with good general status and in the absence of metastatic disease the recommended treatment is CT-RT followed by gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. A period of chemotherapy followed by consolidation CT-RT may be appropriate, as it allows selection of patients with locally advanced disease who may benefit most from combined treatment. Erlotinib combined with gemcitabine shows significant survival improvement in PC and must be considered an option in the first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic PC. The gemcitabine-erlotinib combination is proposed as the standard treatment for metastatic PC in patients with PS=/>2. In patients with PS<2, gemcitabine-erlotinib is recommended as the first-line treatment option, supported by a maximum degree of evidence, without ruling out other options, such as gemcitabine-oxaliplatin, gemcitabine-capecitabine or gemcitabine alone.

Chemoradioimmunotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic and biliary tree adenocarcinoma: a multicenter phase II study

OBJECTIVES

The antitumor activity and toxicity of a multi-step treatment were evaluated in patients with locally advanced, inoperable, or incompletely resected pancreatic (Pa) and biliary tree (Bt) adenocarcinomas (ADKs).

METHODS

Fifty-four patients, 63% with Pa and 37% with Bt ADK, received 3 courses of cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy. Progression-free (PF) patients were given consolidation radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine. PF patients had, as maintenance immunotherapy (MI), interleukin 2 (1.8x10 IU) and 13-cis-retinoic acid (0.5 mg/kg) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED].

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients, 27 with Pa and 11 with Bt ADKs, PF after cisplatin/gemcitabine, were treated with consolidation radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine. Fourteen PF patients, 7 with Pa and 7 with Bt ADK, received MI. Median PF and overall survivals (OS) for all 54 patients were 6.8 and 12.1 months, respectively. Patients treated with MI had a median PF survival of 16.2 months, whereas median OS had not been reached yet, after a median follow-up of 27.5 months.

TOXICITY

Grades 3 and 4 hematological and gastrointestinal in 30% and 37% of patients, respectively; grades 1 and 2 autoimmune reactions in 28% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the efficacy and safety of a multi-step sequential treatment in patients with locally advanced, inoperable or incompletely resected Pa and Bt ADKs.

The usefulness of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect the changes of signal intensity in tumors. We evaluated the prognostic value of perfusion-weighted MRI in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC).

METHODS

Perfusion-weighted MRI was performed before treatment on 27 consecutive patients with advanced PC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages of patients were as follows (8, stage III; 19, stage IV). Imaging acquisition was continually repeated with echo planar sequence every 2 seconds for 2 minutes after a bolus injection of gadolinium. We made a time intensity curve of PC and calculated the signal ratio (SR) on perfusion-weighted imaging. We assessed the relation between SR and clinical factors including tumor stage, lymph node metastasis, liver metastasis, and so on. Patients were divided into low and high SR group and compared SR with the overall survival.

RESULTS

All cases showed transient decreases signal intensity (SR, 6.9-55.7%). These patients were classified into 2 groups at cutoff median SR of 22.0% The high SR group significantly correlated with the higher stage (P=0.03) and the presence of lymph node metastasis (P=0.04). The high SR group had significantly shorter overall survival (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Perfusion-weighted MRI may predict the survival in advanced PC patients.

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: current standards, future directions

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the United States. In the landmark study in 1997, which established the central although modest role of gemcitabine in this disease, progress has been incremental. Significant developments have been an increased acceptance for combination chemotherapy in patients with good performance status in addition to an increased understanding of tumorigenesis. The parallel technologic and engineering developments that have occurred hold the promise of exploiting this understanding. This review attempts to summarize the standard therapeutic approach to metastatic pancreatic cancer and point to areas that hold promise for the future.

Therapeutic effect of two-pathway chemotherapy in combination with gamma-ray stereotactic radiotherapy on local advanced pancreatic cancer: an analysis of 12 cases

AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic effect of two-pathway chemotherapy combined with gamma-ray stereotactic radiotherapy on local advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS: From June 2005 to December 2007, 23 patients with local advanced pancreatic cancer were divided into two groups randomly, namely, combined treatment group (n = 12) and control group (n = 11). The combined treatment group received the two-pathway chemotherapy (regional arterial infusion and systemic venous chemotherapy) combined with gamma-ray stereotactic radiotherapy. The control group were only treated with the two-pathway chemotherapy. The curative effect, relief extent of pain, life span and the adverse reaction were compared in the course of treatment between the two groups.

