Multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy (GS Therapy) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

Efficacy of nab‑paclitaxel vs. Gemcitabine in combination with S‑1 for advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter phase II randomized trial

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) need a cost-effective treatment regimen. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) regimens in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC. In this open-label, multicenter, randomized study named AvGmPC, eligible patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14) or GS (1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14). The treatment was administered every 3 weeks until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occurred. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Between December 2018 and March 2022, 101 of 106 randomized patients were treated and evaluated for analysis (AS, n=49; GS, n=52). As of the data cutoff, the median follow-up time was 11.37 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.31-13.24]. The median PFS was 7.16 months (95% CI, 5.19-12.32) for patients treated with AS and 6.41 months (95% CI, 3.72-8.84) for patients treated with GS (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.21; P=0.264). The AS regimen showed a slightly improved overall survival (OS; 13.27 vs. 10.64 months) and a significantly improved ORR (44.90 vs. 15.38%; P=0.001) compared with the GS regimen. In the subgroup analyses, PFS and OS benefits were observed in patients treated with the AS regimen who had KRAS gene mutations and high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥5 mg/l). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia, anemia and alopecia in the two groups. Thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently in the GS group than in the AS group. While the study did not meet the primary endpoint, the response benefit observed for AS may be suggestive of meaningful clinical activity in this population. In particular, promising survival benefits were observed in the subsets of patients with KRAS gene mutations and high CRP levels, which is encouraging and warrants further investigation. This trial was retrospectively registered as ChiCTR1900024588 on July 18, 2019.

Randomized phase II trial of chemoradiotherapy with S-1 versus combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 as neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer (JASPAC 04)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to investigate which treatment, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NAC-RT) with S-1 or combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 (NAC-GS), is more promising as neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for resectable pancreatic cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

In the NAC-RT with S-1 group, the patients received a total radiation dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with oral S-1. In the NAC-GS group, the patients received intravenous gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 with oral S-1 for two cycles. The primary endpoint was the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry as UMIN000014894.

RESULTS

From April 2014 to April 2017, a total of 103 patients were enrolled. After exclusion of one patient because of ineligibility, 51 patients were included in the NAC-RT with S-1 group, and 51 patients were included in the NAC-GS group in the intention-to-treat analysis. The 2-year PFS rate was 45.0% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 33.3%-56.0%) in the NAC-RT with S-1 group and 54.9% (42.8%-65.5%) in the NAC-GS group (p = .350). The 2-year overall survival rate was 66.7% in the NAC-RT with S-1 group and 72.4% in the NAC-GS group (p = .300). Although leukopenia and neutropenia rates were significantly higher in the NAC-GS group than in the NAC-RT with S-1 group (p = .023 and p < .001), other adverse events of NAT and postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Both NAC-RT with S-1 and NAC-GS are considered promising treatments for resectable pancreatic cancer.

Present status and perspective of perioperative chemotherapy for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer in Japan

Adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal carcinoma. Perioperative chemotherapy has been given in less than 50% of patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer in Japan. A modified combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX; oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², irinotecan 150 mg/m² on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m² over 46 hours every 14 days for 12 cycles) is now preferred worldwide because it mitigates concerns regarding toxicity and tolerance. Adjuvant chemotherapeutic regimens employ S-1 in East Asia, whereas other areas use FOLFIRINOX, capecitabine plus gemcitabine, or gemcitabine monotherapy. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not recommended because randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses revealed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy. Preoperative chemotherapy with S-1 and gemcitabine combination chemotherapy for patients with resectable/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer significantly increased survival compared to upfront surgery in a recent clinical trial. Perioperative outcomes, including R0 resection rate and post-operative morbidity, were not significantly different between groups. When compared to upfront surgery, neoadjuvant S-1 and gemcitabine treatment significantly reduced the number of pathological nodal metastases in patients who underwent resection. Japanese guidelines therefore recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Preoperative chemotherapy can increase R0 cases by down-staging with higher relative dose intensity of chemotherapy. In contrast, patients who do not respond to chemotherapy may miss resection opportunities and would therefore be at a disadvantage. Therefore, it is critical for both patients and doctors that predictive markers for the response to chemotherapy are identified.

Comparison of gemcitabine-based chemotherapies for advanced biliary tract cancers by renal function: an exploratory analysis of JCOG1113

JCOG1113 is a randomized phase III trial in patients with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) (UMIN000001685), and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) was not inferior to gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC). However, poor renal function often results in high toxicity of S-1. Therefore, we examined whether GS can be recommended for patients with low creatinine clearance (CCr). Renal function was classified by CCr as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula: high CCr (CCr ≥ 80 ml/min) and low CCr (80 > CCr ≥ 50 ml/min). Of 354 patients, 87 patients on GC and 91 on GS were included in the low CCr group, while there were 88 patients on GC and 88 patients on GS in the high CCr group. The HR of overall survival for GS compared with GC was 0.687 (95% CI 0.504–0.937) in the low CCr group. Although the total number of incidences of all Grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse reactions was higher (36.0% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.0002), the number of patients who discontinued treatment was not different (14.1% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.679) for GS compared with GC in the low CCr group. This study suggests that GS should be selected for the treatment of advanced BTC patients with reduced renal function.

