A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of ganitumab (AMG 479) or conatumumab (AMG 655) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ganitumab (a mAb antagonist of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor) or conatumumab (a mAb agonist of human death receptor 5) combined with gemcitabine in a randomized phase 2 trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with a previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤1 were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to i.v. gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) combined with open-label ganitumab (12 mg/kg every 2 weeks [Q2W]), double-blind conatumumab (10 mg/kg Q2W), or double-blind placebo Q2W. The primary end point was 6-month survival rate. Results In total, 125 patients were randomized. The 6-month survival rates were 57% (95% CI 41-70) in the ganitumab arm, 59% (42-73) in the conatumumab arm, and 50% (33-64) in the placebo arm. The grade ≥3 adverse events in the ganitumab, conatumumab, and placebo arms, respectively, included neutropenia (18/22/13%), thrombocytopenia (15/17/8%), fatigue (13/12/5%), alanine aminotransferase increase (15/5/8%), and hyperglycemia (18/2/3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had tolerable toxicity and showed trends toward an improved 6-month survival rate and overall survival. Additional investigation into this combination is warranted. Conatumumab combined with gemcitabine showed some evidence of activity as assessed by the 6-month survival rate.

Association of RecQ1 A159C polymorphism with overall survival of patients with resected pancreatic cancer: A replication study in RTOG 9704

156

Background: To confirm whether a previously observed association between a DNA repair gene and clinical outcome of resectable pancreatic cancer patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation is reproducible in another patient population.

Methods: We evaluated the RecQ1 A159C variant (rs13035) in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who were enrolled on the RTOG 9704 trial of 5FU-based chemoradiation preceded and followed by 5-FU or gemcitabine. DNA was extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue sections and genotype was determined using the Taqman method. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine if there is a correlation between genotype and overall survival (OS). Models were built using the stepwise selection procedure. The following variables were included in the model: genotype, treatment arm, age, gender, race, nodal involvement, tumor diameter, and surgical margin status.

Results: A total of 154 out of 451 eligible patients were evaluated for the RecQ1genotype. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics and overall survival time between patients who were and were not evaluated for the RecQ1genotype. In the 154 evaluated patients, the genotype distribution followed the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, i.e. 37% had genotype AA, 43% AC, and 20% CC. The RecQ1 variant AC/CC genotype carriers were more likely to be node positive compared to the AA carrier (p=0.03). The median survival times (95% C.I.) for AA, AC, and CC carriers were 1.72 (1.36, 2.17), 1.57 (1.18, 1.80), and 1.18 (0.86, 1.75) years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, patients with the AC/CC genotypes were more likely to die than patients with AA genotype (HR=1.54, 95% C.I. = [1.07, 2.23], p=0.022). This effect is more definitive for patients on the 5-FU arm (n=82) (HR=1.64, 95% C.I. = [0.99, 2.70], p=0.055) than for patients on the gemcitabine arm (n=72, HR=1.46, 95% C.I. = [0.81, 2.63], p=0.21).

Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that the RecQ1 A159C genotype is a prognostic or predictive factor for resectable pancreatic cancer patients who are treated with adjuvant chemoradiation.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Effect of the addition of algenpantucel-L immunotherapy to standard adjuvant therapy on survival in patients with resected pancreas cancer

236

Background: Pancreatic cancer portends a poor prognosis with ∼4% long-term survival. Among the estimated 20% of patients who have resectable disease, the 1-/3-/5-year survival rates approximate only 70%/30%/18%, even with adjuvant therapy. Better treatment options are needed and addition of algenpantucel-L (HyperAcute-Pancreas) to standard adjuvant therapy is proposed to improve prospects for survival. Algenpantucel-L is composed of irradiated, live, allogeneic human pancreatic cancer cells expressing the enzyme α-1,3 galactosyl transferase (α-GT), which is the major barrier to xenotransplantation from lower mammals to humans (e.g., hyperacute rejection). Up to 2% of circulating human antibodies are directed against the α-GT epitope of algenpantucel-L and are the proposed mechanism of initiating the anti-tumor immune response.

Methods: Open-label, single arm, multi-institutional phase II study (NLG0205) to evaluate algenpantucel-L + standard adjuvant therapy (RTOG-9704, JAMA, 2008: gemcitabine + 5-FU-XRT) for pancreatic cancer patients undergoing R0/R1 resection. Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) are the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively.