RESULTS: The proportion of CR and PR in the combined treatment group was 75.0%, much higher than 27.3% of the control group. The survival rates at 6 mo and 9 mo were 83.3% and 75.0% in the combined treatment group, similar to 72.7% and 45.5% of the control group. But the 12 months' survival rate of combined treatment group was 50% which was higher than the control group. The average life span of the combined treatment group was 13.1 mo, higher than that of the control group, which was 8.7 mo (P < 0.05). The data of tumor marker CA199 of combined treatment group dropped significantly compared with that of control group (P < 0.05). Abdominal pain in combined treatment group was relieved more than that in control group (P < 0.05). And the adverse effect between two groups had no significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The therapeutic model of two-pathway chemotherapy combined with gamma-ray stereotactic radiotherapy could be considered one of choice for the patients with local advanced pancreatic cancer.

Significance of RRM1 and ERCC1 expression in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma

The identification of molecular markers, useful for therapeutic decisions in pancreatic cancer patients, is crucial for advances in disease management. Gemcitabine, although a cornerstone of current therapy, has limited efficacy. RRM1 is a key molecule for gemcitabine efficacy and is also involved in tumor progression. We determined in situ RRM1 and excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1) protein levels in 68 pancreatic cancer patients. All had R0 resections without preoperative therapy. Protein levels were determined by automated quantitative analysis (AQUA), a fluorescence-based immunohistochemical method. The relationship between protein expressions and clinical outcomes, including response to gemcitabine at the time of disease recurrence, was determined. Patients with high RRM1 showed significantly better overall survival than patients with low expression (P=0.0196). There was a trend toward better overall survival for patient with high ERCC1 (P=0.0552). When both markers were considered together, patients with both high RRM1 and ERCC1 faired the best in terms of overall and disease-free survival (P=0.0066, P=0.0127). In addition, treatment benefit from gemcitabine in patients with disease recurrence was observed only in patients with low RRM1. The combination of RRM1 and ERCC1 expression is prognostic in pancreatic cancer patients after a complete resection. On disease recurrence, only patients with low RRM1 derive benefit from gemcitabine.

Bevacizumab combined with gemcitabine and capecitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase II study

A total of 50 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were enrolled in a phase II study of bevacizumab 15 mg kg⁻¹, capecitabine 1300 mg m⁻² daily for 2 weeks and gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² weekly 2 times; cycles were repeated every 21 days. Radiological response rate was 22%; progression-free survival and over survival were 5.8 and 9.8 months respectively. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities included neutropaenia (22%), thrombocytopaenia (14%), thromboembolic events (12%), hypertension (8%) and haemorrhage (6%).

Medical management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2008, an estimated 34,290 people died from pancreatic cancer and 37,680 new cases were diagnosed. Despite modern treatment, 90% of patients die within 1 year of diagnosis. Pancreatectomy is still the only potentially curative approach, but most patients have incurable disease by the time they are diagnosed, and fewer than 20% are candidates for surgery. In the present paper the English-language literature addressing the medical management in pancreatic cancer was reviewed. Based on these data we will discuss the role of currently used chemotherapy and target therapy in pancreatic cancer, as well as perspectives of the emerging strategies that are arising in order to improve the outcomes of this complex disease.

