1
|
Enzler T, Nguyen A, Misleh J, Cline VJ, Johns M, Shumway N, Paulson S, Siegel R, Larson T, Messersmith W, Richards D, Chaves J, Pierce E, Zalupski M, Sahai V, Orr D, Ruste SA, Haun A, Kawabe T. A multicenter, randomized phase 2 study to establish combinations of CBP501, cisplatin and nivolumab for ≥3rd-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2024; 201:113950. [PMID: 38422585 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.113950] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2023] [Revised: 02/04/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no standard of care for ≥ 3rd-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). CBP501 is a novel calmodulin-binding peptide that has been shown to enhance the influx of platinum agents into tumor cells and tumor immunogenicity. This study aimed to (1) confirm efficacy of CBP501/cisplatin/nivolumab for metastatic PDAC observed in a previous phase 1 study, (2) identify combinations that yield 35% 3-month progression-free survival rate (3MPFS) and (3) define the contribution of CBP501 to the effects of combination therapy. METHODS CBP501 16 or 25 mg/m2 (CBP(16) or CBP(25)) was combined with 60 mg/m2 cisplatin (CDDP) and 240 mg nivolumab (nivo), administered at 3-week intervals. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to (1) CBP(25)/CDDP/nivo, (2) CBP(16)/CDDP/nivo, (3) CBP(25)/CDDP and (4) CDDP/nivo, with randomization stratified by ECOG PS and liver metastases. A Fleming two-stage design was used, yielding a one-sided type I error rate of 2.5% and 80% power when the true 3MPFS is 35%. RESULTS Among 36 patients, 3MPFS was 44.4% in arms 1 and 2, 11.1% in arm 3% and 33.3% in arm 4. Two patients achieved a partial response in arm 1 (ORR 22.2%; none in other arms). Median PFS and OS were 2.4, 2.1, 1.5 and 1.5 months and 6.3, 5.3, 3.7 and 4.9 months, respectively. Overall, all treatment combinations were well tolerated. Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1-2. CONCLUSIONS The combination CBP(25)/(16)/CDDP/nivo demonstrated promising signs of efficacy and a manageable safety profile for the treatment of advanced PDAC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT04953962.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Enzler
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
| | - A Nguyen
- Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Henderson, NV, USA
| | - J Misleh
- Medical Hematology Oncology Consultants PA, Newark, DE, USA
| | - V J Cline
- Texas Oncology - Austin Midtown, Austin, TX, USA
| | - M Johns
- Oncology Hematology Care Eastgate, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - N Shumway
- Texas Oncology-San Antonio Stone Oak, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - S Paulson
- Texas Oncology - Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - R Siegel
- Illinois Cancer Specialists, Arlington Heights, IL, USA
| | - T Larson
- Minnseota Oncology Hematology PA, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - W Messersmith
- University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - D Richards
- Texas Oncology - Northeast Texas Cancer and Research Institute, Tyler, TX, USA
| | - J Chaves
- Northwest Medical Specialties, PLLC, Tacoma, WA, USA
| | - E Pierce
- Ochsner MD Anderson Cancer Center, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - M Zalupski
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - V Sahai
- Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - D Orr
- Mary Crowley Cancer Research, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - S A Ruste
- Medical Affairs, Veristat LLC, Toronto Canada
| | - A Haun
- Medical Affairs, Veristat LLC, Toronto Canada
| | - T Kawabe
- CanBas Co., Ltd., Numazu, Shizuoka, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tesfaye AA, Wang H, Hartley ML, He AR, Weiner L, Gabelia N, Kapanadze L, Shezad M, Brody JR, Marshall JL, Pishvaian MJ. A Pilot Trial of Molecularly Tailored Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. J Pancreat Cancer 2019; 5:12-21. [PMID: 31065624 PMCID: PMC6503449 DOI: 10.1089/pancan.2019.0003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Despite the wide adoption of tumor molecular profiling, there is a dearth of evidence linking molecular biomarkers for treatment selection to prediction of treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We initiated a pilot study to test the feasibility of designing a larger phase II trial of molecularly tailored treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of following a treatment algorithm based on the expression of three published predictive markers of response to chemotherapy: ribonucleotide reductase catalytic subunit M1 (for gemcitabine); excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (for platinum agents); and thymidylate synthase (for 5-fluorouracil) in patients with untreated, metastatic pancreatic cancer. Results of the tumor biopsy analysis were used to assign patients to one of seven doublet regimens. Key secondary objectives included response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Between December 2012 and March 2015, 30 patients were enrolled into the study. Ten patients failed screening primarily due to inadequate tumor tissue availability. Of the remaining 20 patients, 19 were assigned into 6 different chemotherapy doublets, and achieved an RR of 28%, with a DCR rate of 78%. The median PFS and OS were 5.78 and 8.21 months, respectively. Conclusions: The incorporation of biomarkers into a treatment algorithm is feasible and resulted in a PFS and OS similar to other doublet therapies for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Based on the results from this pilot study, a larger phase II randomized trial of molecularly targeted therapy versus physicians' choice of standard of care has been initiated in the second-line setting (NCT02967770).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anteneh A Tesfaye
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
| | - Hongkun Wang
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Marion L Hartley
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Aiwu Ruth He
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Louis Weiner
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Nina Gabelia
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Lana Kapanadze
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Muhammad Shezad
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Jonathan R Brody
- Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - John L Marshall
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Michael J Pishvaian
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chung MJ, Kang H, Kim HG, Hyun JJ, Lee JK, Lee KH, Noh MH, Kang DH, Lee SH, Bang S, Pancreatobiliary Cancer Study Group of Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer. Multicenter phase II trial of modified FOLFIRINOX in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2018; 10:505-515. [PMID: 30595804 PMCID: PMC6304301 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i12.505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2018] [Revised: 10/24/2018] [Accepted: 11/25/2018] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment for gemcitabine (GEM)-refractory unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS This study was a prospective, multicenter, one-arm, open-label, phase II trial. Patients with unresectable PC, who showed disease progression during GEM-based chemotherapy were enrolled. All patients were administered FOLFIRINOX with reduced irinotecan and oxaliplatin (RIO; irinotecan 120 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2), which was set according to the phase I study of FOLFIRINOX. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events were evaluated. Additionally, changes in quality of life (QoL) were assessed using a questionnaire on QoL. RESULTS Between August 2015 and May 2016, a total of 48 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 259 d with a median of 8.5 cycles. The ORR and DCR were 18.8% and 62.5%, respectively, including one patient who showed complete remission. The median PFS was 5.8 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.7-7.9] and median OS was 9.0 mo (95%CI: 6.4-11.6). Neutropenia (64.6%) was the most common grade 3-4 adverse event, followed by febrile neutropenia (16.7%). Although 14.6% of patients experienced grade 3 fatigue, most non-hematologic AEs were under grade 2. In the QoL analysis, the global health status score before treatment was not different from the score at the last visit after treatment (45.43 ± 22.88 vs 48.66 ± 24.14, P = 0.548). CONCLUSION FOLFIRINOX with RIO showed acceptable toxicity and promising efficacy for GEM-refractory unresectable PC. However, this treatment requires careful observation of treatment-related hematologic toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moon Jae Chung
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | - Huapyong Kang
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | - Ho Gak Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu 42471, South Korea
| | - Jong Jin Hyun
- Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan 15355, South Korea
| | - Jun Kyu Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Goyang 10326, South Korea
| | - Kwang Hyuck Lee
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, South Korea
| | - Myung Hwan Noh
- Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan 49201, South Korea
| | - Dae Hwan Kang
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan 50612, South Korea
| | - Sang Hyub Lee
- Departments of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, South Korea
| | - Seungmin Bang
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hua J, Shi S, Liang D, Liang C, Meng Q, Zhang B, Ni Q, Xu J, Yu X. Current status and dilemma of second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: is there a silver lining? Onco Targets Ther 2018; 11:4591-4608. [PMID: 30122951 PMCID: PMC6084072 DOI: 10.2147/ott.s166405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignant diseases worldwide. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and, therefore, need palliative chemotherapy. Some chemotherapeutic regimens have been well established as first-line therapies and have been shown to increase survival; however, almost all patients with advanced pancreatic cancer will experience disease progression after first-line therapy. Nevertheless, many patients who retain good performance status after initial treatment remain good candidates for additional therapy. Historically, few studies have assessed second-line therapy, with most reports representing small phase II trials with variable findings; however, clinical research for second-line treatment has increased in the past decade, and several randomized controlled trials using different regimens have been published. The current literature shows varying results on treatment efficacy and tolerability. Thus, we reviewed the published data on the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Hua
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Si Shi
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Dingkong Liang
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Chen Liang
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Qingcai Meng
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Bo Zhang
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Quanxing Ni
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Jin Xu
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| | - Xianjun Yu
- Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
- Shanghai Pancreatic Cancer Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China, ;
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schwarz L, Vernerey D, Bachet JB, Tuech JJ, Portales F, Michel P, Cunha AS. Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma neo-adjuvant FOLF(IRIN)OX-based chemotherapy - a multicenter, non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial (PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 study). BMC Cancer 2018; 18:762. [PMID: 30041614 PMCID: PMC6057099 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4663-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2018] [Accepted: 07/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND At time of diagnosis, less than 10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are considered to be immediately operable (i.e. resectable). Considering their poor overall survival (OS), only tumours without vascular invasion (NCCN 2017) should be considered for resection, i.e. those for which resection with disease-free margins (R0) is theoretically possible in absence of presurgery treatment. With regard to high R1 rates and undetectable locoregional and/or metastatic spreading prior to surgery explain (at least in part) the observed 1-year relapse and mortality rates of 50 and 25%, respectively. Today, upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the reference treatment in Europe. The main limitation of the adjuvant approach is the low rate of completion of the full therapeutic sequence. Indeed, only 47 to 60% patients received any adjuvant therapy after resection compared to more than 75% for neoadjuvant therapy. No previous prospective study has compared this approach to a neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX chemotherapy for resectable PDAC. METHODS PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 is a prospective multicentre controlled randomized non comparative Phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX) relative to the current reference treatment (surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with resectable PDAC. The main co-primary endpoints are OS rate at 12 months and the rate of patients undergoing the full therapeutic sequence. DISCUSSION The "ideal" cancer treatment for resectable PDAC would have the following characteristics: administration to the highest possible proportion of patients, ability to identify fast-progressing patients (i.e. poor candidates for surgery), a low rate of R1 resections (through optimisation of local disease control), and an acceptable toxicity profile. The neoadjuvant approach may meet all these criteria. With respect to published data on the efficacy of FOLFOX and mFOLFIRINOX, these two regimens are potential candidates for neoadjuvant use in the aim to optimising oncological outcomes in resectable PDAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02959879 . Trial registration date: November 9, 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lilian Schwarz