Results: 73 patients (70 evaluable, 15 month median follow up) received gemcitabine + 5-FU-XRT + algenpantucel-L (mean 12 doses, range 1-14). Demographics and prognostic factors: median age 62 years, 47% female, 81.4% lymph node positive, median tumor size 3.2 cm (range 2-15 cm; 26% > 4cm) and 24% post-operative CA 19-9 > 90. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates at 12 and 24 months are 91% and 54%, respectively, comparing favorably to 63% and 32% expected based on the nomogram described by Brennan et al (Ann Surg, 2004). Likewise, the current median DFS of 16 months compares favorably to the 11 months observed in RTOG 9704. OS data continues to mature, with 74% still censored. Algenpantucel-L was well tolerated with no likely/directly attributable grade 3 SAEs. The most common adverse events were injection site pain and induration.

Conclusions: Addition of algenpantucel-L to standard adjuvant therapy for resected pancreatic cancer may improve survival. A phase III study began patient enrollment in May 2010.

[Table: see text]

A phase II Brown University Oncology Group study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (DOC) for metastatic esophagogastric cancer

e15541^

Background: We previously reported results of a phase I study of oxaliplatin, docetaxel, and capecitabine for advanced esophagogastric cancer (Evans et al, Am J C Onc 2007). In this phase II component we describe response rates, toxicity, and survival data. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic esophagogastric squamous or adenocarcinoma were eligible. Patients received oxaliplatin 50mg/m2 and docetaxel 35mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 as well as capecitabine 750 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–10 in each 21 day cycle. Results: 21 patients were enrolled and were evaluable. Median age was 65, range 46–83. All had adenocarcinoma histology. Three patients received prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 91 cycles were delivered, median of 4, range of 1–11. Median follow-up was 2 years; all patients have been followed for at least 1 year. Median overall survival was 11 months. The overall response rate was 43%. Three patients achieved a complete response. Two of these patients remain without evidence of disease at 38 and 12 months. Three patients experienced confirmed pulmonary emboli, and one patient expired at home with possible pulmonary embolism (exact cause unknown).Other Grade 3/4 toxicities were: nausea (3/21), fatigue (2/21), diarrhea (4/21), hand/foot (1/21), dehydration (3/21), esophagitis (2/21), infection (1/21), Electrolyte (3/21), neutropenic fever (2/21), neutropenia (4/21), anemia (1/21). Conclusions: DOC is an active and easily administered regimen for metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Consideration should be given for prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer.

[Table: see text]

ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions

In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting.

For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings.

For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

Neoadjuvant paclitaxel poliglumex, cisplatin, and radiation for esophageal cancer: A phase II trial

e15542

Background: Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX) is a drug conjugate that links paclitaxel to poly-L-glutamic acid thereby increasing its radiation enhancement factor to 4.0 to 8.0 compared to 1.5–2.0 for paclitaxel. The Brown University Oncology Group previously performed a phase I study establishing the dose of single agent PPX with radiation, and the combination of PPX, cisplatin and radiation for esophagogastric cancer. A phase II study was therefore initiated to evaluate the pathologic response rate of neoadjuvant PPX, cisplatin and radiation for patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or GE junction with no evidence of distant metastasis. Celiac nodal disease was allowed. Patients received weekly PPX 50mg/m2 and cisplatin 25mg/m2 for 6 weeks with concurrent with 50.4Gy of radiation. Six to eight weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy, patients underwent surgical resection. Results: Twenty-three eligible patients have been enrolled. The median age is 63 years. Grade 3/4 treatment related toxicities in the first 15 patients include dehydration (n=5), anorexia (n=5), esophagitis/dysphagia (n=4), electrolyte abnormalities (n=3), nausea (n=2), hypersensitivity (n=2), weight loss (n=1), and anemia (n=1). One patient developed carcinomatous meningitis during treatment. Five of the first 11 patients (45%) undergoing resection had a pathologic complete response. Conclusions: This preliminary data suggests that PPX may provide enhanced radiosensitization as compared to standard paclitaxel, consistent with the preclinical data of PPX and radiation.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Lapatinib and gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: A phase II study

e15653

Background: To determine the overall survival for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with lapatinib and gemcitabine. Methods: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer received lapatinib, 1,500 mg/day, and Gemcitabine, 1 gm/m2/week for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off, until disease progression. This multicenter phase II study was planned to enter 125 patients to evaluate if the treatment regimen could achieve a 1-year survival of 30% and a median survival of 7 months. An additional subset of 20 patients were to receive 2 months of single agent lapatinib followed by lapatinib and gemcitabine. Results: At a planned 6 month analysis, the Brown University Oncology Group Data Safety Monitoring Board terminated accrual after 29 patients due to futility analysis. The median survival was 4 months (95% CI, 2.0–5.5 months). The four patients who received single agent lapatinib all progressed at 1 month. Conclusions: Lapatinib is not effective in pancreatic cancer. Evaluation of HER2 inhibitors in pancreatic cancer is not warranted.

[Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and radiation in clinical stage II-III rectal cancer

4105^

Background: This study evaluates induction bevacizumab and FOLFOX followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with bevacizumab, weekly oxaliplatin, and continuous infusion 5-FU prior to surgical resection of newly-diagnosed Stage II or III rectal cancer. Methods: Eligible patients received one month of induction, biweekly bevacizumab (5mg/kg) and modified FOLFOX6. Patients then received 50.4Gy of radiation and concurrent bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1, 15, and 29), oxaliplatin (50 mg/m2/week for 6 weeks), and 5-FU (200mg/m2/day) as a continuous IV infusion throughout radiation. Due to gastrointestinal toxicity, the oxaliplatin dose was reduced to 40 mg/m2/week. Resection was performed 4 to 8 weeks after the completion of CRT. Adjuvant chemotherapy was started after 4 but less than 12 weeks following surgical resection and consisted of 6 biweekly treatments of modified FOLFOX6 and bevacizumab. Results: Twenty-six eligible patients were treated. The median age was 50. One patient developed a grade 4 arrhythmia during induction chemotherapy and was removed from the study. Of the remaining 25 patients, there were no other grade 3 or 4 toxicities during induction FOLFOX/bevacizumab. Toxicity was more significant during chemoradiation. Any grade 3 toxicity was experienced by 19 of 25 (76%) patients. Grade 3 toxicities included diarrhea (40%), neutropenia (16%), pain (16%), fatigue (8%), nausea (8%), and radiation dermatitis (8%) and bleeding with menstruation (4%). Grade 4 toxicities included neutropenia (4%), sepsis (4%) and nausea/diarrhea (4%). Six of 25 resected patients (24%) had a complete pathologic response. Eight of 25 patients (32%) developed post-operative wound complications including infection/abscess (n=4), fistula (n=2), ischemic colonic reservoir (n=1) and sterile fluid collection (n=1). Nine of 25 (36%) patients developed postoperative wound complications including infection (n=4), delayed healing (n=3), leak/abscess (n=2), sterile fluid collection (n=2), ischemic colonic reservoir (n=1), and fistula (n=1). Conclusions: Concurrent oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, continuous infusion 5-FU and radiation causes significant gastrointestinal toxicity. The pathologic complete response rate of this regimen to similar to other fluorouracil based chemoradiaton regimens. The high incidence of post-operative wound complications is concerning and consistent with other reports utilizing bevacizumab prior to major surgical resections.

[Table: see text]

ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions

In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting.

For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings.

For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

Correlation of RTOG 9704 (adjuvant therapy (rx) of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (pan ca)) radiation therapy quality assurance scores (RTQASc) with survival (S)

4523

Background: RTOG 9704 demonstrated a marginal S advantage (p=0.054) in multivariate analysis (MVA) of Gemcitabine (G) over 5FU before and after 5FU+RT for patients (pts) with pan ca resected for cure from the pan head but not from non-head sites (ASCO 2006, ASTRO 2006). This analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of RTQASc on S, S by treatment (rx) arm, and toxicity by rx arm. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized, phase III trial of the RTOG, ECOG, and SWOG. RTQASc was graded as per protocol (PP) or less than (<) PP. Using prospectively defined guidelines, <PP scores were variation acceptable (VA), variation unacceptable (VU), or incomplete/not evaluable (I/NE). I/NE pts were excluded from further analysis. Toxicities were scored by CTC, v 2.0. S is expressed as median S in yrs. Results: 416 pts had RTQASc of PP (216, 52%) or <PP (200, 48%; 42% VA, 6% VU). Frequency of PP and <PP did not differ by rx arm (PP = 55% on 5FU arm and 48% on G arm). Looking at PP vs <PP frequency of Grade 3+ Heme and Non- Heme toxicity did not vary significantly on the 5FU arm but did show a trend of < toxicity for PP pts on the G arm ( Table ). In contrast, S was increased for all (head, non-head) PP pts (median S 1.74 vs 1.47 yrs, p=0.019) and, in MVA, score of PP significantly impacted on S (p=0.02) but rx arm did not. PP and <PP S curves began to diverge at 14–15 months post surgery. For head pts, in MVA, RTQASc (PP superior to <PP) and rx arm (G superior to 5FU) both correlated with S (p=0.04, p=0.03, respectively). On the G arm PP pts had S of 1.89 yrs, significantly > than S of VA (1.41yrs) and VU (1.37yrs) pts. Conclusions: In this study prospectively defined RTQASc significantly correlated with S and effect of rx arm on S and showed a weaker effect on toxicity (G arm only). Timing of appearance of RTQASc effect on S implies effect on tumor control. In this context failure to consider RTQASc may confound observed outcomes and confuse correct understanding of the importance of RT.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Post-resection CA 19–9 predicts overall survival (OS) in patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiation: A secondary endpoint of RTOG 9704