A patient with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer achieving long-term survival with gemcitabine chemotherapy

A 68-year-old female visited a local clinic with epigastralgia. A routine laboratory test revealed jaundice and liver dysfunction. She was referred to this hospital. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) revealed that the density of the entire pancreas had decreased, and showed dilatation of the common bile duct (CBD) and the main pancreatic duct (MPD). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed by cytological examination analyzing the pancreatic juice obtained by ERCP. When jaundice had decreased the tumor was observed via laparotomy. No ascites, liver metastasis, or peritoneal dissemination was observed. The entire pancreas was a hard mass, and a needle biopsy was obtained from the head, body and tail of the pancreas. These biopsies diagnosed a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Hepaticojejunostomy was thus performed, and postoperative progress was good. Chemotherapy with 1000 mg/body per week of gemcitabine was administered beginning 15 d postoperatively. However, the patient suffered relatively severe side effects, and it was necessary to change the dosing schedule of gemcitabine. Abdominal CT revealed a complete response (CR) after 3 treatments. Therefore, weekly chemotherapy was stopped and was changed to monthly administration. To date, for 4 years after chemotherapy, the tumor has not reappeared.

Pancreatic cancer: current and future treatment strategies

Pancreatic cancer is a disease with a high mortality rate and short survival, as a result of the high incidence of metastatic disease at diagnosis, the fulminant clinical course and the lack of successful therapeutic strategies. The administration of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of advanced disease has failed and currently, research focuses on the understanding of molecular pathways in order to investigate the role of targeted therapy. Trials on adjuvant and neo-adjuvant therapy of pancreatic cancer are also ongoing. This review presents the recent developments with newer chemotherapeutic and molecular-targeted agents, identifying the efforts for individualized treatment strategies.

Pancreatic cancer: advances in medical therapy

Progress in the treatment of pancreatic cancer has been notably slow and modest in contrast to other cancers of the GI tract over the last 5 years. Pancreatic cancer still continues to be a devastating illness that is marked by the appearance of early metastatic disease, despite curative surgery and the relative chemoresistance of the disease. However, small incremental benefits have been seen, and point to areas of research and development over the subsequent years. Developments in adjuvant chemotherapy and the use of gemcitabine in combination with other cytotoxic agents or with biological agents have changed clinical practice. Given its poor outlook and the paucity of active therapies, even modest gains can lead to regulatory approval and, therefore, pancreatic cancer represents a common target for pharmaceutical companies. Newer agents are in development with the promise of further refinement in treatment selection based on molecular tumor characteristics.

Randomised Phase I/II trial assessing the safety and efficacy of radiolabelled anti-carcinoembryonic antigen I(131) KAb201 antibodies given intra-arterially or intravenously in patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Advanced pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis, and the current standard of care (gemcitabine based chemotherapy) provides a small survival advantage. However the drawback is the accompanying systemic toxicity, which targeted treatments may overcome. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of KAb201, an anti-carcinoembryonic antigen monoclonal antibody, labelled with I(131) in pancreatic cancer (ISRCTN 16857581).

METHODS

Patients with histological/cytological proven inoperable adenocarcinoma of the head of pancreas were randomised to receive KAb 201 via either the intra-arterial or intravenous delivery route. The dose limiting toxicities within each group were determined. Patients were assessed for safety and efficacy and followed up until death.

RESULTS

Between February 2003 and July 2005, 25 patients were enrolled. Nineteen patients were randomised, 9 to the intravenous and 10 to the intra-arterial arms. In the intra-arterial arm, dose limiting toxicity was seen in 2/6 (33%) patients at 50 mCi whereas in the intravenous arm, dose limiting toxicity was noted in 1/6 patients at 50 mCi, but did not occur at 75 mCi (0/3).The overall response rate was 6% (1/18). Median overall survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval = 3.3 to 9 months), with no significant difference between the intravenous and intra-arterial arms (log rank test p = 0.79). One patient was still alive at the time of this analysis.

CONCLUSION

Dose limiting toxicity for KAb201 with I(131) by the intra-arterial route was 50 mCi, while dose limiting toxicity was not reached in the intravenous arm.

Oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

A phase II study was performed to assess the activity of oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) modulated by leucovorin, as second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma pretreated with gemcitabine-containing schedule.

METHODS

Patients received weekly intravenous infusions of oxaliplatin 40 mg/m, 5-FU 500 mg/m, and leucovorin 250 mg/m (3 weeks on, 1 week off).

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients affected with metastatic (16) or locally advanced (7) pancreas adenocarcinoma were involved in this study. A total of 148 weeks of chemotherapy was delivered (median 2 courses each patient). Among 17 assessable patients, no objective response was registered and 4 patients had stable disease, whereas 13 had tumor progression. Median duration of stable disease was 14 weeks. Median time to progression of disease (TTP) was 11.6 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.6-5.6]. Kaplan-Meier estimated median overall survival (OS) was 17.1 week (95% CI, 4.0-30.1) and 3 months survival rate was 69.6%. Seven patients experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicity. The regimen was associated with 36% clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The median TTP and median OS in this population with poor prognosis suggests some activity, however, only further investigations will be able to establish the clinical value of this combination.

Noninvasive prediction of tumor responses to gemcitabine using positron emission tomography

Gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine, dFdC) and cytosine arabinoside (cytarabine, ara-C) represent a class of nucleoside analogs used in cancer chemotherapy. Administered as prodrugs, dFdC and ara-C are transported across cell membranes and are converted to cytotoxic derivatives through consecutive phosphorylation steps catalyzed by endogenous nucleoside kinases. Deoxycytidine kinase (DCK) controls the rate-limiting step in the activation cascade of dFdC and ara-C. DCK activity varies significantly among individuals and across different tumor types and is a critical determinant of tumor responses to these prodrugs. Current assays to measure DCK expression and activity require biopsy samples and are prone to sampling errors. Noninvasive methods that can detect DCK activity in tumor lesions throughout the body could circumvent these limitations. Here, we demonstrate an approach to detecting DCK activity in vivo by using positron emission tomography (PET) and (18)F-labeled 1-(2'-deoxy-2'-fluoroarabinofuranosyl) cytosine] ([(18)F]FAC), a PET probe recently developed by our group. We show that [(18)F]FAC is a DCK substrate with an affinity similar to that of dFdC. In vitro, accumulation of [(18)F]FAC in murine and human leukemia cell lines is critically dependent on DCK activity and correlates with dFdC sensitivity. In mice, [(18)F]FAC accumulates selectively in DCK-positive vs. DCK-negative tumors, and [(18)F]FAC microPET scans can predict responses to dFdC. We suggest that [(18)F]FAC PET might be useful for guiding treatment decisions in certain cancers by enabling individualized chemotherapy.

Results of a retrospective analysis of gemcitabine as a second-line treatment after chemoradiotherapy and maintenance chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Many studies of concurrent chemoradiation therapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer have been reported with a median survival time of approximately 10 months. Recently, gemcitabine (GEM) has been administered immediately after chemoradiation. The clinical outcome of chemoradiation therapy in conjunction with 5-FU and second-line chemotherapy with GEM after disease progression has not been clarified.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with concurrent radiation therapy (1.8 Gy/fraction; total dose, 50.4 Gy) with 5-FU (200 mg/m(2) every day) until disease progression, followed by GEM (1000 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, 15, and every 4 weeks) as second-line therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 18 patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who received chemoradiation therapy with 5-FU, there were three partial responses, giving a response rate of 17%. The median time to progression was 170 days. The median survival time was 443 days. During chemoradiation therapy, the incidences of grade 3 or 4 anorexia, nausea, mucositis, and gastric ulcer were 33%, 22%, 17%, and 17%, respectively. Sixteen patients received second-line chemotherapy with GEM, of whom one patient had a partial response. The median time to progression from the initiation of GEM was 113 days, and median overall survival time was 231 days. Major toxicities were hematological toxicities: grade 3 or 4 leukopenia in 75% and anemia in 31%.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment strategy with concurrent chemoradiation and maintenance chemotherapy with 5-FU followed by second-line chemotherapy with GEM may be an option for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: from gemcitabine single agent to combinations and targeted therapy

The prognosis of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma is still poor nowadays. Gemcitabine in monotherapy (30-min infusion) has been the standard of treatment during the last decade, and many clinical trials have failed to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival (OS) with the addition of different drugs to gemcitabine, including cetuximab and bevacizumab. Nevertheless, some modest but interesting advances have been provided by combinations such as gemcitabine-erlotinib, gemcitabine-capecitabine and gemcitabine plus a platinum salt. In spite of this, survival results remain disappointing. Further research focused on new combinations, incorporating the new targeted therapies and identifying potential predictive factors of response are required to be able to offer effective tailored therapies to these patients.