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen, France
- UNIROUEN, UMR 1245 INSERM, Rouen University Hospital, Department of Genomic and Personalized Medicine in Cancer and Neurological Disorders, Normandie Univ, F-76000 Rouen, France
| | - Dewi Vernerey
- Methodological and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit, INSERM UMR 1098, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
| | | | - Jean-Jacques Tuech
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen, France
- UNIROUEN, UMR 1245 INSERM, Rouen University Hospital, Department of Genomic and Personalized Medicine in Cancer and Neurological Disorders, Normandie Univ, F-76000 Rouen, France
| | - Fabienne Portales
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM) - Val d’Aurelle, Montpellier, France
| | - Pierre Michel
- UNIROUEN, UMR 1245 INSERM, Rouen University Hospital, Department of Genomic and Personalized Medicine in Cancer and Neurological Disorders, Normandie Univ, F-76000 Rouen, France
- Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - Antonio Sa Cunha
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Paul Brousse Hospital, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Taieb J, Pointet AL, Van Laethem JL, Laquente B, Pernot S, Lordick F, Reni M. What treatment in 2017 for inoperable pancreatic cancers? Ann Oncol 2018; 28:1473-1483. [PMID: 28459988 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a frequent and severe disease, either diagnosed as metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) or as locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). Though no improvement in patients outcome have been made between 1996 and 2011, since 5 years new treatment options have become available to treat our patients. New standard first line regimens, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine combined with nab-paclitaxel, have improved overall survivals and second line treatments have been tested and validated. Other first-line treatments have failed, but research remains active and trials are ongoing with promising new anti-cancer agents. These new effective regimens used for MPA have yielded promising results in LAPC patients in open cohorts or phase II trials and a recent trial have failed to demonstrate the added value of classical external radiotherapy in this setting. Here, we review current standards of care in LAPC and MPA, consider the latest challenges and strategic questions, and examine what we may hope for in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Taieb
- Hepatogastroenterology and GI Oncology Department, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France
| | - A-L Pointet
- Hepatogastroenterology and GI Oncology Department, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France
| | - J L Van Laethem
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme University Hospital, ULB, Brussels, Belgium
| | - B Laquente
- Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - S Pernot
- Hepatogastroenterology and GI Oncology Department, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France
| | - F Lordick
- University Cancer Center Leipzig (UCCL), University Medicine Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - M Reni
- Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bullock A, Stuart K, Jacobus S, Abrams T, Wadlow R, Goldstein M, Miksad R. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first and second line treatment for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Oncol 2017; 8:945-952. [PMID: 29299353 DOI: 10.21037/jgo.2017.06.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There are limited treatment options available for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted a phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic PDAC treated in the first and second lines. Methods Forty subjects with advanced PDAC and ECOG performance status ≥2 were enrolled. Treatment consisted of capecitabine 2,000 mg/m2 orally in two divided doses daily for 14 days and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously day 1 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR); secondary endpoints included safety analysis, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results The overall RR was 12.5% (N=3); the disease control rate was 67% (N=16). Due to the protocol definition for eligibility of response evaluation, only 60% (N=24) were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median progression free survival (mPFS) was 3.8 months (95% CI: 1.3, 6.2); median OS (mOS) was 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.8, 12.2). The most common grade 3/4 toxicities included: fatigue (19%), nausea (17%), and diarrhea (14%). Conclusions CAPOX is an active regimen in patients with advanced PDAC and is associated with acceptable toxicity. Careful consideration should be given to response endpoints and outcome measures when studying this characteristically ill population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Keith Stuart
- Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Petrelli F, Inno A, Ghidini A, Rimassa L, Tomasello G, Labianca R, Barni S. Second line with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy for gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2017. [PMID: 28633088 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.05.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND oxaliplatin (OXA)- and irinotecan (IRI)-based chemotherapies are the most frequently used salvage regimens in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) after first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. There are no prospective comparisons of these regimens in this setting. We conducted a systematic review of published trials to compare the efficacy of these treatments. METHODS studies that enrolled patients with stage IV disease receiving chemotherapy with OXA or IRI plus fluoropyrimidines were identified using electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library). Clinical outcomes were compared using weighted values of median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RRs), and clinical benefit rates (CBRs). A 2-tailed t-test with a significance level of 0.05 for comparisons of continuous variables and a Chi-squared test for comparisons of proportions were used. RESULTS overall, 24 studies were included. The pooled overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), PFS and OS were 11%, 37.9%, 2.87 and 5.48 months respectively. There was no significant difference in response rates between OXA-based and IRI-based chemotherapies (11.9% versus 8.7%; Chi-squared P = 0.1), respectively. Also there was no significant difference in median PFS (2.9 months versus 2.7 months; t-test P = 0.72), OS (5.3 months versus 5.5 months; t-test P = 0.72), but a greater DCR with OXA-based chemotherapy (41.1% versus 29.4%; Chi-squared P = 0.0008). CONCLUSION OXA- and IRI-containing regimens were associated with similar efficacy when used after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fausto Petrelli
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, BG, Italy.
| | - Alessandro Inno
- Medical Oncology Unit, Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Cancer Care Center, Via Don A. Sempreboni 5, 37024, Negrar, VR, Italy
| | - Antonio Ghidini
- Medical Oncology Unit, Casa di Cura Igea, Via Marcona 69, 20144, Milano, Italy
| | - Lorenza Rimassa
- Medical Oncology Unit, Humanitas Cancer Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
| | - Gianluca Tomasello
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST Cremona, Viale Concordia 1, 26100, Cremona, Italy
| | - Roberto Labianca
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazza Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità 1, 24127, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sandro Barni
- Medical Oncology Unit, ASST Bergamo Ovest, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 24047, Treviglio, BG, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: Which is the best option? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2017; 115:1-12. [PMID: 28602164 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.03.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2016] [Revised: 02/28/2017] [Accepted: 03/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite recent biological insight and therapeutic advances, the prognosis of advanced pancreatic cancer still remains poor. For more than 15 years, gemcitabine monotherapy has been the cornerstone of first-line treatment. Recently, prospective randomized trials have shown that novel upfront combination regimens tested in prospective randomized trials have resulted in improved patients' outcome increasing the proportion of putative candidate to second-line therapy. There is no definite standard of care after disease progression. A novel formulation in which irinotecan is encapsulated into liposomal-based nanoparticles may increase the efficacy of the drug without incrementing its toxicity. NAPOLI-1 was the first randomized trial to compare nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil-leucovorin (5-FU/LV) to 5-FU/LV alone after a gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. This review focuses on the current data for the management of second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, presents the most interesting ongoing clinical trials and illustrates the biologically-driven future options beyond disease progression.
Collapse
|
10
|
Spadi R, Brusa F, Ponzetti A, Chiappino I, Birocco N, Ciuffreda L, Satolli MA. Current therapeutic strategies for advanced pancreatic cancer: A review for clinicians. World J Clin Oncol 2016; 7:27-43. [PMID: 26862489 PMCID: PMC4734936 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.27] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2015] [Revised: 09/22/2015] [Accepted: 11/23/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer (PC) would become the second leading cause of cancer death in the near future, despite representing only 3% of new cancer diagnosis. Survival improvement will come from a better knowledge of risk factors, earlier diagnosis, better integration of locoregional and systemic therapies, as well as the development of more efficacious drugs rising from a deeper understanding of disease biology. For patients with unresectable, non-metastatic disease, combined strategies encompassing primary chemotherapy and radiation seems to be promising. In fit patients, new polychemotherapy regimens can lead to better outcomes in terms of slight but significant survival improvement associated with a positive impact on quality of life. The upfront use of these regimes can also increase the rate of radical resections in borderline resectable and locally advanced PC. Second line treatments showed to positively affect both overall survival and quality of life in fit patients affected by metastatic disease. At present, oxaliplatin-based regimens are the most extensively studied. Nonetheless, other promising drugs are currently under evaluation. Presently, in addition to surgery and conventional radiation therapy, new locoregional treatment techniques are emerging as alternative options in the multimodal approach to patients or diseases not suitable for radical surgery. As of today, in contrast with other types of cancer, targeted therapies failed to show relevant activity either alone or in combination with chemotherapy and, thus, current clinical practice does not include them. Up to now, despite the fact of extremely promising results in different tumors, also immunotherapy is not in the actual therapeutic armamentarium for PC. In the present paper, we provide a comprehensive review of the current state of the art of clinical practice and research in PC aiming to offer a guide for clinicians on the most relevant topics in the management of this disease.
Collapse
|
11
|
Nagrial AM, Chin VT, Sjoquist KM, Pajic M, Horvath LG, Biankin AV, Yip D. Second-line treatment in inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and synthesis of all clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015; 96:483-497. [PMID: 26481952 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2014] [Revised: 05/23/2015] [Accepted: 07/16/2015] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
There remains uncertainty regarding the optimal second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The current recommendation of 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin may not be relevant in current practice, as FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) has become a more popular first line therapy in fit patients. The majority of studies in this setting are single-arm Phase II trials with significant heterogeneity of patient populations, treatments and outcomes. In this review, we sought to systematically review and synthesise all prospective data available for the second-line treatment of advanced PDAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adnan M Nagrial
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; The Cancer Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.
| | - Venessa T Chin
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; The Cancer Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
| | - Katrin M Sjoquist
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; Cancer Care Centre, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, NSW, Australia
| | - Marina Pajic
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; The Cancer Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; St. Vincents's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of NSW, Australia
| | - Lisa G Horvath
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; The Cancer Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia
| | - Andrew V Biankin
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, 370 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; The Cancer Research Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, 384 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia; Department of Surgery, Bankstown Hospital, Eldridge Road, Bankstown, Sydney, NSW 2200, Australia; South Western Sydney Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, University of NSW, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia; Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, Scotland, UK; West of Scotland Pancreatic Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0SF, UK
| | - Desmond Yip
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, ACT, Australia; ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer after first-line FOLFIRINOX: single institution retrospective review of efficacy and toxicity. Exp Hematol Oncol 2015; 4:29. [PMID: 26451276 PMCID: PMC4597390 DOI: 10.1186/s40164-015-0025-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2015] [Accepted: 09/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We conducted a retrospective review of the dose, toxicity, and efficacy of second line gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G + Nab-P) after FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods In this retrospective study, we included all patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer who were treated at Yale Cancer Center with G + Nab-P between 12/2011 and 12/2013 after receiving first line FOLFIRINOX. For each patient, demographics, prior therapy, doses of G + Nab-P (cumulative doses and dose intensity relative to full dose G + Nab-P), hematologic toxicities, best response by RECIST, time to treatment failure (TTF), and survival were compiled. Median TTF and overall survival (OS) were calculated by Kaplan–Meier method. Results 28 patients were treated with G + Nab-P after first line FOLFIRINOX. The median TTF was 12.0 weeks (range 2.0–36.0), and the median OS was 23.0 weeks (range 2.1–85.4). Five patients had a partial response (response rate 17.9 %), and 28.6 % of patients had stable disease for ≥7 weeks. A decline in CA 19-9 and CEA by >30 % was observed in 13 (46.4 %) and 11 (39.3 %) patients, respectively. The median relative dose intensities were 62.4 and 57.5 % for G and Nab-P, respectively. Grade ≥3 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia in 17.9 %, anemia in 25.0 %, and thrombocytopenia in 25.0 % of patients. Conclusions Second line G + Nab-P following FOLFIRINOX is feasible, and demonstrated modest activity and clinical benefit in advanced pancreatic cancer. The optimum sequencing and dosing of these active regimens warrants further evaluation in prospective trials.
Collapse
|
13
|
Onesti CE, Romiti A, Roberto M, Falcone R, Marchetti P. Recent advances for the treatment of pancreatic and biliary tract cancer after first-line treatment failure. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2015; 15:1183-98. [PMID: 26325474 DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2015.1081816] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Here, we evaluate clinical trials on chemotherapy for patients with pancreatic or biliary tract cancer after first-line treatment failure. Clinical trials on conventional and innovative medical treatments for progressive pancreatic and biliary cancer were analyzed. Metronomic chemotherapy, which consists of the administration of continuative low-dose of anticancer drugs, was also considered. A significant extension of overall survival was achieved with second-line, regimens in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Moreover, many Phase II studies, including chemotherapy and target molecules and immunotherapy, have reported promising results, in both pancreatic and biliary cancer. However, data in these patients' setting are very heterogeneous, and only few randomized studies are available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michela Roberto
- a Clinical and Molecular Medicine Department, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| | - Rosa Falcone
- a Clinical and Molecular Medicine Department, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| | - Paolo Marchetti
- a Clinical and Molecular Medicine Department, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Randomised phase II trial of S-1 plus oxaliplatin vs S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2015; 112:1428-34. [PMID: 25880004 PMCID: PMC4453667 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2014] [Revised: 02/07/2015] [Accepted: 02/23/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: This randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II study compared progression-free survival (PFS) of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) with that of S-1 alone in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with confirmed progressive disease following the first-line treatment with a gemcitabine-based regimen were randomised to receive either S-1 (80/100/120 mg day−1 based on body surface area (BSA), orally, days 1–28, every 6 weeks) or SOX (S-1 80/100/120 mg day−1 based on BSA, orally, days 1–14, plus oxaliplatin 100 mg m−2, intravenously, day 1, every 3 weeks). The primary end point was PFS. Results: Between January 2009 and July 2010, 271 patients were randomly allocated to either S-1 (n=135) or SOX (n=136). Median PFS for S-1 and SOX were 2.8 and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR)=0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–1.08; stratified log-rank test P=0.18). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 vs 7.4 months (HR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.34; stratified log-rank test P=0.82). The response rate (RR) was 11.5% vs 20.9% (P=0.04). The major grade 3/4 toxicities (S-1 and SOX) were neutropenia (11.4% and 8.1%), thrombocytopenia (4.5% and 10.3%) and anorexia (12.9% and 14.7%). Conclusions: Although SOX showed an advantage in RR, it provided no significant improvement in PFS or OS compared with S-1 alone.
Collapse
|
15
|
Synergistic antitumor activity of withaferin A combined with oxaliplatin triggers reactive oxygen species-mediated inactivation of the PI3K/AKT pathway in human pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Lett 2015; 357:219-230. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2014.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2014] [Revised: 11/11/2014] [Accepted: 11/13/2014] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
16
|
Esmaeilzadeh M, Majlesara A, Faridar A, Hafezi M, Hong B, Esmaeilnia-Shirvani H, Neyazi B, Mehrabi A, Nakamura M. Brain metastasis from gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68:890-9. [PMID: 24666726 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Brain metastases (BM) from the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) cancers are relatively rare. Despite those advances in diagnostic and treatment options, life expectancy and quality of life in these patients are still poor. In this review, we present an overview of the studies which have been previously performed as well as a comprehensive strategy for the assessment and treatment of BM from the GIT cancers. METHOD To obtain information on brain metastases from GIT, we performed a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The collected data included patient characteristics, primary tumor data and brain metastases data. RESULT In our search of the literature, we found 74 studies between 1980 and 2011, which included 2538 patients with brain metastases originated from gastrointestinal cancer. Analysis of available data showed that among 2538 patients who had brain metastases from GIT, a total of 116 patients (4.57%) had esophageal cancer, 148 patients (5.83%) had gastric cancer, 233 patients (9.18%) had liver cancer, 13 patients had pancreas cancer (0.52%) and 2028 patients (79.90%) had colorectal cancer. The total median age of the patients was 58.9 years. CONCLUSION Brain metastases have been considered the most common structural neurological complication of systemic cancer. Due to poor prognosis they influence the survival rate as well as the quality of life of the patients. The treatment of cerebral metastasis depends on the patients' situation and the decisions of the treating physicians. The early awareness of a probable metastasis from GI to the brain will have a great influence on treatment outcomes as well as the survival rate and the quality-of-life of the patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Esmaeilzadeh
- Department of Neurosurgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Oettle H, Riess H, Stieler JM, Heil G, Schwaner I, Seraphin J, Görner M, Mölle M, Greten TF, Lakner V, Bischoff S, Sinn M, Dörken B, Pelzer U. Second-line oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and fluorouracil versus folinic acid and fluorouracil alone for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer: outcomes from the CONKO-003 trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2423-9. [PMID: 24982456 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.53.6995] [Citation(s) in RCA: 327] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the efficacy of a second-line regimen of oxaliplatin and folinic acid-modulated fluorouracil in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who have experienced progression while receiving gemcitabine monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized, open-label, phase III study was conducted in 16 institutions throughout Germany. Recruitment ran from January 2004 until May 2007, and the last follow-up concluded in December 2012. Overall, 168 patients age 18 years or older who experienced disease progression during first-line gemcitabine therapy were randomly assigned to folinic acid and fluorouracil (FF) or oxaliplatin and FF (OFF). Patients were stratified according to the presence of metastases, duration of first-line therapy, and Karnofsky performance status. RESULTS Median follow-up was 54.1 months, and 160 patients were eligible for the primary analysis. The median overall survival in the OFF group (5.9 months; 95% CI, 4.1 to 7.4) versus the FF group (3.3 months; 95% CI, 2.7 to 4.0) was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; log-rank P = .010). Time to progression with OFF (2.9 months; 95% CI, 2.4 to 3.2) versus FF (2.0 months; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) was significantly extended also (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94; log-rank P = .019). Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment arms, with the exception of grades 1 to 2 neurotoxicity, which were reported in 29 patients (38.2%) and six patients (7.1%) in the OFF and FF groups, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION Second-line OFF significantly extended the duration of overall survival when compared with FF alone in patients with advanced gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helmut Oettle
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany.
| | - Hanno Riess
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Jens M Stieler
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Gerhard Heil
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Ingo Schwaner
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Jörg Seraphin
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Martin Görner
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Matthias Mölle
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Tim F Greten
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Volker Lakner
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Sven Bischoff
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Marianne Sinn
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Bernd Dörken
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| | - Uwe Pelzer
- Helmut Oettle, Hanno Riess, Jens M. Stieler, Sven Bischoff, Marianne Sinn, Bernd Dörken, and Uwe Pelzer, Charitě Universitätsmedizin; Ingo Schwaner, Clinical Center, Berlin; Helmut Oettle, Clinical Center, Friedrichschafen; Gerhard Heil, Clinical Center, Lüdenscheid; Jörg Seraphin, Clinical Center, Northeim; Martin Görner, Clinical Center, Bielefeld; Matthias Mölle, Clinical Center, Dresden; Tim F. Greten, Hannover Medical School, Hannover; and Volker Lakner, Clinical Center, Rostock, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Zaanan A, Trouilloud I, Markoutsaki T, Gauthier M, Dupont-Gossart AC, Lecomte T, Aparicio T, Artru P, Thirot-Bidault A, Joubert F, Fanica D, Taieb J. FOLFOX as second-line chemotherapy in patients with pretreated metastatic pancreatic cancer from the FIRGEM study. BMC Cancer 2014; 14:441. [PMID: 24929865 PMCID: PMC4075567 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2013] [Accepted: 06/09/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background FOLFOX second-line treatment seems to be a validated option for patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) progressing after gemcitabine chemotherapy. However, other therapeutics strategy has developed in first-line therapy, as the FIRGEM phase II study that evaluated gemcitabine alone versus FOLFIRI.3 alternating with gemcitabine every two months. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX after failure of the first-line therapy used in the FIRGEM study. Methods In this prospective observational cohort study, we analysed all consecutive patients who received second-line chemotherapy with FOLFOX among 98 patients with metastatic PC included in the FIRGEM study. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated from the start of second-line chemotherapy using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 46 patients who received second-line chemotherapy, 27 patients (male, 55%; median age, 61 years; performance status (PS) 0–1, 44%) were treated with FOLFOX after progression to first-line gemcitabine alone (n = 20) or FOLFIRI.3 alternating with gemcitabine (n = 7). Grade 3 toxicity was observed in 33% of patients (no grade 4 toxicity). At the end of follow-up, all patients had progressed and 25 had died. No objective response was observed, and disease control rate was 36%. Median PFS and OS were 1.7 and 4.3 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, PS was the only independent prognostic factor. For patients PS 0–1 versus 2–3, median PFS was 3.0 versus 1.2 months (log rank, p = 0.002), and median OS was 5.9 versus 2.6 months (log rank, p = 0.001). Conclusions This study suggests that FOLFOX second-line therapy offered interesting efficacy results with an acceptable toxicity profile in metastatic PC patients with a good PS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Julien Taieb
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, AP-HP, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Walker EJ, Ko AH. Beyond first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: an expanding array of therapeutic options? World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20:2224-36. [PMID: 24605022 PMCID: PMC3942828 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2013] [Revised: 12/13/2013] [Accepted: 01/03/2014] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
While an increasing number of therapeutic options are now available for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, the optimal choice for treatment in the second-line setting and beyond is less well defined. A variety of cytotoxic agents, either alone or in combination, have been evaluated, although primarily in the context of small single-arm or retrospective studies. Most regimens have been associated with median progression-free survival rates in the range of 2-4 mo and overall survival rates between 4-8 mo, highlighting the very poor prognosis of patients who are candidates for such treatment. Targeted therapies studied in this chemotherapy-refractory setting, meanwhile, have produced even worse efficacy results. In the current article, we review the clinical evidence for treatment of refractory disease, primarily in patients who have progressed on front-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. In the process, we highlight the limitations of the available data to date as well as some of the challenges in designing appropriate clinical trials in this salvage setting, including how to select an appropriate control arm given the absence of a well-established reference standard, and the importance of incorporating predictive biomarkers and quality of life measures whenever possible into study design.
Collapse
|
20
|
Takahara N, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Sasaki T, Hamada T, Uchino R, Mizuno S, Miyabayashi K, Kogure H, Yamamoto N, Sasahira N, Hirano K, Ijichi H, Tateishi K, Tada M, Koike K. A retrospective study of S-1 and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013; 72:985-90. [PMID: 23995699 DOI: 10.1007/s00280-013-2278-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2013] [Accepted: 08/21/2013] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate S-1 and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy (SOX) in patients with refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS Consecutive patients with advanced PC refractory to gemcitabine who were treated with oral S-1 (80 mg/m²) on days 1-14 and intravenous oxaliplatin (100 mg/m²) on day 1 every 3 weeks were studied retrospectively. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), the disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS Between March 2009 and October 2011, 30 patients were treated with SOX, with a median of two courses (range 1-8). The ORR and DCR were 10.0 and 50.0 %, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 3.4 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.3-5.3) and 5.0 months (95 % CI 3.4-7.4), respectively. The median PFS and OS were 5.6 and 9.1 months in patients receiving S-1 and oxaliplatin as a second-line treatment. Major grade 3 or 4 adverse events included neutropenia (10.0 %), anemia (3.3 %), and diarrhea (6.7 %). CONCLUSIONS SOX was well tolerated and moderately effective in patients with refractory PC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naminatsu Takahara
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Rahma OE, Duffy A, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Greten TF. Second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive analysis of published clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:1972-9. [PMID: 23670093 PMCID: PMC3718508 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2013] [Revised: 03/20/2013] [Accepted: 03/21/2013] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is currently no standard of care for the second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. The aim of this analysis was to compare the different therapeutic approaches in this setting. METHODS We carried out a systematic analysis of second-line studies in advanced pancreatic cancer that have progressed on or following gemcitabine and published or presented from 2000 to 2012. RESULTS Forty-four clinical trials (t) were identified; of which 34 met the inclusion criteria treating an aggregate total of 1503 patients (n). Patients who received treatments (t: 33; n: 1269) had a median overall survival (OS) of 6 months compared with 2.8 months for patients who received best supportive care only (t: 2; n: 234) (P = 0.013). The gemcitabine and platinum-based combination (t: 5; n: 154) provided a median progression-free survival and OS of 4 and 6 months compared with 1.6 and 5.3 for the rest of the regimens (t: 29; n: 1349) (P = 0.059 and 0.10, respectively) and 2.9 and 5.7 for the combination of 5-fluorouracil and platinum agents (t: 12; n: 450) (P = 0.60 and 0.22, respectively). CONCLUSION(S) Although not conclusive, these data showed that the advantage of second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer is very limited and there is a need for more studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O. E. Rahma
- Gastrointestinal Malignancy Section, Medical Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
| | - A. Duffy
- Gastrointestinal Malignancy Section, Medical Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
| | - D. J. Liewehr
- Biostatistics and Data Management Section, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA
| | - S. M. Steinberg
- Biostatistics and Data Management Section, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA
| | - T. F. Greten
- Gastrointestinal Malignancy Section, Medical Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Phase II trial of capecitabine combined with thalidomide in second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Pancreatology 2012; 12:475-9. [PMID: 23217281 DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2012.09.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2012] [Revised: 09/23/2012] [Accepted: 09/24/2012] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine combined with thalidomide in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) who have previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. METHODS A total of 31 patients were recruited prospectively in Shandong Tumor Hospital from May 2007 to April 2009. Capecitabine was offered to patients twice a day at a dose of 1250 mg/m(2) for 14-day then followed by 7-day rest. Thalidomide was administered 100 mg/day without interruption until disease progression or occurrence of unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS Two patients presented partial response (PR), 11 patients showed stable disease (SD) and eighteen patients presented progressive disease (PD). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.4-3.3) and the median overall survival (OS) was 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.3-6.9). In the subgroup analysis, PFS had a significant difference between the serum CA19-9 level decreasing >25% and decreasing <25%, with 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.5-3.6) and 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.2), (Log Rank = 0.02), respectively. Hematological toxicity included leukocytopenia, anemia and neutropenia. Non-hematological toxicities included diarrhea, skin rash, nausea/vomiting, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue, dizziness, drowsiness and constipation. CONCLUSION Capecitabine combined with thalidomide is a well-tolerated second-line regimen, in patients with APC refractory to gemcitabine.
Collapse
|
23
|
Assaf E, Verlinde-Carvalho M, Delbaldo C, Grenier J, Sellam Z, Pouessel D, Bouaita L, Baumgaertner I, Sobhani I, Tayar C, Paul M, Culine S. 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin combined with irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) as second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncology 2011; 80:301-6. [PMID: 21778770 DOI: 10.1159/000329803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2011] [Accepted: 05/09/2011] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of irinotecan and oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) as second-line therapy in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA). PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 27 patients with MPA treated with FOLFIRINOX as second-line therapy between January 2003 and November 2009 in our hospital. The recommended schedule was oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 + irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 + leucovorin 400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by FU 400 mg/m(2) as a bolus on day 1 and 2,400 mg/m(2) as 46-hour continuous infusion biweekly. RESULTS The median age of the 27 patients (13 males and 14 females) was 63 years (45-83). All patients had progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy by gemcitabine. A total of 167 cycles were administered, with a median number of 6 cycles (1-29) per patient. One toxic death occurred (sepsis). Tolerance of treatment was acceptable, and the relative dose density delivered per patient was 92.8% for oxaliplatin, 89.1% for irinotecan and 96.4% for FU. Grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 55.6% of the patients, including 1 febrile neutropenia. The other toxicities were manageable. Regarding efficacy, 22 of the 27 patients were evaluable (WHO and RECIST criteria). Five patients had partial responses and 12 stable disease, resulting in an overall disease control rate of 63%. Median time to progression was 5.4 months (0.7-25.48), and median event-free survival was 3 months (0.5-24.9). Median overall survival was 8.5 months (0-26). A clinical benefit was reported for 55% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS These results confirmed the good safety profile and the efficacy of the FOLFIRINOX regimen as second-line treatment of MPA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elias Assaf
- Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Groupe Hospitalier Henri Mondor-Albert Chenevier, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris et Université Paris XII, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Park JY. [Second line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer]. THE KOREAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY = TAEHAN SOHWAGI HAKHOE CHI 2011; 57:207-212. [PMID: 21519173 DOI: 10.4166/kjg.2011.57.4.207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/30/2023]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is a very lethal cancer. It is the 5th most common cause for cancer related mortality in Korea. Most of patients have unresectable pancreatic cancer, and systemic chemotherapy remains the only treatment option for them. Gemcitabine has been adopted as the standard first-line agent for advanced pancreatic cancer, but the progression free survival with gemcitabine is short. Many of patients need further treatment. We reviewed the clinical trials of second line chemotherapy for gemcitabine refractory pancreatic cancer and tried to show currently available treatment options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeong Youp Park
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
CoFactor: Folate Requirement for Optimization of 5-Fluouracil Activity in Anticancer Chemotherapy. JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 2010; 2010:934359. [PMID: 21209714 PMCID: PMC3010680 DOI: 10.1155/2010/934359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2010] [Revised: 11/02/2010] [Accepted: 11/08/2010] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Intracellular reduced folate exists as a "pool" of more than 6 interconvertable forms. One of these forms, 5,10 methylenetetrahydrofolic acid (CH(2)THF), is the key one-carbon donor and reduced folate substrate for thymidylate synthase (TS). This pathway has been an important target for chemotherapy as it provides one of the necessary nucleotide substrates for DNA synthesis. The fluoropyrimidine 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) exerts its main cytotoxic activity through TS inhibition. Leucovorin (5-formyltetrahydrofolate; LV) has been used to increase the intracellular reduced folate pools and enhance TS inhibition. However, it must be metabolized within the cell through multiple intracellular enzymatic steps to form CH2THF. CoFactor (USAN fotrexorin calcium, (dl)-5,10,-methylenepteroyl-monoglutamate calcium salt) is a reduced folate that potentiates 5-FU cytotoxicity. According to early clinical trials, when 5-FU is modulated by CoFactor instead of LV, there is greater anti-tumor activity and less toxicity. This review presents the emerging role of CoFactor in colorectal and nongastrointestinal malignancies.
Collapse
|
26
|
Todaka A, Fukutomi A, Boku N, Onozawa Y, Hironaka S, Yasui H, Yamazaki K, Taku K, Machida N, Sakamoto T, Tomita H. S-1 monotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40:567-72. [PMID: 20189975 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyq005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE No standard salvage chemotherapy regimen has been established for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after failure of gemcitabine-based treatment. Although a Phase II study of S-1 monotherapy was conducted in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer, the number of patients enrolled was small. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 84 consecutive patients who received S-1 monotherapy as a second-line treatment after gemcitabine failure at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between May 2004 and April 2008. The selection criteria in this study were age 20-75 years, ECOG performance status <or=2 and preserved organ functions. S-1 was administered orally twice a day at a dose of 40 mg/m(2) for 28 days, followed by 14-day rest. RESULTS Fifty-two patients were selected for the analysis. Out of the 47/52 patients with measurable lesions, only 2 patients (4%) showed a partial response and 15 patients (32%) showed stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months and the median overall survival was 5.8 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 12%. The common grade 3/4 toxicities were diarrhea (8%), anorexia (6%), fatigue (6%), anemia (6%) and leucopenia (4%). CONCLUSIONS S-1 monotherapy is marginally effective and well tolerated in the second-line setting in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akiko Todaka
- Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Yoo C, Hwang JY, Kim JE, Kim TW, Lee JS, Park DH, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH, Han DJ, Kim SC, Lee JL. A randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRI.3 vs modified FOLFOX as second-line therapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2009; 101:1658-63. [PMID: 19826418 PMCID: PMC2778540 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605374] [Citation(s) in RCA: 137] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Only a few clinical trials have been conducted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after failure of first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Therefore, there is no current consensus on the treatment of these patients. We conducted a randomised phase II study of the modified FOLFIRI.3 (mFOLFIRI.3; a regimen combining 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid, and irinotecan) and modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX; a regimen combining folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin) regimens as second-line treatments in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. Methods: The primary end point was the 6-month overall survival rate. The mFOlFIRI.3 regimen consisted of irinotecan (70 mg m−2; days 1 and 3), leucovorin (400 mg m−2; day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m−2; days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. The mFOLFOX regimen was composed of oxaliplatin (85 mg m−2; day 1), leucovorin (400 mg m−2; day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m−2; days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. Results: Sixty-one patients were randomised to mFOLFIRI.3 (n=31) or mFOLFOX (n=30) regimen. The six-month survival rates were 27% (95% confidence interval (CI)=13–46%) and 30% (95% CI=15–49%), respectively. The median overall survival periods were 16.6 and 14.9 weeks, respectively. Disease control was achieved in 23% (95% CI=10–42%) and 17% patients (95% CI=6–35%), respectively. The number of patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity was identical (11 patients, 38%) in both groups: neutropenia (7 patients under mFOLFIRI.3 regimen vs 6 patients under mFOLFOX regimen), asthaenia (1 vs 4), vomiting (3 in both), diarrhoea (2 vs 0), and mucositis (1 vs 2). Conclusion: Both mFOLFIRI.3 and mFOLFOX regimens were tolerated with manageable toxicity, offering modest activities as second-line treatments for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, previously treated with gemcitabine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Yoo
- Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 138-736, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|