A prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: a study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours and is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine, we initiated a prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. The rational of adding sunitinib was its putative antiangiogenic mechanism of action.

METHODS

A total of 106 eligible patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic PDAC without previous system therapy were randomised to receive GEM at a dosage of 1.000mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15 q28 versus a combination of SUNGEM at a dosage of GEM 1.000mg/m(2) d1+8 and sunitinib 50mg p.o. d1-14, q21d. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), toxicity and overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

The confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) population (N=106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 10.4-18.1 weeks) for GEM and 11.6 weeks for SUNGEM (95%-CI: 7.0-18.0 weeks; p=0.78 one-sided log-rank). The ORR was 6.1% (95%-CI: 0.7-20.2%) for GEM and for 7.1% (95%-CI: 0.9-23.5%) for SUNGEM (p=0.87). The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95%-CI: 12.4-22.3 weeks) for GEM and 18.0 weeks (95%-CI: 11.3-19.3 weeks) for SUNGEM (p=0.60; two-sided log-rank). The median OS was 36.7 weeks (95%-CI: 20.6-49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm and 30.4 weeks (95%-CI: 18.1-37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM (p=0.78, one-sided log-rank). In regard to toxicities, suspected SAEs were reported in 53.7% in the GEM arm and 71.2% in the SUNGEM arm. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was statistically significantly higher in the SUNGEM arm with 48.1% versus 27.8% in the GEM arm (p=0.045, two sided log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination SUNGEM was not sufficient superior in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to GEM alone in regard to efficacy but was associated with more toxicity.

The 9p24.3 breakpoint of a constitutional t(6;9)(p12;p24) in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia maps close to the putative promoter region of the DMRT2 gene

B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) is a very common hematological malignancy. Although several alterations in different loci have been identified and established as prognostic factors the pathogenetic cascade remains obscure. Here we give an account on a 71-year-old man with B-CLL and a translocation t(6;9) in his diagnostic bone marrow. Subsequent chromosome analysis of his blood lymphocytes revealed a constitutional karyotype 46,XY,t(6;9) (p12;p24) that has not been previously reported. Seeking for gene disruption correlated with the B-CLL we precisely mapped both breakpoints by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with chromosome-specific bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones and their long-range polymerase chain reaction (LRPCR) subfragments. An 11-kb LRPCR subfragment derived from RP11-399A15 was found to span the breakpoint at 6p12.1. FISH analysis with a 12-kb LRPCR fragment derived from RP11-147I11 which overlaps with RP11-110M16 as well as with a cDNA for DMRT2 (doublesex and mab-3 related transcription factor 2) maps the 9p24.3 breakpoint maximum 10 kb upstream from DMRT2. In silico analysis of the transcripts within the vicinity of the breakpoints revealed that the translocation does not disrupt any known genes but could affect the putative DMRT2 promoter. Long range effects on gene expression cannot be excluded so far.