A phase II study of flavopiridol (Alvocidib) in combination with docetaxel in refractory, metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) harbors frequent alterations in p16, resulting in cell cycle dysregulation. A phase I study of docetaxel and flavopiridol, a pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in PC. This phase II study was designed to further define the efficacy and toxicity of this regimen in patients with previously treated PC.

METHODS

Patients with gemcitabine-refractory, metastatic PC were treated with docetaxel 35 mg/m(2) followed by flavopiridol 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Tumor measurements were performed every two cycles. A Simon two-stage design was used to evaluate the primary endpoint of response.

RESULTS

Ten patients were enrolled, and 9 were evaluable for response. No objective responses were observed; however, 3 patients (33%) achieved transient stable disease, with one of these patients achieving a 20% reduction in tumor size. Median survival was 4.2 months, with no patients alive at the time of analysis. Adverse events were significant, with 7 patients (78%) requiring >or=1 dose reduction for transaminitis (11%), grade 4 neutropenia (33%), grade 3 fatigue (44%), and grade 3 diarrhea (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of flavopiridol and docetaxel has minimal activity and significant toxicity in this patient population. These results reflect the challenges of treating patients with PC in a second-line setting where the risk/benefit equation is tightly balanced.

Cancer of unknown primary site in which tumor marker-oriented chemotherapy was effective and pancreatic cancer was finally confirmed at autopsy

We report a 47-year-old man with cancer of unknown primary site in whom pancreatic cancer was confirmed at autopsy. Although a primary lesion was not confirmed, we planned to perform tumor marker-oriented chemotherapy because pancreatic cancer was suspected as the primary lesion based on tumor markers and pathological findings from metastatic lymph node. Neither S-1 nor gemcitabine was effective. However, gemcitabine combined with low-dose cisplatin therapy resulted in a marked decrease in the size of tumors. Microscopic examination at autopsy revealed poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic head, although a pancreatic mass was not clear macroscopically.

BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

The prognostic significance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is unknown. Our objective was to define the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in an unselected group of Jewish patients and to compare the clinical characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients with resected BRCA mutation-associated PAC to PAC patients without mutations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Jewish patients with PAC resected between January 1986 and January 2004 were identified. DNA was extracted from the archived material, anonymized, and genotyped for founder mutations in BRCA1 (185delAG, 5382insC) and BRCA2 (6174delT). Standard two-sided statistical tests were utilized.

RESULTS

Of the 187 Jewish patients who underwent resection for PAC, tissue was available for 145 patients. Eight subjects (5.5%) had a BRCA founder mutation (two with BRCA1 [1.3%], six with BRCA2 [4.1%]). The BRCA2 founder mutation was identified in 4.1% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma compared with only 1.1% of cancer-free Washington, DC,-area controls (4.1% v 1.1%; P = .007; odds ratio, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.1 to 10.8). Patients with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations did not differ in age (mean, 66 v 73 years; P = .6) or other clinicopathologic features. OS was not significantly different (median, 6 v 16 months; P = .35). A previous cancer was reported by 24% (35 of 145) of patients with the most common sites being breast cancer (9 of 35; 74%) and prostate cancer (8 of 35; 23%).

CONCLUSION

Founder mutations for BRCA1 and BRCA2 were identified in 5.5% of Ashkenazi patients operated on for PAC. BRCA2 mutations were more prevalent than documented by population studies. Consistent with previous reports, BRCA2 mutations are associated with an increased risk of PAC.

Monitoring for lack of benefit: a critical component of a randomized clinical trial

To balance patient interests against the need for acquiring evidence, ongoing randomized clinical trials are formally monitored for early convincing indication of benefit or lack of benefit. In lethal diseases like cancer, where new therapies are often toxic and may have limited preliminary efficacy data, monitoring for lack of benefit is particularly important. We review the complex nature of stopping a randomized trial for lack of benefit and argue that many cancer trials could be improved by a more aggressive approach to monitoring. On the other hand, we caution that some commonly used monitoring guidelines may result in stopping for lack of benefit even when a nontrivial beneficial effect is observed.