Predictors of Poor Pathological Response to Neoadjuvant Gemcitabine Plus S-1 Chemotherapy in Patients With Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)-gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) has been reported to have a survival benefit in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), optimal candidates for NAC-GS have not been clearly identified.

METHODS

A total of 81 patients with PDAC who underwent pancreatectomy after NAC-GS between 2013 and 2019 were divided into 2 groups based on Evans classification: grade I (<10% tumor cell destruction, n = 19) and grades II and III (>10% tumor cell destruction, n = 62). Univariate and multivariate analyses using clinical characteristics available before initiation of NAC were performed to predict Evans classification grade I (Evans I).

RESULTS

The overall survival in patients with Evans I was significantly lower than that in patients with Evans II and III (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed a carcinoembryonic antigen level of >3.6 ng/mL (P = 0.001) and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio of >0.062 (P = 0.017) as independent predictors for Evans I disease. Seven of 11 patients who met both criteria had Evans I disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum carcinoembryonic antigen and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio are associated with Evans I disease in patients with PDAC who receive NAC-GS. Patients who meet both predictors may not be optimal candidates for NAC-GS.

Role of Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer After Long-Term Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Unresectable pancreatic cancer (UR-PC) has a poor prognosis. Although conversion surgery has been considered a promising strategy for improving prognosis in UR-PC, the clinical benefit offered to patients with UR-PC remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of conversion surgery in patients with UR-PC.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with UR-PC referred to our department for possible surgical resection between January 2008 and June 2017. Resectability was evaluated using multimodal imaging in patients who underwent chemotherapy for more than 6 months. Conversion surgery was performed only in patients who were judged eligible for R0 resection.

RESULTS

In total, 90 patients were evaluated. Among them, only 22 (24.4%) could actually undergo conversion surgery, and the R0 resection rate was 72.7% (16/22). Although Evans grade ≥ IIB was noted in six patients (27.3%), none achieved complete response (CR). The median survival time was significantly longer among patients who underwent conversion surgery than in the unresected patients who underwent chemotherapy (21.3 months vs. 12.6 months; p < 0.001). Multivariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed microvascular invasion to have a significant adverse effect on recurrence-free survival (RFS: 7 months vs. not reached, p = 0.004) and overall survival (OS: 21 months vs. 85 months, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

After long-term chemotherapy, conversion surgery for UR-PC is associated with long-term survival. Microvascular invasion is predictive of poor prognosis in these patients; adjuvant protocols are therefore needed for patients with microvascular invasion.

Phase II clinical trial of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a family history of pancreatic/breast/ovarian/prostate cancer or personal history of breast/ovarian/prostate cancer (FABRIC study)

BACKGROUND

A family/personal history of breast, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer is a useful predictive marker for response to platinum-based chemotherapy in treating patients with pancreatic cancer. These cancers, and prostate cancer, are known as BRCA-related malignancies. We evaluated the efficacy of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer with a family/personal history of these cancers.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer with a family history of pancreatic/breast/ovarian/prostate cancer or a personal history of breast/ovarian/prostate cancer were included. Patients received fixed dose-rate gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m²) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival, and the threshold and expected values were set at 30 and 50%, respectively. The target sample size was determined to be 43, with a one-sided alpha value of 5% and power of 80%. A total of 45 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

Among the first 43 enrolled patients, the 1-year survival rate was 27.9% [90% confidence interval (CI) 17.0-41.3], which did not meet the primary endpoint. Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rates were 7.6 months (95% CI 6.0-10.7), 4.0 months (95% CI 2.0-4.6), and 26.7% (95% CI 14.6-41.9), respectively, in all registered patients. The GEMOX regimen was generally tolerated; the most common grade three or higher adverse events were hematological toxicities.

CONCLUSION

GEMOX did not show the expected efficacy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer with a family or personal history of pancreatic/breast/ovarian/prostate cancer. Selection of GEMOX based on family/personal history is not recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000017894.

Clinical Significance of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With Gemcitabine Plus S-1 for Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIM

Little is known about the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) for patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (R-PDAC). The aim of this study was to investigate differences in the long-term outcome of patients with R-PDAC undergoing pancreatectomy with and without NAC-GS to clarify the clinical significance of NAC-GS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 77 patients with R-PDAC who were scheduled for pancreatectomy between January 2012 and December 2017 were enrolled. Of these patients, 39 received NAC-GS (GS group) and 38 had upfront surgery (UFS group).

RESULTS

Among the 77 patients, one patient in each group did not undergo pancreatectomy due to intraoperative non-curative factors. Median tumor size and the number of lymph nodes with metastasis were significantly lower in the GS group than in the UFS group (p=0.002 and p=0.017). However, the 5-year overall survival rate was similar in the two groups (26.1% versus 21.5%, p=0.930).

CONCLUSION

NAC-GS may not be recommended for patients with R-PDAC since it does not seem to offer any survival benefits.

Evaluation of Phase II Trial Design in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated how well phase II trials in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer (LAMPC) meet current recommendations for trial design.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase II first-line treatment trial for LAMPC. We assessed baseline characteristics, type of comparison, and primary end point to examine adherence to the National Cancer Institute recommendations for trial design.

RESULTS

We identified 148 studies (180 treatment arms, 7505 participants). Forty-seven (32%) studies adhered to none of the 5 evaluated National Cancer Institute recommendations, 62 (42%) followed 1, 31 (21%) followed 2, and 8 (5%) followed 3 recommendations. Studies varied with respect to the proportion of patients with good performance status (range, 0%-80%) and locally advanced disease (range, 14%-100%). Eighty-two (55%) studies concluded that investigational agents should progress to phase III testing; of these, 24 (16%) had documented phase III trials. Three (8%) phase III trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements for investigational agents. One of 38 phase II trials that investigated biological investigational agents was enriched for a biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase II trials do not conform well to current recommendations for trial design in LAMPC.

Gemcitabine plus S-1 for metastatic pancreatic cancer

To investigate the treatment effects of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) for metastatic pancreatic cancer in our institution.Data from 41 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with GS regimen in West China Hospital, Sichuan University were reviewed. The therapeutic efficacy and toxicity were evaluated. The influencing factors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also explored.At the last follow-up, all patients had died. The objective response rate was 22.0% (9/41) and the disease control rate was 65.9% (27/41). The median PFS and OS times were 5.1 (range, 1.5-21) and 10.6 months (range, 1.5-40), respectively. The 0.5-, 1-, and 2-year OS rates were 65.9%, 41.5%, and 9.8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, body mass index and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 change were the significant influencing factors of PFS, compared to tumor site and chemotherapy cycles for OS. The adverse effects were moderate and tolerable.The effects of GS for metastatic pancreatic cancer in our institution were good. The adverse effects were moderate and tolerable. However, further investigation in future prospective clinical studies is warranted.

The incidence and survival of pancreatic cancer by histology, including rare subtypes: a nation-wide cancer registry-based study from Taiwan

Studies have indicated a significant rise in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. However, the epidemiology of other rare histologic subtypes of pancreatic cancer is not well understood. This study analyzed the incidence and survival of pancreatic cancer in Taiwan by histologic subtype, sex, age group, and year of diagnosis. The incidence trends of pancreatic cancer in Taiwan from 2002 to 2013 were calculated using data from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. The survival of pancreatic cancer patients was assessed using the life-table method and Cox proportional hazards analysis. The incidence of pancreatic cancer increased from 4.62 per 100,000 in 2002 to 6.04 per 100,000 in 2013 in Taiwan. The most common histologic subtype of pancreatic cancer was adenocarcinoma followed by carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Adenocarcinoma and NETs showed a rapid increase in incidence, while the incidences of other subtypes did not change significantly. Patients with adenocarcinoma showed a poor survival with a 5-year survival of 5.2%. Patients with endocrinomas, NETs, and lymphoma displayed a better survival than those with adenocarcinoma, with a 5-year survival ranging from 41.8% to 59.1%. The survival of adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and NETs improved after the introduction of novel therapies. Understanding the risk factors and identifying the biomarkers for the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer are important to prevent the development and improve the survival of pancreatic cancer.

CA19-9 level determines therapeutic modality in pancreatic cancer patients with para-aortic lymph node metastasis

BACKGROUND

In general, para-aortic lymph node (LN16) metastasis has been considered as a contraindication for pancreatic resection. However, some pancreatic cancer patients with LN16 metastasis have been reported to survive for longer than expected after pancreatectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether pancreatic cancer patients with LN16 metastasis might benefit from surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 201 consecutive patients with invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery at Osaka National Hospital between April 2003 and December 2012. These patients included 22 patients with LN16 metastasis who underwent an extended lymphadenectomy and 25 patients who underwent a palliative surgical biliary and gastric bypass. The clinicopathological data and outcomes were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The overall survival of the patients with LN16 metastasis was poorer than that of the LN16-negative patients (P = 0.0014). An overall survival analysis of the LN16-positive patients stratified according to the preoperative CA19-9 level showed a significant difference between patients with a low preoperative CA19-9 level (≤360 U/mL) and those with a high preoperative CA19-9 level (>360 U/mL) (P = 0.0301). No significant difference in overall survival of patients was observed between those with LN16 positivity and those who underwent bypass surgery. However, the overall survival of the LN16-positive patients with a CA19-9 level ≤360 U/mL (n = 11) was significantly higher than that of those who underwent bypass surgery (P = 0.0452).

CONCLUSION

Surgical resection and extended lymphadenectomy remains an option for pancreatic cancer patients with LN16-positivity whose CA19-9 level is ≤360 U/mL.

Oxaliplatin-Induced Hyperammonemic Encephalopathy in a Patient with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Case Report

Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat advanced cancer. Oxaliplatin-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy is rarely reported. Here, we report a case of oxaliplatin-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy occurring after gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) chemotherapy in a patient with pancreatic cancer. A 76-year-old man received GEMOX regimen as first-line treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma with peritoneal dissemination. GEMOX consists of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m²) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m²) on day 1, repeated every 2 weeks. The second cycle of GEMOX was administered as planned. However, he appeared to have difficulties with daily activities. Two days later, he visited the emergency room complaining of drowsiness. On examination, the patient had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 14 (E4V4M6), and asterixis was not present. Blood examination revealed a serum ammonia level of 202 µg/dL. The levels of serum hepatic enzymes were only mildly elevated, and the hemoglobin level was typical for this patient. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, lumbar puncture test, and blood culture showed no abnormality. Based on these results, he was diagnosed with oxaliplatin-induced hyperammonemia. One day after hospitalization, GCS score had significantly decreased to 6 (E1V1M4). His consciousness disorder improved after administration of a nutritional supplement containing a high concentration of branched-chain amino acids for 5 days, and the level of serum ammonia improved to 79 µg/dL. He stated that he could not remember the episode. The findings of this case suggest the importance of examining serum ammonia levels in patients receiving an oxaliplatin-containing regimen who develop disordered consciousness.

Preclinical Rationale for the Phase III Trials in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Is Wishful Thinking Clouding Successful Drug Development for Pancreatic Cancer?

Prior phase III trials in advanced pancreatic cancer have been predominantly unsuccessful. In this review, we attempt to understand how past preclinical data were translated into phase III clinical trials in metastatic pancreatic cancer as described in the article. A systematic literature review conducted through the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, from January 1997 to June 2015 using key words-phase III clinical trials, metastatic/advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma or pancreatic cancer identified 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met criteria. The trials were limited to RCTs in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The success rate of first-line phase III studies in advanced pancreatic cancer was only 13%. In 60% of the RCTs, no preclinical experiments were referenced in biologically cognate pancreatic models. Nine (30%) of the RCTs were designed based on preclinical evidence from in vitro cell lines alone without additional in vivo validation in xenograft models. It remains uncertain how strongly the preclinical data influence the development of clinical regimens but so far the studies developed based on more solid preclinical evidence have been successful.

Intravenous and intraperitoneal paclitaxel with S-1 for treatment of refractory pancreatic cancer with malignant ascites

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous and intraperitoneal paclitaxel (PTX) combined with S-1 for treatment of gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer with malignant ascites. Methods After the feasibility of this regimen was first confirmed in an interim analysis in 10 patients, a total of 35 patients were enrolled between April 2011 and December 2014. PTX was administered intravenously (50 mg/m(2)) and intraperitoneally (20 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8, and 80 mg/m(2) S-1 was administered on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), the objective tumor response, efficacy against malignant ascites, and safety. Result In all 35 patients, the median OS and PFS were 4.8 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3) months and 2.8 (95 % CI, 0.9-4.1) months, respectively. The 26 patients who were evaluable for efficacy achieved a response rate of 8 % and a disease control rate of 69 %. Malignant ascites had disappeared or decreased in 18 (69 %) patients, including complete resolution in 4 (15 %), and a negative change in cytological status was achieved in 8 (31 %) patients. The major grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (34 %), anemia (31 %), nausea (9 %), and catheter-related infections (6 %). Conclusion Combination chemotherapy consisting of intravenous and intraperitoneal PTX with S-1 showed acceptable toxicity and favorable efficacy in pancreatic cancer patients with malignant ascites. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000005306).

Unexpected Side Effects of a High S-1 Dose: Subanalysis of a Phase III Trial Comparing Gemcitabine, S-1 and Combinatorial Treatments for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

In this subanalysis of a phase III trial using three categorized doses of S-1, the influence of the actual doses on safety and efficacy was evaluated.

METHODS

We compared the efficacy and safety of the S-1 or gemcitabine plus S-1 combination (GS) arm between the top 10% group and the bottom 10% group according to the initial doses of S-1: ≥77.6 versus ≤65.9 mg/m2/day (n = 28 vs. 28) in the S-1 arm, and ≥65.1 versus ≤53.8 mg/m2/day (n = 27 vs. 28) in the GS arm.

RESULTS

Overall and progression-free survival were not significantly different between these two groups: hazard ratios of 0.818 and 0.761 with p values of 0.498 and 0.330 in the S-1 arm, and hazard ratios of 0.836 and 0.759 with p values of 0.557 and 0.323 in the GS arm, respectively. Incidences of grade 3-4 hematological toxicities were significantly higher in the top 10% group than in the bottom 10% group: 42.9 versus 14.3 and 85.2 versus 57.1%, with p values of 0.037 and 0.037 in the S-1 and the GS combination arm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher actual doses of S-1 were associated with a higher incidence of hematological toxicity even in the same dose setting.

Concurrent gemcitabine+S-1 neoadjuvant chemotherapy contributes to the improved survival of patients with small borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer tumors

PURPOSES

In the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer, margin-negative status is one of the most important determinants of survival. We conducted this study to explore surgical margin status as well as other factors affecting the survival of borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1.

METHODS

Eighteen BRPC patients were prospectively treated with concurrent gemcitabine and S-1 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC+) and 15 of these patients underwent resection. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of this treatment regimen by comparing the outcomes of these patients with those of 19 BRPC patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC-) during the same period.

RESULTS

Fifteen (83 %) of the NAC+ patients underwent pancreatectomy. The remaining three patients (17 %) had regional tumor progression or liver metastasis. Of the 15 NAC+ patients who underwent resection, 3 (20 %) had margin-positive status, whereas 9 of the 19 (43 %) NAC- patients had margin-positive status (p = 0.002). However, disease-free survival and overall survival were similar in the two groups (MST 21.7 vs. 21.1 months). NAC+ patients with tumors smaller than 30 mm had favorable overall survival (MST 43.9 vs. 23.1 months, p = 0.0321). Most recurrences developed at distant sites rather than locally in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the neoadjuvant setting, gemcitabine and S-1 improved the negative surgical margin rate in BRPC patients, but it did not improve survival. Thus, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be given to BRPC patients at an earlier stage.

Gemcitabine plus S-1: a hopeful frontline treatment for Asian patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is widely used for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer which contains locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. We performed meta-analysis to examine whether gemcitabine plus S-1 could improve treatment efficacy as first-line chemotherapy for those patients when compared with gemcitabine alone.

METHODS

STATA was used to estimate the summary hazard ratios or odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among trials was examined by Cochran's χ(2) test. Publication bias was evaluated by Begg's and Egger's tests. Subgroup analysis based on the extent of disease was performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials including 878 Asian patients were analyzed. In total meta-analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1 significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.015), progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.74; P < 0.001), overall response rate (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-4.41; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.39; P < 0.001), and was associated with more but manageable hematologic (leukocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, rash) adverse events. In subgroup analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1, comparing with gemcitabine, significantly improved overall survival in locally advanced patients (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.99; P = 0.022) but not in metastatic patients (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.23; P = 0.256).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed the survival benefits of gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer at least in Asia, while good Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status was warranted. Importantly, we highlighted the significant overall survival benefit of gemcitabine plus S-1 in locally advanced patients but not in metastatic patients.

Increased tumour ADC value during chemotherapy predicts improved survival in unresectable pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether changes to the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of primary tumour in the early period after starting chemotherapy can predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Subjects comprised 43 patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy. Minimum ADC values in primary tumour were measured using the selected area ADC (sADC), which excluded cystic and necrotic areas and vessels, and the whole tumour ADC (wADC), which included whole tumour components. Relative changes in ADC were calculated from baseline to 4 weeks after initiation of chemotherapy. Relationships between ADC and both PFS and OS were modelled by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Median PFS and OS were 6.1 and 11.0 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, sADC change was the strongest predictor of PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 4.5; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.7-11.9; p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression analysis for OS revealed sADC change and CRP as independent predictive markers, with sADC change as the strongest predictive biomarker (HR, 6.7; 95 % CI, 2.7-16.6; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Relative changes in sADC could provide a useful imaging biomarker to predict PFS and OS with chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

KEY POINTS

• Relative change in ADC value can predict survival in unresectable pancreatic cancer. • ADC change could determine a chemosensitivity of pancreatic cancer. • ADC values should be measured by excluding cystic, necrotic areas and vessels.

Phase II clinical trials on investigational drugs for the treatment of pancreatic cancers

INTRODUCTION

Despite some recent advances in treatment options, pancreatic cancer remains a devastating disease with poor outcomes. In a trend contrary to most malignancies, both incidence and mortality continue to rise due to pancreatic cancer. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and there are no treatment options for this stage that have demonstrated a median survival > 1 year. As the penultimate step prior to Phase III studies involving hundreds of patients, Phase II clinical trials provide an early opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of new treatments that are desperately needed for this disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the results of published Phase II clinical trials in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma published within the past 5 years. The treatment results are framed in the context of the current standards of care and the historic challenge of predicting Phase III success from Phase II trial results.

EXPERT OPINION

Promising therapies remain elusive in pancreatic cancer based on recent Phase II clinical trial results. Optimization and standardization of clinical trial design in the Phase II setting, with consistent incorporation of biomarkers, is needed to more accurately identify promising therapies that warrant Phase III evaluation.

The addition of S-1 to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy improves survival with increased toxicity for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: combined meta-analysis of efficacy and safety profile

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficiency and safety profile of the addition of S-1 to gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC).

METHODS

Computerized search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials of S-1 plus GEM versus GEM monotherapy in APC patients. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicities.

RESULTS

Five studies with 917 patients were included. Overall, there was a significant difference between the two regimens in terms of OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.72-0.96, P=0.01), PFS (HR=0.64, 95%CI=0.56-0.74, P<0.0001), and overall response rate (ORR; RR=2.36, 95%CI=1.73-3.22, P<0.00001). Occurrence of grade 3/4 hematological toxicities (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (diarrhea, nausea/vomit, rush, stomatitis/mucositis) were significantly higher with GEM/S-1 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated a significant survival benefit with increased toxicity when S-1 was combined with GEM. GEM/S-1 might be an option of first-line chemotherapy for APC patients, at least in Asia.

S-1 in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

S-1 is an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug, which is designed to improve the antitumor activity of 5-FU by inhibiting dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the key enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. Recently, two important studies on the clinical use of S-1 for pancreatic cancer have been reported from Japan. In the first study (GEST study), S-1 demonstrated non-inferiority to gemcitabine (GEM) in overall survival (OS) for metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 did not show superiority to GEM in OS. In the second study (JASPAC-01 study), S-1 showed superiority to adjuvant chemotherapy with GEM in OS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. In addition to GEM, S-1 is now regarded as the key drug in the management of pancreatic cancer in Japan. To date, many studies have investigated the effectiveness of S-1 in various settings, such as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, second-line chemotherapy after GEM failure, and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced disease. In this review, we focus on recent clinical trials of S-1-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

A phase I trial of gemcitabine, S-1 and LV combination (GSL) therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

In our previous randomized controlled trial, the addition of S-1 to gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer did not prolong overall survival (OS) significantly, despite its higher response rate and longer progression-free survival (PFS). Leucovorin is known to enhance efficacy of S-1, and we conducted this phase I trial of combination therapy of gemcitabine, S-1 and leucovorin (GSL).

METHODS

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Gemcitabine was administered at an escalating dose of 600, 800 and 1,000 mg/m(2) over 30 min on day 1, and oral S-1 at a dose of 40 mg/m(2) twice daily and oral leucovorin at a dose of 25 mg twice daily on days 1-7, every 2 weeks. A standard "3 + 3" phase I dose escalation design was utilized.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were enrolled across three dose levels. Three patients developed DLTs: two patients in level 1 (grade 3 anorexia in 1 and grade 3 anorexia, stomatitis and diarrhea in 1) and one patient in level 2 (grade 3 deep vein thrombosis). No DLT was observed in level 3. Response rate and the disease control rate were 33 and 93 %, respectively. The median PFS and OS were 5.4 and 16.6 months. Ten of 12 patients (83 %) with elevated CA19-9 at baseline had a ≥ 50 % decline.

CONCLUSIONS

RD of gemcitabine in GSL was determined as 1,000 mg/m(2). GSL was well tolerable and showed promising results in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 predicts survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Increasing scientific evidence suggests that human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) may be a powerful predictor of survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after operative resection, but many existing studies have yielded inconclusive results.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to assess the prognostic role of hENT1 in predicting survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine.

METHODS

An extensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from their inception through May 1, 2013. This meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0 software. The crude hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

RESULTS

Eleven clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis with a total of 851 pancreatic cancer patients, including 478 patients in the high hENT1 expression group and 373 patients in the low hENT1 expression group. Our meta-analysis revealed that high hENT1 expression was associated with improved overall survival (OS) of pancreatic cancer patients (HR=2.61, 95% CI=2.02-3.34). Pancreatic cancer patients with high hENT1 expression also had a longer disease-free survival (DFS) than those with low hENT1 expression (HR=2.62, 95% CI=1.94-3.54). Further, high hENT1 mRNA showed significant association with improved OS and DFS of pancreatic cancer patients (HR=2.65, 95% CI=1.75-4.00; HR=3.29, 95% CI=1.85-5.84; respectively).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that high hENT1 expression may be associated with improved OS and DFS of pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine. Detection of hENT1 expression may be a promising biomarker for gemcitabine response and prognosis in pancreatic cancer patients.

Randomized controlled study of gemcitabine plus S-1 combination chemotherapy versus gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) combination chemotherapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive GS (oral S-1 60 mg/m(2) daily on days 1-15 every 3 weeks and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 8 and 15) or gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were randomly assigned. PFS was significantly longer in the GS arm with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95 % CI 0.43-0.98; P = 0.039; median 5.3 vs 3.8 months). Objective response rate (ORR) was also better in the GS arm (21.6 vs 6 %, P = 0.048). Median survival was 8.6 months for GS and 8.6 months for GEM (HR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.61-1.41; P = 0.714). Grade 3-4 neutropenia (44 vs 19.6 %, P = 0.011) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 8.7 %, P = 0.051) were more frequent in the GS arm.

CONCLUSIONS

GS therapy improved PFS and ORR with acceptable toxicity profile in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study

PURPOSE

The present phase III study was designed to investigate the noninferiority of S-1 alone and superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 compared with gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive only gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), only S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle), or gemcitabine plus S-1 (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle).

RESULTS

In the total of 834 enrolled patients, median overall survival was 8.8 months in the gemcitabine group, 9.7 months in the S-1 group, and 10.1 months in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group. The noninferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine was demonstrated (hazard ratio, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.78 to 1.18; P < .001 for noninferiority), whereas the superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 was not (hazard ratio, 0.88; 97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.08; P = .15). All treatments were generally well tolerated, although hematologic and GI toxicities were more severe in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy with S-1 demonstrated noninferiority to gemcitabine in overall survival with good tolerability and presents a convenient oral alternative for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable biliary tract cancer: current status and future direction

The prognosis of patients with biliary tract cancer remains unsatisfactory even with surgery owing to the high recurrence rate. Therefore, an effective adjuvant chemotherapy is required to prolong survival. A few randomized controlled trials in patients with limited biliary tract cancer have been reported, but the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy could not be clarified. To date, effective adjuvant chemotherapy with evidence has not been established, and the standard therapy for patients with resectable biliary tract cancer has only been surgical treatment. Recently, a number of newer toxic agents have been shown to induce response in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Moreover, the morbi-mortality rate of operation for this cancer has been decreasing owing to advances in operative techniques and perioperative management. Given this background, a number of adjuvant chemotherapy trials have been started using gemcitabine, capecitabine, S-1, and combination chemotherapy with platinum. The results of these trials will be reported in the near future. Overall, the important aspects of adjuvant chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer are to establish well-organized and active clinical trial study groups, to conduct well-designed multicenter randomized controlled trials, and to continue such trials without interruption in the future.

S-1 for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens are used worldwide as the standard treatment in chemotherapy for gastric cancer. S-1 , a fourth-generation oral fluoropyrimidine that combines tegafur and two biochemical modulators: gimeracil and oteracil potassium, is now attracting considerable interest.

AREAS COVERED

This review addresses the clinical evidence of S-1 in gastrointestinal malignancies, such as gastric, colorectal, pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. S-1 has demonstrated advantages over standard therapies, in both advanced and postoperative settings, in large Phase III studies. S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin is recommended in the 2010 Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines, by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Results from Phase III studies have demonstrated that S-1 in combination with chemotherapies, such as cisplatin in gastric cancer, and irinotecan and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancers, is non-inferior to conventional 5-FU-based standard regimens, with the benefit of convenience and reduced toxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

The excellent design of S-1 aimed to reduce toxicity by avoiding certain routes of degradation, and to enhance activity by reducing catabolism. This has provided not only a suitable alternative to 5-FU, but also higher efficacy.

Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas responsive to combination therapy with gemcitabine and S-1

Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma is a very rare malignancy, but it is characterized by agressive histological features and a poor clinical prognosis. We report a 42-year-old man who had poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the pancreas with multiple liver metastases. We administrated combined chemotherapy with S-1 and gemcitabine. This treatment was efficacious and well tolerated, and then this patient obtained objective partial response for 7 months and survived for 13 months after the diagnosis. This case suggests that S-1 and gemcitabine combination produce beneficial responses for patients with this disease.

Phase I/II study of gemcitabine as a fixed dose rate infusion and S-1 combination therapy (FGS) in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients

PURPOSE

There is no standard regimen for gemcitabine (Gem)-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. In a previous phase II trial, S-1 was found to exhibit marginal efficacy. Gem administration by fixed dose rate infusion of 10 mg/m(2)/min (FDR-Gem) should maximize the rate of intracellular accumulation of gemcitabine triphosphate and might improve clinical efficacy. We conducted the phase I/II of FDR-Gem and S-1 (FGS) in patients with Gem-refractory PC.

METHODS

The patients received FDR-Gem on day 1 and S-1 orally twice daily on days 1-7. Cycles were repeated every 14 days. Patients were scheduled to receive Gem (mg/m(2)/week) and S-1 (mg/m(2)/day) at four dose levels in the phase I: 800/80 (level 1), 1,000/80 (level 2), 1,200/80 (level 3) and 1,200/100 (level 4). Forty patients were enrolled in the phase II study at recommended dose.

RESULTS

The recommended dose was the level 3. In the phase II, a partial response has been confirmed in seven patients (18%). The median overall survival time and median progression-free survival time are 7.0 and 2.8 months, respectively. The common adverse reactions were anorexia, leukocytopenia and neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

This combination regimen of FGS is active and well tolerated in patients with Gem-refractory PC.

Paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine-based therapy failure: a case series of 5 patients

Background/Objectives

Gemcitabine (GEM) is a gold-standard chemotherapy agent for advanced pancreatic cancer. Because of the malignant character of the disease, nearly all patients show disease progression despite treatment with GEM-based chemotherapy; therefore, second-line chemotherapy may be beneficial for these patients. We report a retrospective analysis of 5 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, treated with a paclitaxel-containing regimen as second-, third- or fourth-line chemotherapy after various therapies, such as a GEM-based regimen, S-1 regimen, and chemoradiation. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and adverse events, and evaluated the paclitaxel-containing regimens. A review of the literature is also discussed.

Results

The median overall survival from the start of salvage therapy was 10.7 months. The disease control rate of the paclitaxel-containing regimen according to RECIST criteria was 60%, including complete response in 0 patients, partial response in 3, and stable disease in 2. Two patients had malignant ascites at the start of this salvage therapy, and in both of them the ascites and clinical complaints improved. Grade 3 and 4 hematological adverse events were observed in 2 patients and 1 patient, respectively.

Conclusion

Salvage paclitaxel-based therapy could be beneficial to advanced pancreatic cancer patients who maintain good performance status after several chemotherapy failures.

Results of a phase II trial of S-1 as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (CESAR-study group)

PURPOSE

S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, has previously demonstrated anticancer efficacy in pancreatic cancer (PC), predominantly in Asian populations. This study evaluated the antitumor effect and safety of S-1 in Caucasian patients with metastatic PC.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients received S-1 orally at 30 mg/m(2) twice daily (BID) for 2 weeks, repeated every 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints included PFS, OS and safety assessment. The trial had a Simon's two-stage design with 22 patients evaluable for efficacy in stage 1 and an additional 18 patients in stage 2, if ≥3/22 patients had a confirmed response at the first stage.

RESULTS

Three out of 27 patients showed PR, however, detection of asymptomatic brain metastases in one of them prevented this study from proceeding to stage 2. The median PFS and OS for all patients was 3.5 and 9.1 months, respectively. The median duration of disease control for patients with SD or PR (n = 17) was 4.3 months. S-1 was well tolerated; fatigue was the most frequent grade 3/4 adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy data of PFS and OS are at least comparable to gemcitabine, the current standard of care. S-1 is active in Caucasian patients with metastatic PC.

Systemic therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Systemic treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma achieves only modest benefits, with evidence indicating a survival advantage with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) over best supportive care alone, and further advantage of single-agent gemcitabine over 5-FU. There are very few regimens better than single-agent gemcitabine despite multiple trials of cytotoxic and targeted agents. The addition of a platinum agent has improved response rate but not survival. The addition of erlotinib has improved survival but only by a small margin. The use of gemcitabine in multidrug regimens containing one or more of: a platinum agent; fluoropyrimidine; anthracycline; and taxane has demonstrated advantages in response rate, progression-free survival and, in one randomized study, overall survival. After gemcitabine failure, second-line therapy with oxaliplatin and 5-FU provides a further survival advantage. Further advances depend upon the current and future clinical trials investigating enhanced delivery of current agents, new agents and novel modalities, improved supportive care, and treatment more tailored to the individual patient and tumour.

Plasma pharmacokinetics after combined therapy of gemcitabine and oral S-1 for unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background

The combination of gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1, an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) derivative, has been shown to be a promising regimen for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Six patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were enrolled in this pharmacokinetics (PK) study. These patients were treated by oral administration of S-1 30 mg/m² twice daily for 28 consecutive days, followed by a 14-day rest period and intravenous administration of GEM 800 mg/m² on days 1, 15 and 29 of each course. The PK parameters of GEM and/or 5-FU after GEM single-administration, S-1 single-administration, and co-administration of GEM with pre-administration of S-1 at 2-h intervals were analyzed.

Results

The maximum concentration (Cmax), the area under the curve from the drug administration to the infinite time (AUCinf), and the elimination half-life (T1/2) of GEM were not significantly different between GEM administration with and without S-1. The Cmax, AUCinf, T1/2, and the time required to reach Cmax (Tmax) were not significantly different between S-1 administration with and without GEM.

Conclusion

There were no interactions between GEM and S-1 regarding plasma PK of GEM and 5-FU.