Multicenter, randomized, open-label Phase II study comparing S-1 alternate-day oral therapy with the standard daily regimen as a first-line treatment in patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review synthesises all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making. It updates the previous version of the review, published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both on overall survival, severe or life-threatening adverse events, and quality of life in people undergoing first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CANCERLIT, and handsearched various sources for additional studies. The latest search dates were in March and July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both with another intervention or best supportive care. Participants were required to have locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer or metastatic pancreatic cancer not amenable to curative intent treatment. Histological confirmation was required. Trials were required to report overall survival.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies in the review and 51 in the meta-analysis (11,333 participants). We divided the studies into seven categories: any anti-cancer treatment versus best supportive care; various chemotherapy types versus gemcitabine; gemcitabine-based combinations versus gemcitabine alone; various chemotherapy combinations versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; fluoropyrimidine-based studies; miscellaneous studies; and radiotherapy studies. In general, the included studies were at low risk for random sequence generation, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias, at unclear risk for allocation concealment, and high risk for performance bias. Compared to best supportive care, chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.33; absolute risk of death at 12 months of 971 per 1000 versus 962 per 1000; 4 studies, 298 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse effects of chemotherapy and impacts on quality of life (QoL) were uncertain. Many of the chemotherapy regimens were outdated. Eight studies compared non-gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens to gemcitabine. These showed that 5-fluorouracil (5FU) likely reduces OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27; risk of death at 12 months of 914 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 1 study, 126 participants; moderate certainty), and grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). Fixed dose rate gemcitabine likely improves OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; risk of death at 12 months of 683 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 644 participants; moderate certainty), and likely increase grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). FOLFIRINOX improves OS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60; risk of death at 12 months of 524 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; P < 0.001; 2 studies, 652 participants; high certainty), and delays deterioration in QoL, but increases grade 3/4 adverse events. Twenty-eight studies compared gemcitabine-based combinations to gemcitabine. Gemcitabine plus platinum may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; risk of death at 12 months of 745 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 6 studies, 1140 participants; low certainty), may increase grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely worsens QoL. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improves OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; risk of death at 12 months of 722 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 10 studies, 2718 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely improves QoL. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitors result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; risk of death at 12 months of 770 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 3 studies, 839 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely does not alter QoL. Gemcitabine plus taxane result in a large improvement in OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; risk of death at 12 months of 644 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 986 participants; high certainty), and likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events and improves QoL. Nine studies compared chemotherapy combinations to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Fluoropyrimidine-based combination regimens improve OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; risk of death at 12 months of 542 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 6 studies, 1285 participants; high certainty). The treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles, and there was little to no difference in QoL. Alternative schedules of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47; risk of death at 12 months of 663 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 2 studies, 367 participants; moderate certainty) or QoL, but may increase grade 3/4 adverse events. Four studies compared fluoropyrimidine-based combinations to fluoropyrimidines alone, with poor quality evidence. Fluoropyrimidine-based combinations are likely to result in little to no impact on OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; risk of death at 12 months of 765 per 1000 versus 704 per 1000; P = 0.27; 4 studies, 491 participants; moderate certainty) versus fluoropyrimidines alone. The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in grade 3/4 adverse events or QoL between the two groups. We included only one radiotherapy (iodine-125 brachytherapy) study with 165 participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of radiotherapy on outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy remains standard of care for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Both FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus a taxane improve OS compared to gemcitabine alone. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy regimens improve OS compared to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. The effects of radiotherapy were uncertain as only one low-quality trial was included. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individuals still remains unpersonalised, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to assist in rationalising treatment selection for patients.

Phase II study of SOXIRI (S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) chemotherapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

To provide data on the safety and efficacy of a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of S-1, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (SOXIRI) as a first-line therapy in unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (UPDA) patients.

METHODS

Patients with UPDA and no prior treatment chemotherapy in the UPDA setting were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Patients received 80 mg/m2 S-1 twice a day for 2 weeks in an alternate-day administration cycle, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on Day 1, and 150 mg/m2 irinotecan on Day 1 of a 2-week cycle.

RESULTS

In these 62 enrolled patients, the ORR was 27.4 %, median OS was 12.1 months, and median PFS was 6.5 months. Major grade 3 or 4 toxicity included neutropenia (22.3 %), leucopenia (16.1 %), nausea (9.7 %), vomiting (9.7 %), thrombocytopenia (6.5 %), anorexia (8.5 %), anemia (4.8 %), and diarrhea (1.6 %). No treatment-related deaths occurred. In addition, the analysis of 32 patients suffering pain revealed that the rate of pain relief was 34.4 %.

CONCLUSION

SOXIRI might be a standard regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile and favorable efficacy for use as chemotherapy in patients with UPDA.

Low-dose gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus standard-dose gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in elderly patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: A randomized Phase II trial

Background and Aim

A multicenter, open-label randomized Phase II trial was conducted to determine whether low-dose gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) could improve tolerability and show equivalent efficacy to the standard-dose GnP for elderly patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Consecutive patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic pancreatic cancer who presented at one of four Japanese referral centers between November 2016 and January 2021 were enrolled. The 60 patients were randomly assigned to low- or standard-dose groups with a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the low-dose GnP group received gemcitabine at a dose of 250 mg/m2 and nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m2.

Results

Low-dose GnP significantly decreased the rate of cases requiring dose reduction (16.7% vs 63.3%). The response rate (36.7% vs 33.3%) and progression-free survival (7.3 vs 8 months) were comparable between the low- and standard-dose groups as determined by independent review. The difference in the median overall survival between the two groups was not significant (7.9 vs 12 months). The proportion of patients with hematologic and non-hematologic treatment-related adverse events was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

Low-dose GnP had an equivalent efficacy to conventional therapy; however, it did not reduce adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of SOXIRI versus mFOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer

Background

Modified fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan/oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) regimen (mFOLFIRINOX), comprised of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin, is the first-line standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan (SOXIRI) regimen has also been studied recently under similar conditions. This study compared its efficacy and safety.

Methods

All cases of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with the SOXIRI or mFOLFIRINOX regimen in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Centre from July 2012 to June 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. The data of patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were compared between two cohorts, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate and safety.

Results

A total of 198 patients were enrolled in the study, including 102 patients treated with SOXIRI and 96 patients treated with mFOLFIRINOX. There was no significant difference in OS [12.1 months versus 11.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.04, p = 0.81] or PFS (6.5 months versus 6.8 months, HR = 0.99, p = 0.96) between patients treated with SOXIRI and mFOLFIRINOX. In the subgroup analysis, patients with slightly elevated baseline total bilirubin (TBIL) or underweight patients before chemotherapy were more likely to have a longer OS or PFS from SOXIRI than from mFOLFIRINOX. In addition, the carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 decline was a good predictor for the efficacy and prognosis of both chemotherapy regimens. All grade adverse events were parallel in all kinds of toxicities except that anaemia was more common in the SOXIRI group than in the mFOLFIRINOX group (41.4% versus 24%, p = 0.03). The occurrence of any grade 3 to 4 toxicity was similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

For locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, the SOXIRI regimen had similar efficacy and controllable safety compared with the mFOLFIRINOX regimen.

Augmenting randomized clinical trial data with historical control data: Precision medicine applications

As precision medicine becomes more precise, the sizes of the molecularly targeted subpopulations become increasingly smaller. This can make it challenging to conduct randomized clinical trials of the targeted therapies in a timely manner. To help with this problem of a small patient subpopulation, a study design that is frequently proposed is to conduct a small randomized clinical trial (RCT) with the intent of augmenting the RCT control arm data with historical data from a set of patients who have received the control treatment outside the RCT (historical control data). In particular, strategies have been developed that compare the treatment outcomes across the cohorts of patients treated with the standard (control) treatment to guide the use of the historical data in the analysis; this can lessen the potential well-known biases of using historical controls without any randomization. Using some simple examples and completed studies, we demonstrate in this commentary that these strategies are unlikely to be useful in precision medicine applications.

Bayesian adaptive randomization design incorporating propensity score-matched historical controls

Incorporating historical control data to augment the control arm in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is one way of increasing their efficiency and feasibility when adequate RCTs cannot be conducted. In recent work, a Bayesian adaptive randomization design incorporating historical control data has been proposed to reduce sample size according to the amount of information that could be borrowed, assessed at interim assessment in respect to prior-data conflict. However, the approach does not distinguish between the two sources of prior-data conflict: (1) imbalance in measured covariates, and (2) imbalance in unmeasured covariates. In this paper, we propose an extension of the Bayesian adaptive randomization design to incorporate propensity score-matched historical controls. At interim assessment, historical controls similar to the concurrent controls in terms of measured covariates are selected using propensity score matching. Then, final sample size of the control arm is adjusted according to the extent of borrowing from the matched historical controls quantified by effective historical sample size. The conditional power prior approach and commensurate prior approach are adopted for designing the prior, and addressing prior-data conflict due to unmeasured covariate imbalance. Simulation results show that the proposed method yields reduced bias in treatment effect estimates, type I error at the nominal level, and reduced sample size while maintaining statistical power. Even when residual imbalance exists due to unmeasured covariates, the proposed method borrowed more information without risking substantially inflated type I error and bias, providing meaningful implications for use of historical controls to facilitate the conduct of adequate RCTs.

Phase I Study of Alternate-Day Administration of S-1, Oral Leucovorin, and Bevacizumab for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Trial Information

Click here to access other published clinical trials.

Lessons Learned

The recommended S-1 dose was 40 mg/m2, twice daily on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, with oral leucovorin and bevacizumab. Compared with daily administration, the alternate-day administration of S-1 with oral leucovorin may reduce mucositis with promising antitumor activity in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background

Daily S-1 plus oral leucovorin administration in a 1-week-on/1-week-off schedule has promising efficacy in gastrointestinal cancer but is associated with high risk of mucositis and diarrhea.

Methods

This phase Ib, 3+3 dose-escalation trial included patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving S-1 (40 mg/m2) and leucovorin (25 mg) orally twice daily (level 1, even-numbered days; level 2, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday) and intravenous bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. Enrollment continued at the recommended dose level in the expansion cohort.

Results

We enrolled 21 patients (3 and 18 patients in levels 1 and 2, respectively). Briefly, 12 and 9 patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 and 1, respectively, and 8 and 13 patients had 1–3 and ≥4 prior treatment lines, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was not observed, and level 2 was confirmed as the recommended dose. Common grade 3–4 adverse events at level 2 were anemia (22%), anorexia (6%), and diarrhea (6%). In the entire cohort, response rate, disease control rate, and median progression-free survival were 10%, 71%, and 4.2 months, respectively.

Conclusion

The recommended S-1 dose was 40 mg/m2, twice daily on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, with 25 mg oral leucovorin twice daily and 5 mg/kg bevacizumab every 2 weeks. Compared with the daily administration, alternate-day administration of S-1 plus leucovorin may reduce mucositis with promising antitumor activity in refractory mCRC.

Phase II study of S-1 on alternate days plus bevacizumab in patients aged ≥ 75 years with metastatic colorectal cancer (J-SAVER)

BACKGROUND

Alternate-day administration of S-1 is thought to reduce toxicities. This phase II study evaluated S-1 on alternate days combined with bevacizumab as first-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had histologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma, measurable metastatic lesions, age ≥ 75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, no previous chemotherapy, and refused oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing regimens. Patients received 40 mg, 50 mg, or 60 mg (body surface area ≤ 1.25 m², > 1.25 to ≤ 1.50 m², or > 1.50 m², respectively) of S-1 twice orally on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday every week. Bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) was administered every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Of 54 enrolled patients, 50 patients were evaluated for efficacy and 53 for safety. The median age was 79 years (range 75-88 years). The median progression-free survival was 8.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7-9.5 months). The median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 17.4-28.8 months). The response rate was 44% (95% CI 30.2-57.8%), and the disease control rate was 88% (95% CI 79.0-97.0%). Grade 3 or higher hematologic, non-hematologic, and bevacizumab-related adverse events occurred in 9%, 11%, and 25% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (11%), nausea (6%), fatigue (6%), anemia (6%), and proteinuria (6%). Only 6 patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

S-1 on alternate days combined with bevacizumab showed better tolerability and comparable survival compared with the results of similar studies.

Triplet chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and S-1 for unresectable advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: phase I/II trial results

Background

Although triplet regimen of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU (DCF) reportedly yields high response rates for metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE), it has severe toxicity. In our previous phase II trial, grade 3/4 toxicities of neutropenia occurred in 68.8% of the patients. Development of chemotherapeutic regimen that does not impair quality of life of the patients with metastatic SCCE is therefore needed. A novel chemotherapeutic regimen combining docetaxel, cisplatin, and alternate-day administration of S-1 (modified DCS) may be associated with reduction of severe adverse effects.

Methods

This study is a single center phase I/II trial of chemotherapy using modified DCS regimen for patients with recurrent/unresectable SCCE. The phase I trial adopts a ‘3 + 3 patient cohort’, dose-escalating study design. In the phase II trial, the primary endpoint is evaluation of the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are evaluation of drug-related toxicity, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

In the phase I trial, the recommended dose for docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 were 40 mg/m² (day 1), 50 mg/m² (day 1), and 80 mg/m²/day, respectively. In the phase II trial (n = 50), the ORR was 54 %. The median OS and PFS were 10 and 4 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (26%), leukopenia (14%), anorexia (10%) and febrile neutropenia (6%).

Conclusion

The modified DCS therapy for patients with advanced SCCE is feasible and safe in both chemotherapeutic and perioperative periods.

Registration number: UMIN000016364.

Phase II Study of the Triple Combination Chemotherapy of SOXIRI (S-1/Oxaliplatin/Irinotecan) in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

LESSONS LEARNED

The triple combination chemotherapy of SOXIRI (S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was an effective treatment that appeared to be better tolerated than the widely used FOLFIRINOX regimen.SOXIRI regimen may provide an alternative approach for advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND

In our previous phase I study, we determined the recommended dose of a biweekly S-1, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (SOXIRI) regimen in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This phase II study was conducted to assess the safety and clinical efficacy in patients with unresectable PDAC.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated metastatic and locally advanced PDAC were enrolled. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints were adverse events (AEs), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Patients received 80 mg/m² of S-1 twice a day for 2 weeks in alternate-day administration, 150 mg/m² of irinotecan on day 1, and 85 mg/m² of oxaliplatin on day 1 of a 2-week cycle.

RESULTS

Thirty-five enrolled patients received a median of six (range: 2-15) treatment cycles. The RR was 22.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-40.1); median OS, 17.7 months (95% CI: 9.8-22.0); and median PFS, 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.2-8.4). Furthermore, the median OS in patients with distant metastasis was 10.1 months, whereas that in patients with locally advanced PDAC was 22.6 months. Major grade 3 or 4 toxicity included neutropenia (54%), anemia (17%), febrile neutropenia (11%), anorexia (9%), diarrhea (9%), and nausea (9%). There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

SOXIRI is considered a promising and well-tolerated regimen in patients with unresectable PDAC.

Alternate-day administration of S-1 for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma: A prospective feasibility study

S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine agent used for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although S-1 monotherapy has been reported to exhibit lesser hematotoxicity compared with other third-generation chemotherapeutics, digestive toxicity was also frequently observed. Alternate-day administration of S-1 has shown a lower rate of severe digestive toxicity than the daily standard administration in patients with NSCLC. However, the safety of alternate-day S-1 therapy in elderly patients aged 75 years or older has not been investigated. The present study was a multi-center and prospective feasibility study aimed to evaluate the safety of alternate-day S-1 therapy in elderly patients with NSCLC. The patients received S-1 orally twice daily for 4 days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday) every week until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety, which was evaluated as the number of grade ≥3 adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival, and disease control rate (DCR). A total of 10 patients were enrolled, but 2 patients failed to initiate the treatment protocol. Finally, 8 patients were treated with the study protocol regimen. No grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed. Four (50%) and 1 (12.5%) patient had grade 2 or lower digestive symptoms such as anorexia, diarrhea, or stomatitis and grade 1 lacrimation, respectively. Moreover, 2 (25%), 1 (12.5%), and 1 (12.5%) patients had grade 2 renal dysfunction, grade 2 ileus, and elevated blood bilirubin, respectively. The median PFS was 1.5 months (95% confidence interval: 0.9-1.8), and the 1-year survival rate was 42.9%. The DCR was 12.5%. In conclusion, alternate-day S-1 administration can be a safe treatment regimen for elderly patients with NSCLC, but its therapeutic efficacy and safety for elderly patients with NSCLC should be compared against the standard S-1 administration in a large-scale study.

Advanced pancreatic cancer: The standard of care and new opportunities

Presentation of pancreatic cancer is localized, locally advanced or metastatic. With the later represented the main bulk (more than 80%). Despite the significant innovation in molecular analysis and therapeutic approach in many types of cancer in the last two decades, still the outcome of advanced pancreatic cancer is disappointing and the mortality rate approximately unchanged. In this mandated review we intended to highlight the standard of care and emerging agents for advanced pancreatic cancer treatment.

Phase I/II Trial of Chemotherapy with Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and S-1 for Unresectable Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus

Our previous trial with a docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) regimen showed high response rates in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE). The observed increased toxicity of the DCF regimen, however, was clinically harmful. S-1, an oral anticancer drug, has been approved as a combination therapy for SCCE, and alternate-day regimen with S-1 has shown lower levels of toxicity. This prospective single-center phase I/II trial examines the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and an alternate-day regimen of S-1 (modified DCS) for patients with metastatic SCCE. We use a two-stage design. Phase I is undertaken to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended dose. The phase I trial adopts a three-patient cohort with escalating dose study design. In the phase II trial, the primary endpoint is the assessment of the overall response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1). The secondary endpoints are the evaluation of drug-related toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 4.0), overall survival, and progression-free survival. Fifty patients with metastatic SCCE participate in the phase II section. This study protocol is the first to test the effects of the modified DCS regimen for metastatic SCCE.