Cancer of the pancreas: are we making progress? A review of studies in the US Oncology Research Network

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. In 2008, approximately 37,680 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 34,290 will die of this disease.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the literature on treatment of pancreatic cancer with an emphasis on studies conducted in the US Oncology Research (USOR) Network.

RESULTS

Although much research has been conducted to develop improved systemic therapies of pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine as a single agent remains the current standard of care. Combinations with other chemotherapeutic drugs or biological agents have resulted in limited improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite aggressive efforts to improve treatment for patients with pancreatic cancer, limited progress has been made. It is hoped that new studies being planned and conducted will improve outcomes for patients with this disease.

Improving gemcitabine-mediated radiosensitization using molecularly targeted therapy: a review

In the last three decades, gemcitabine has progressed from the status of a laboratory cytotoxic drug to a standard clinical chemotherapeutic agent and a potent radiation sensitizer. In an effort to improve the efficacy of gemcitabine, additional chemotherapeutic agents have been combined with gemcitabine (both with and without radiation) but with toxicity proving to be a major limitation. Therefore, the integration of molecularly targeted agents, which potentially produce less toxicity than standard chemotherapy, with gemcitabine radiation is a promising strategy for improving chemoradiation. Two of the most promising targets, described in this review, for improving the efficacy of gemcitabine radiation are epidermal growth factor receptor and checkpoint kinase 1.

Efficacy and safety of metallic stents in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine

OBJECTIVES

Expandable metallic stents (EMSs) are widely used to palliate unresectable malignant biliary obstructions. The efficacy and safety of EMS in patients receiving gemcitabine (GEM) for unresectable pancreatic cancer is evaluated.

METHODS

Data for 147 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were studied retrospectively: 52 received GEM without EMS, 36 received GEM with EMS, 27 received only best supportive care (BSC) without EMS, and 32 received BSC with EMS.

RESULTS

Expandable metallic stent did not increase adverse effects (>grade 2) caused by GEM (P = 0.809), and the rates of infections other than cholangitis and cholecystitis were neither increased by GEM nor by EMS (P = 0.287). Cholangitis and cholecystitis occurred exclusively in patients with EMS and was managed successfully. Tumor extension, good performance status, and GEM, but not EMS, were shown to affect survival. Stent-related complications were observed in 26 patients (72%) receiving GEM and in 17 patients (53%) with BSC (P = 0.133). Multivariate analyses revealed no predictors for stent-related complications, although the use of covered EMS and good performance status were associated with longer stent patency. Gemcitabine affected neither stent-related complications nor stent patency.

CONCLUSIONS

Expandable metallic stent placement is safe and effective in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving GEM. Gemcitabine improves survival irrespective of EMS placement.

Biologic therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer

Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have poor prognosis and short survival due to lack of effective therapy and aggressiveness of the disease. Pancreatic cancer has widespread chromosomal instability, including a high rate of translocations and deletions. Upregulated EGF signaling and mutation of K-RAS are found in most pancreatic cancers. Therefore, inhibitors that target EGF receptor, K-RAS, RAF, MEK, mTOR, VEGF and PDGF, for example, have been evaluated in patients with pancreatic cancer. Although significant activities of these inhibitors have not been observed in the majority of pancreatic cancer patients, an enormous amount of experience and knowledge has been obtained from recent clinical trials. With a better inhibitor or combination of inhibitors, and improvement in the selection of patients for available inhibitors, better therapy for pancreatic cancer is on the horizon.

Phase II study of 5-fluorouracil and paclitaxel in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

There is no effective salvage regimen for failed gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. This study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of 5-fluorouracil and paclitaxel in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and December 2007, 28 patients with pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were enrolled. 5-Fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m(2) was infused (days 1, 2, and 3) and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) (day 1) was administered every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint of this study was efficacy and toxicity and the secondary endpoint was time to progression and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 75 cycles were given, for a mean of 2.68 cycles per patient. The response could be evaluated in 20 patients. Two patients (10%) obtained a partial response, and four patients (20%) had stable disease. The median time to progression and overall survival was 2.5 and 7.6 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity included neutropenia in six patients (21.4%), anemia in one (3.6%), and thrombocytopenia in one (3.6%). One (3.6%) patient experienced grade 4 neuropathy, and two (7.2%) patients experienced grade 3 diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

The 5-fluorouracil and paclitaxel combination treatment seems to be effective in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer that did not respond to a gemcitabine-based regimen.

A multi-centre retrospective review of second-line therapy in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Limited information on second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is available. At time of first-line treatment failure, approximately half of the patients are candidates for further treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 183 patients submitted to second-line therapy has been performed to identify prognostic factors, provides useful information for patients counseling and generates hypotheses for future studies. Inclusion criteria were: cytological or histologic diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and prior gemcitabine-including chemotherapy. Any age, performance status (PS) and chemotherapy regimen were considered.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-three patients (106 males; 168 metastatic; median age 62 years; median PS 1; 63 submitted to prior curative surgery, 32 to prior radiotherapy) with a median previous progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.7 months were included. Median and 6-month PFS after initiation of salvage therapy were 3.0 months and 20%. Median, 1 and 2 years, overall survival after initiation of salvage therapy were 6.2 months, 17 and 4%, respectively. Previous PFS, CA19.9 levels and age independently predicted OS.

CONCLUSION

Re-challenge with gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil administration may have a role in selected patients.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

PURPOSE

To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight.

RESULTS

Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05).

CONCLUSION

There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Human Mena+11a isoform serves as a marker of epithelial phenotype and sensitivity to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in human pancreatic cancer cell lines

PURPOSE

hMena, member of the enabled/vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein family, is a cytoskeletal protein that is involved in the regulation of cell motility and adhesion. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not the expression of hMena isoforms correlated with sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and could serve as markers with potential clinical use.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell lines were characterized for in vitro sensitivity to erlotinib, expression of HER family receptors, markers of epithelial to mesenchymal transition, and expression of hMena and its isoform hMena(+11a). The effects of epidermal growth factor (EGF) and erlotinib on hMena expression as well as the effect of hMena knockdown on cell proliferation were also evaluated.

RESULTS

hMena was detected in all of the pancreatic tumor cell lines tested as well as in the majority of the human tumor samples [primary (92%) and metastatic (86%)]. Intriguingly, in vitro hMena(+11a) isoform was specifically associated with an epithelial phenotype, EGFR dependency, and sensitivity to erlotinib. In epithelial BxPC3 cells, epidermal growth factor up-regulated hMena/hMena(+11a) and erlotinib down-regulated expression. hMena knockdown reduced cell proliferation and mitogen-activated protein kinase and AKT activation in BxPC3 cells, and promoted the growth inhibitory effects of erlotinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, our data indicate that the hMena(+11a) isoform is associated with an epithelial phenotype and identifies EGFR-dependent cell lines that are sensitive to the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. The availability of anti-hMena(+11a)-specific probes may offer a new tool in pancreatic cancer management if these results can be verified prospectively in cancer patients.

Gemcitabine based combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer-indirect comparison

BACKGROUND

Recent meta-analyses have found a survival advantage with gemcitabine based combinations over single agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. There is paucity of evidence in the form of direct head-to-head randomised controlled trials to determine which combinations are to be preferred.

METHOD

Using the adjusted indirect comparison method proposed by Bucher et al, we have assessed randomised controlled trials of four gemcitabine based combinations namely gemcitabine plus a platinum compound or 5-fluorouracil or irinotecan or capecitabine.

RESULTS

No particular combination was significantly superior to another, but the indirect evidence suggests some important trends.

CONCLUSION

The strongest trends on indirect comparison are towards favouring gemcitabine plus capecitabine or gemcitabine plus a platinum compound over gemcitabine plus irinotecan, and to a lesser degree, over gemcitabine plus 5-fluorouracil.

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85-1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70-0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72-0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46-0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32-2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15-1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07-2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37-2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24-2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87-3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity.