Anthony Maraveyas

Cisplatin plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine for Biliary Tract Cancer

BACKGROUND There is no established standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. We initially conducted a randomized, phase 2 study involving 86 patients to compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine alone. After we found an improvement in progression-free survival, the trial was extended to the phase 3 trial reported here. METHODS We randomly assigned 410 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer to receive either cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for six cycles) for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 8.2 months and 327 deaths, the median overall survival was 11.7 months among the 204 patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 8.1 months among the 206 patients in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 5.0 months in the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). In addition, the rate of tumor control among patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group was significantly increased (81.4% vs. 71.8%, P=0.049). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with the exception of more neutropenia in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group; the number of neutropenia-associated infections was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS As compared with gemcitabine alone, cisplatin plus gemcitabine was associated with a significant survival advantage without the addition of substantial toxicity. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with advanced biliary cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262769.)

Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response. METHODS We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428. RESULTS Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17). INTERPRETATION Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II Study Comparing the Tolerability and Efficacy of Ipilimumab Administered with or without Prophylactic Budesonide in Patients with Unresectable Stage III or IV Melanoma

Purpose: Diarrhea (with or without colitis) is an immune-related adverse event (irAE) associated with ipilimumab. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, multinational phase II trial was conducted to determine whether prophylactic budesonide (Entocort EC), a nonabsorbed oral steroid, reduced the rate of grade ≥2 diarrhea in ipilimumab-treated patients with advanced melanoma. Experimental Design: Previously treated and treatment-naïve patients (N = 115) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma received open-label ipilimumab (10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses) with daily blinded budesonide (group A) or placebo (group B) through week 16. The first scheduled tumor evaluation was at week 12; eligible patients received maintenance treatment starting at week 24. Diarrhea was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 3.0. Patients kept a diary describing their bowel habits. Results: Budesonide did not affect the rate of grade ≥2 diarrhea, which occurred in 32.7% and 35.0% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. There were no bowel perforations or treatment-related deaths. Best overall response rates were 12.1% in group A and 15.8% in group B, with a median overall survival of 17.7 and 19.3 months, respectively. Within each group, the disease control rate was higher in patients with grade 3 to 4 irAEs than in patients with grade 0 to 2 irAEs, although many patients with grade 1 to 2 irAEs experienced clinical benefit. Novel patterns of response to ipilimumab were observed. Conclusions: Ipilimumab shows activity in advanced melanoma, with encouraging survival and manageable adverse events. Budesonide should not be used prophylactically for grade ≥2 diarrhea associated with ipilimumab therapy. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5591–8)

Gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus dalteparin thromboprophylaxis in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND Annualised figures show an up to 7-fold higher incidence of vascular thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) compared to other common malignancies. Concurrent VTE has been shown to confer a worse overall prognosis in APC. METHODS One hundred and twenty three APC patients were randomised to receive either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) or the same with weight-adjusted dalteparin (WAD) for 12 weeks. Primary end-point was the reduction of all-type VTE during the study period. NCT00462852, ISRCTN: 76464767. FINDINGS The incidence of all-type VTE during the WAD treatment period (<100 days from randomisation) was reduced from 23% to 3.4% (p = 0.002), with a risk ratio (RR)of 0.145, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.035-0.612) and an 85% risk reduction. All-type VTE throughout the whole follow-up period was reduced from 28% to 12% (p = 0.039), RR = 0.419, 95% CI (0.187-0.935) and a 58% risk reduction. Lethal VTE <100 days was seen only in the control arm, 8.3% compared to 0% (p = 0.057), RR = 0.092, 95% CI (0.005-1.635). INTERPRETATION Weight adjusted dalteparin used as primary prophylaxis for 12 weeks is safe and produces a highly significant reduction of all-type VTE during the prophylaxis period. The benefit is maintained after dalteparin withdrawal although decreases with time.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study - The UK ABC-01 Study.

Background:We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy.Methods:Patients, aged ⩾18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) ⩾60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m−2 on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m−2 followed by G 1000 mg m−2 D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression.Results:In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3–4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively).Conclusion:Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.

Chronicle: results of a randomised phase III trial in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation randomising postoperative adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus control

BACKGROUND In stage III colon cancer, oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In rectal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT), we examined the benefit of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned following fluoropyrimidine-based CRT and curative resection to observation or six cycles of XELOX. The primary end point was DFS; secondary end points were acute toxicity and OS. 390 patients were required in each arm, to detect an improvement in 3-year DFS from 40% to 50.5%, with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS The study closed prematurely in 2008 because of poor accrual. Only 113 patients were randomly assigned to either observation (n = 59) or XELOX (n = 54). Compliance was poor, 93% allocated chemotherapy started and 48% completed six cycles. Protocolised dose reductions in XELOX were 39%, and levels of G3/G4 toxicity 40%. After a median follow-up of 44.8 months, 16 patients (27%) in the observation arm had relapsed or died compared with 12 patients (22%) in XELOX. The 3-year DFS rate was 78% with XELOX and 71% with observation [hazard ratio (HR) for DFS = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-1.69; P = 0.56]. The 3-year OS for XELOX and observation were 89% and 88%, respectively (HR for OS = 1.18; 95% CI 0.43-3.26; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS The observed improvement in DFS for adjuvant XELOX and similar OS were not statistically significant, as expected given the small number of patients and consequent low power. Our findings support the need for trials that test the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER NCT00427713.BACKGROUND In stage III colon cancer, oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX) improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). In rectal adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT), we examined the benefit of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients were randomly assigned following fluoropyrimidine-based CRT and curative resection to observation or six cycles of XELOX. The primary end point was DFS; secondary end points were acute toxicity and OS. 390 patients were required in each arm, to detect an improvement in 3-year DFS from 40% to 50.5%, with 85% power and two-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS The study closed prematurely in 2008 because of poor accrual. Only 113 patients were randomly assigned to either observation (n = 59) or XELOX (n = 54). Compliance was poor, 93% allocated chemotherapy started and 48% completed six cycles. Protocolised dose reductions in XELOX were 39%, and levels of G3/G4 toxicity 40%. After a median follow-up of 44.8 months, 16 patients (27%) in the observation arm had relapsed or died compared with 12 patients (22%) in XELOX. The 3-year DFS rate was 78% with XELOX and 71% with observation [hazard ratio (HR) for DFS = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-1.69; P = 0.56]. The 3-year OS for XELOX and observation were 89% and 88%, respectively (HR for OS = 1.18; 95% CI 0.43-3.26; P = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS The observed improvement in DFS for adjuvant XELOX and similar OS were not statistically significant, as expected given the small number of patients and consequent low power. Our findings support the need for trials that test the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT00427713.

Chemotherapy for Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the EU. Various randomised studies have shown a survival benefit with chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5FU/FA) for 6 months after curatively resected node-positive colon cancer has become the standard practice. However, controversy still exists regarding the optimal regimen and whether to treat node-negative patients. The latest QUASAR trial results seem to strengthen the argument in favour of adjuvant treatment of Dukes B cancer. Patients with Dukes B tumours and any adverse prognostic indicator should be given the benefit of adjuvant therapy. A number of novel agents (oxaliplatin, irinotecan) showing activity in advanced disease are currently being evaluated in the adjuvant setting. A patient with metastatic colorectal cancer should today be expected to have a median survival of 18–20 months compared to that of 11–14 months only a few years ago. 5FU/FA has been the mainstay of therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer for over 40 years and confers a survival benefit over supportive care. The response rate of 5FU is improved by modulation with FA or by continuous infusional regimens (currently the best expected response rate is around 20–25%). As per the recent National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines, the oral agents capecitabine or tegafur with uracil (in combination with FA) can be used as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer and, although their response rate has not been directly compared to infusional 5FU, survival is unlikely to be inferior. Newer chemotherapeutic agents like irinotecan and oxaliplatin are now entering regular usage due to improved response rates (around 50% in 5FU/FA-containing doublets) and survival. Irinotecan monotherapy is second-line treatment approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, although sequential infusional 5FU/FA irinotecan to infusional 5FU/FA oxaliplatin may convey the best survival with the least side effects. The position of combination chemotherapy before (to downstage) or after metastasectomy (usually from the liver) is still a topic of heated debate. Other routes (intrahepatic, intraperitoneal) are still to be proven and not recommendable outside the trial setting. The latest results of chemotherapy combinations with biological treatments (bevacuzimab and cetuximab) have been very promising indeed. Further improvements in survival, response and quality of life are expected.

Ipilimumab in the real world: the UK expanded access programme experience in previously treated advanced melanoma patients

Before licensing, ipilimumab was first made available to previously treated advanced melanoma patients through an expanded access programme (EAP) across Europe. We interrogated data from UK EAP patients to inform future clinical practice. Clinicians registered in the UK EAP provided anonymized patient data using a prespecified variable fields datasheet. Data collected were baseline patient characteristics, treatment delivered, toxicity, response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were received for 193 previously treated metastatic melanoma patients, whose primary sites were cutaneous (82%), uveal (8%), mucosal (2%), acral (3%) or unknown (5%). At baseline, 88% of patients had a performance status (PS) of 0–1 and 20% had brain metastases. Of the patients, 53% received all four planned cycles of ipilimumab; the most common reason for stopping early was disease progression, including death from melanoma. Toxicity was recorded for 171 patients, 30% of whom experienced an adverse event of grade 3 or higher, the most common being diarrhoea (13%) and fatigue (9%). At a median follow-up of 23 months, the median progression-free survival and OS were 2.8 and 6.1 months, respectively; the 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 31 and 14.8%, respectively. The 2-year OS was significantly lower for patients with poorer PS (P<0.0001), low albumin concentrations (P<0.0001), the presence of brain metastases (P=0.007) and lactate dehydrogenase levels more than two times the upper limit of normal (P<0.0001) at baseline. These baseline characteristics are negative predictors of benefit from ipilimumab and should be taken into consideration before prescription.

Tumour and microparticle tissue factor expression and cancer thrombosis

Cancer is frequently complicated by venous thromboembolic events (VTE), which pose a significant health burden due to the associated high morbidity and mortality rates, yet the exact details of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying their development are yet to be fully elucidated. Tissue factor (TF), the primary initiator of coagulation, is often overexpressed in malignancy and as such is a prime candidate in predicting the hypercoagulable state. Further exploration of this potential role has identified increases in the number of TF-expressing microparticles (MP) in the circulation of cancer patients, in particular in those known to have high incidences of thromboembolic complications. The risk of VTE in cancer is found to be further elevated by chemotherapy. Chemotherapy may, in eliciting cancer cell apoptosis, result in an increase in release of circulating procoagulant MP. We discuss a potential role of elevated tumour TF expression and increased circulating TF-positive MP in predicting VTE risk.

Low molecular weight heparin downregulates tissue factor expression and activity by modulating growth factor receptor-mediated induction of nuclear factor-κB

Treatment of cancer patients with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) appears to have beneficial effects. In this study, the influence of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on tissue factor (TF) expression and activity in five cell lines from various tissues was analysed and explored. Incubation of cells with LMWH (0-2000μg/ml) resulted in the downregulation of TF mRNA expression which was both LMWH concentration-dependent and time-dependent. Downregulation of TF was also measured as decreased cellular TF antigen and activity. Consistently, incubation of cells with LMWH suppressed the nuclear localisation and the transcriptional activity of NFκB. Decreased TF mRNA was largely achievable by incubating the cells with an NFκB inhibitor alone whilst incubation with betulinic acid to activate NFκB reversed the inhibitory influence of LMWH. Cells were also incubated with a range of concentrations of EGF (0-10ng/ml), bFGF (0-20ng/ml) or VEGF (0-4ng/ml) in the presence or absence of LMWH (200μg/ml) for 24h and TF antigen measured. Inclusion of LMWH reduced TF expression in response to EGF, bFGF or VEGF but TF expression was partially restored by increasing concentrations of the growth factors. We conclude that LMWH downregulates TF expression in vitro through a mechanism that involves interference with the function of growth factors which in turn is mediated through the downregulation of the transcriptional activity of NFκB. This mechanism may also explain some of the beneficial influences attributed to LMWH therapy in the treatment of cancer patients.