4522

Background: CA 19–9 is an important tumor marker in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Several single institutional studies have demonstrated post-resection CA 19–9 to be an important prognostic factor. A secondary endpoint of RTOG 9704, a phase III adjuvant chemoradiation trial for pancreatic cancer, was to prospectively evaluate the ability of post-resectional CA 19–9 to predict survival. Methods: A total of 538 patients were accrued to this trial, of which 385 had evaluable CA 19–9 levels. These were analyzed using ELISA GI-MA kits provided by Diagnostic Products Corporation, a Siemens Company. CA 19–9 expression was analyzed as a dichotomized variable (<180 vs. =180). Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to characterize the contribution of CA 19–9 expression on OS. The following additional variables were included in the multivariate analysis: treatment, nodal involvement, tumor diameter (< or > 3cm), and margin status. Actuarial estimates for OS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Most patients had CA 19–9 < 180 (n=220, 57%), while 34% were Lewis Antigen negative (unable to express CA 19–9) and 33 (9%) patients had levels >180. Survival was statistically significantly improved among patients with CA 19–9 <180 compared with those whose CA 19–9 =180 (HR=3.58(95% CI=2.40–5.34), p<0.0001) ( table ). This corresponds to a 72% reduction in the risk of death. This improvement was observed among patients with pancreas head and non-head tumors when analyzed separately. The multivariate analysis confirms that CA 19–9 is a highly significant predictor of OS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Conclusions: This prospective analysis of CA 19–9 in 385 patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiation definitively confirms the importance of post-resectional CA 19–9 in pancreatic cancer patients who have undergone resection. Patients with post-resection CA 19–9 >180 should be considered for additional therapy.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of painful osseous metastases: A multicenter trial: American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6661

9101

Background: Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) can destroy tissue in a defined area. Single institutions have reported that RFA can reduce pain from bone metastases. To confirm this, the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) completed a multicenter study of RFA for bone metastases. Methods: Eligible patients had bone pain in one dominant site: tumor size < 8 cm, and location > 1 cm from the spinal cord or cauda equina. RFA was performed under CT guidance. The Memorial Pain Assessment Card was used prior to RFA and repeated daily for two weeks, and at 1 and 3 months after RFA. AEs were recorded in addition to four different pain assessment measures: pain relief, patient mood, pain intensity, and pain severity. Results: Fifty-six patients had RFA at 9 centers. Metastatic sites were pelvis (24), chest wall (19), thoracolumbar spine (8), and extremities (5). Six out of 56 patients experienced at least one adverse event of grade 3 or higher, yielding an AE rate of 10.7% (95%CI is 2.6% to18.8%). AEs attributed directly to RFA were nerve injury in 2 patients. Of the 56 participants, 43 completed the 1 month follow-up and 33 completed the 3 month follow-up. At the time of this analysis, assuming that missing data were missing at random and after adjusting for all covariates, RFA showed significant effect in reducing pain at 1 and 3 month follow-up for all 4 pain assessment measures. The average increase in pain relief from pre-RFA to 1 month follow-up is 26.4 (P<0.0001) and the increase from pre-RFA to 3 month follow-up is 17.2 (P=0.003). The average increase in mood from pre-RFA to 1 month follow-up is 21.5 (P<0.0001) and the increase from pre-RFA to 3 month follow-up is 16.3 (P=0.001). The average decrease in pain intensity from pre-RFA to 1 month follow-up is 25.9 (P<0.0001) and the decrease from pre-RFA to 3 month follow-up is 13.0 (P=0.02). The odds of being in lower pain severity at 1 month follow-up is 12.6 (P<.0001) times higher than that at pre-RFA, and the odds at 3 month follow-up is 7.1 (P<0.0001) times higher than that at pre- RFA. Conclusions: This cooperative group trial confirms that RFA can safely palliate pain due to bone metastases. ACRIN receives funding from the National Cancer Institute through the grants U01 CA079778 and U01 CA080098.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), cisplatin and concurrent radiation for esophageal and gastric cancer: A phase I study

15130

Background: PPX is a conjugate of paclitaxel to a polyglutamate polymer. Preclinically, PPX demonstrated a radiation enhancement factor (REF) >7.0, versus 1.5–2.0 for paclitaxel. (Milas et al Int J Rad Onc 55:2003, Li et al. Clin Cancer Res 6:2000). The maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of PPX was determined previously to be 70 mg/m2 /week with concurrent radiation. We initiated a phase I study of PPX, cisplatin, and concurrent radiation with patients with esophageal and gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemoradiation for locoregional control, adjuvant, or neoadjuvant treatment were eligible. All patients received radiation at a dose of 50.4 Gy delivered in 28 fractions (5 fractions per week for 5 1/2 weeks), and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36. PPX was given as a 10 minute infusion in escalating dosages prior to each cisplatin dose. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as grade 4 hematologic toxicity, esophagitis, nausea/vomiting, or dehydration, or any other grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicity. Patients were enrolled in successive cohorts of three. The MTD was defined as the dose level at which no more than 2 of 6 patients have DLTs. Results: Eleven patients have been entered over 2 dose levels of PPX: 50 mg/m2 (six patients, dose level 1), and 60mg/m2 (5 patients, dose level 2). Five patients had esophageal cancer and six had gastric cancer. All histologies were adenocarcinomas. One of six patients treated at dose level had a DLT (esophagitis). Three of five patients had DLTs at dose level 2, including esophagitis, nausea, vomiting, and dehydration. Conclusions: PPX is a novel radiation sensitizer for patients with esophageal and gastric cancer. The MTD for PPX is 50 mg/m2 /week in combination with cisplatin 25mg/ m2 /week for 6 weeks, and 50.4 Gy concurrent radiation for patients with esophagogastric cancer. A phase II study of PPX/cisplatin and radiation will be initiated.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of oxaliplatin in advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC): A phase I study

14010

Background: We performed this phase I study is to evaluate the feasibility and determine the Maximally Tolerated Dose of HAI-oxaliplatin given every 3 weeks in advanced HCC. Methods: Patients (pts) with unresectable or recurrent HCC were eligible for therapy on this protocol. HAI-oxaliplatin was administered over 2 hours via a percutaneously placed hepatic arterial catheter or a surgically inserted hepatic arterial infusion pump. Therapy was continued until disease progression or excessive toxicity not amenable to appropriate modifications. Restaging was performed after every 2 cycles. Dose escalation levels for HAI-oxaliplatin are 90 mg/m2, 110 mg/m2, 130 mg/m2 and 150 mg/m2 given every 3 weeks. Results: A total of 16 patients have been enrolled and toxicity data are available for all patients. Median age was 61 yrs (range 47–84 yrs), there were 15 men and 1 woman. The stage distribution is: stage II-3 pts, stage III- 7 pts, stage IV- 6 pts. Prior therapies including chemoembolization (CE) in 3 pts, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in 3 pts, and both RFA and CE in 1 pt. A total of 37 cycles (range 1–3) have been delivered. Levels 1 and 3 had to be expanded to 6 pts each due to major toxicity in 2 pts at each level. Level 2 was expanded as 1 pt was non-compliant. Major toxicities are shown below. One patient developed embolic bowel ischemia after his HAI procedure. There was one episode each of duodenal perforation and duodenal ulceration. Traditional grade 3/4 hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities were infrequent. Among 13 pts receiving at least 2 cycles, 3 pts had partial responses (PR) and 4 pts had stable disease (SD). Greater than 50% reduction in AFP was seen in the 3 pts with PR and 2 pts with SD. Conclusions: HAI-oxaliplatin is feasible, well tolerable, and demonstrates activity in this population of pts with advanced HCC. [Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A phase I/II study of oxaliplatin, docetaxel, and capecitabine in advanced carcinoma of the esophagus and stomach

14046

Background: The Brown University Oncology Group has attempted to modify the regimen of docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF) to reduce toxicity, simplify administration and maintain efficacy. We have a completed a phase I/II study of weekly doxetaxel, carboplatin and capecitabine for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (Safran et al, Am J Clin Oncol, 2006). In this phase I study we have substituted oxaliplatin for carboplatin to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of weekly docetaxel and oxaliplatin with capecitabine. Methods: Patients with metastatic esophageal and gastric cancers received docetaxel and oxaliplatin on days 1 and 8 and capecitabine in divided doses, twice daily, on days 1–10, with each cycle repeated every 21 days. Patients were treated at 4 dose levels as shown in the table. Results: Fourteen patients have been enrolled. The median age was 58.5 years. Eight patients had esophageal cancer and six had gastric cancer. Grade 3/4 dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) of diarrhea, nausea, and febrile neutropenia occurred in three of four patients at dose level 3. An intermediate dose level was added (2A), reducing the capecitabine dose. Conclusion: Oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 and docetaxel 35 mg/m2 day 1 and 8 with capecitabine 750 mg/m2 BID × 10 days in 21 day cycles may represent a promising, easily administered regimen for metastatic esophageal and gastric cancer. Enrollment continues at dose level 2A. [Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

RTOG 9704 a phase III study of adjuvant pre and post chemoradiation (CRT) 5-FU vs. gemcitabine (G) for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma

4007

Background: RTOG 9704 was designed to determine if the addition of G to postoperative adjuvant 5-FU CRT improved survival for patients(pts) with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: In this Intergroup trial involving RTOG, ECOG and SWOG, pts post gross total resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (path stage T1 - 4, N0 - 1, M0) were randomized to receive pre and post CRT 5-FU vs pre and post CRT G. 5-FU = continuous (CI) at 250 mg/m2/day. G = 1000 mg/m2 IV weekly. Both were given over 3 weeks pre and 12 weeks post - CRT. CRT = 50.4 Gy 1.8 Gy/fx/day with CI 5-FU, 250 mg/m2/day during RT for all pts. Pts were stratified by nodal status (uninvolved vs involved), primary tumor diameter ( < 3 cm vs ≥ 3 cm) and surgical margins (negative vs positive vs unknown). Survival was the primary endpoint with an original targeted accrual of 330 pts. Rapid enrollment allowed study amendment for increased targeted accrual to add survival among pts with lesions of the pancreatic head as a primary, prospective endpoint. Results: From 7/98 - 7/02, 538 pts were entered; 442 were eligible and analyzable. Major reasons for patient ineligibility were serum not sent for CA-19–9 analysis (n=22) and treatment starting > 8 weeks post surgery (n=19). Treatment arms were well balanced except for T-stage (T3/4 > for G, p=0.013). Pts with pancreatic head tumors(n=380) experienced significantly improved survival, with median and 3-year survival of 18.8 months and 31% respectively for the G arm vs. 16.7 months and 21% for the 5-FU arm (p=0.047; HR=0.79, CI=0.63–0.99). When analysis was inclusive of pts with body/tail tumors(n=442) no significant difference in survival was found (p=0.20). No significant difference in non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen. The grade 4 hematologic toxicity rate was 14% in the G arm and 2% in the 5-FU arm (p<0.0001) without difference in febrile neutropenia/infection. The ability to complete chemotherapy (86%, 5-FU vs. 90%, G) and RT (85%, 5-FU vs. 88%, G) as per study was similar. Conclusions: The addition of G to postoperative adjuvant 5-FU CRT significantly improves survival in pts with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

GW572016, gemcitabine and GW572016, gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, a two-stage, phase I study for advanced pancreaticobiliary cancer

4002

Background: GW572016 is an orally active small molecule that reversibly inhibits ErbB1 and ErbB2 tyrosine kinases. ErbB1 is commonly expressed in pancreaticobiliary cancers. ErbB2 is the preferred heterodimer partner for other ErbB receptors. Baerman et al demonstrated that GW572016 was active against pancreatic cancer cell lines (ASCO GI 2005). We have completed a two-stage, phase I evaluation of GW572016 and gemcitabine (gem), and GW572016 with the combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX). Methods: Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas or bile ducts were treated with GW572016 and either weekly gemcitabine (1gm/m2/week, 3 weeks on, 1 week off) or GEMOX (gemcitabine 1g/m2 over 100 minutes and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2, every 14 days). Cohort 1: Weekly gem + GW572016, 1000mg/day. Cohort 2: Weekly gem + GW572016, 1500 mg/day. Cohort 3: GEMOX + GW572016 1000 mg/day. Cohort 4: GEMOX + GW572016 1500 mg/day. Results: Twenty-one patients have been treated; pancreatic cancer (n=15), biliary cancer (n=6). The median age was 64 (41–78). One of six patients in cohort 2 had grade 3 diarrhea. Dose limiting grade 3 nausea occurred in 2 of 5 patients in cohort 4. Two patients had a temporary decrease in cardiac ejection fraction. Five of 20 evaluable patients (25%) responded. Conclusions: GW572016 1500 mg/day can be administered will full dosage gem. The MTD of GW572016 is 1000mg/day with GEMOX. Dramatic responses have been demonstrated in patients with diffuse liver and peritoneal metastases suggesting that erbB1/erbB2 signaling is important in pancreaticobiliary cancers. Further evaluation of GW572016 in pancreaticobiliary cancer is indicated.

[Table: see text]

Cetuximab, paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiation for esophageal and gastric cancer

4029

Background: Cetuximab is an IgG1, chimerized, monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the epidermal growth factor receptor. Cetuximab improves survival when combined with radiation for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the addition of cetuximab to concurrent chemoradiation for patients with esophageal and gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer of the esophagus or stomach without distant organ metastases were eligible. Patients with locally advanced disease from mediastinal, celiac, portal and gastric lymphadenopathy were eligible. Surgical resection was not required. Clinical complete response was defined as no tumor on postreatment endoscopic biopsy. Patients received cetuximab, 400mg/m2 week #1 then 250 mg/m2/week for 5 weeks, paclitaxel, 50 mg/m2/week, and carboplatin, AUC =2 weekly for 6 weeks, with concurrent 50.4 Gy radiation. Results: Thirty-seven patients have been entered. The median age was 61 (range of 30–87). Thirty-four have esophageal cancer and 3 have gastric cancer. Of the patients with esophageal cancer, twenty-five have adenocarcinoma and nine have squamous cell cancer. Thus far, 30 patients have completed treatment and are evaluable for toxicity. There have been no grade 4 non-hematologic toxicities and 1 pt had grade 4 neutropenia (3%). Six patients (20%) had grade 3 esophagitis. Other grade 3 toxicities included dehydration (n=5), rash (n=9), and paclitaxel/cetuximab hypersensitivity reactions (n=2). Eighteen of 27 patients (67%) have had clinical complete response. Seven pts out of 16 (43%) who have gone to surgery have had a pathologic CR. Conclusions: Cetuximab can be safely administered with chemoradiation for patients with esophageal cancer. Consistent with the data in head and neck cancer, cetuximab increases cutaneous toxicity but does not increase mucositis/esophagitis when combined with chemoradiation. Further evaluation is ongoing.

[Table: see text]

A multi-center phase II study of BMS-247550 (Ixabepilone) by two schedules in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma previously treated with a taxane

PURPOSE

Ixabepilone is one of the epothilones, a new class of cytotoxics, that function as microtubule-stabilizing agents. With the primary endpoint of assessing ixabepilone's response rate against metastatic gastric cancer previously treated with a taxane, we performed a multi-center phase II trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with histologically documented metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, who had previously received a taxane, were eligible. Patients were required to have near normal organ function, > or =18 years of age, ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. A written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Ixabepilone was administered over one hour intravenously at a dose of 50 mg/m2 every 21 days (23 patients; cohort A) and 24 subsequent patients were treated with an amended protocol schedule to receive 6 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 every 21 days (cohort B).

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were treated. Most patients were men with a median performance status of 1. Two of 23 patients in cohort A achieved a confirmed partial response (9%, 95% CI 1.1-28%) but none of the 24 patients in cohort B achieved a response. A higher proportion of patients in cohort A experienced Grade 3/4 toxicities compared with those in cohort B.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixabepilone, on a once every 21-day schedule, is modestly active against metastatic gastric cancer previously treated with a taxane. The days 1-5 every 21 days schedule had a more favorable safety profile but no activity. The results of this study suggest that once every 21-day ixabepilone schedule should be pursued further in untreated gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients.