E. Gabriela Chiorean

Increased Survival in Pancreatic Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine

BACKGROUND In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

Phase 1 Study of the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of TH-302, a Hypoxia-Activated Prodrug, in Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies

Purpose: The objectives of this phase 1, first-in-human study were to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary activity of the hypoxia-activated prodrug TH-302 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Experimental Design: TH-302 was administered intravenously over 30 to 60 minutes in two regimens: three times weekly dosing followed by 1 week off (arm A) and every 3-week dosing (arm B). Results: Fifty-seven patients enrolled (arm A: N = 37 and arm B: N = 20). The TH-302 dose was escalated from 7.5 to 670 mg/m2 in arm A and from 670 to 940 mg/m2 in arm B. The most common adverse events were nausea, skin rash, fatigue, and vomiting. Hematologic toxicity was mild and limited. Grade 3 skin and mucosal toxicities were dose limiting at 670 mg/m2 in arm A; the MTD was 575 mg/m2. In arm B, grade 3 fatigue and grade 3 vaginitis/proctitis were dose limiting at 940 mg/m2; the MTD was 670 mg/m2. Plasma concentrations of TH-302 and the active metabolite Br-IPM (brominated version of isophosphoramide mustard) increased proportionally with dose. Two partial responses were noted in patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and melanoma in arm A at 480 and 670 mg/m2. Stable disease was observed in arms A and B in 18 and 9 patients, respectively. Conclusions: The MTD of TH-302 was 575 mg/m2 weekly and 670 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Skin and mucosal toxicities were DLTs. On the basis of responses in metastatic melanoma and SCLC, further investigations in these indications were initiated. Clin Cancer Res; 17(9); 2997–3004. ©2011 AACR.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine Plus TH-302 Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m(2) (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m(2) (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. RESULTS Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (-5,398 v -549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302-related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).

Colorectal cancer detection using targeted serum metabolic profiling.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent and deadly cancers in the world. Despite an expanding knowledge of its molecular pathogenesis during the past two decades, robust biomarkers to enable screening, surveillance, and therapy monitoring of CRC are still lacking. In this study, we present a targeted liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based metabolic profiling approach for identifying biomarker candidates that could enable highly sensitive and specific CRC detection using human serum samples. In this targeted approach, 158 metabolites from 25 metabolic pathways of potential significance were monitored in 234 serum samples from three groups of patients (66 CRC patients, 76 polyp patients, and 92 healthy controls). Partial least-squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) models were established, which proved to be powerful for distinguishing CRC patients from both healthy controls and polyp patients. Receiver operating characteristic curves generated based on these PLS-DA models showed high sensitivities (0.96 and 0.89, respectively, for differentiating CRC patients from healthy controls or polyp patients), good specificities (0.80 and 0.88), and excellent areas under the curve (0.93 and 0.95). Monte Carlo cross validation was also applied, demonstrating the robust diagnostic power of this metabolic profiling approach.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2017: Clinical practice guidelines in Oncology

Ductal adenocarcinoma and its variants account for most pancreatic malignancies. High-quality multiphase imaging can help to preoperatively distinguish between patients eligible for resection with curative intent and those with unresectable disease. Systemic therapy is used in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant pancreatic cancer setting, as well as in the management of locally advanced unresectable and metastatic disease. Clinical trials are critical for making progress in treatment of pancreatic cancer. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma focus on diagnosis and treatment with systemic therapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection.

A Phase I Study of Sunitinib Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors

PURPOSE This open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study assessed the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sunitinib (25, 37.5, or 50 mg) was administered orally once daily on three dosing schedules: 4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off treatment (Schedule 4/2); 2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment (Schedule 2/1); and continuous daily dosing (CDD schedule). Capecitabine (825, 1,000, or 1,250 mg/m(2)) was administered orally twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for all patients. Sunitinib and capecitabine doses were escalated in serial patient cohorts. RESULTS Seventy-three patients were treated. Grade 3 adverse events included abdominal pain, mucosal inflammation, fatigue, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome. The MTD for Schedule 4/2 and the CDD schedule was sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice per day; the MTD for Schedule 2/1 was sunitinib 50 mg/d plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice per day. There were no clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Nine partial responses were confirmed in patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 3) and breast, thyroid, neuroendocrine, bladder, and colorectal cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma (each n = 1). CONCLUSION The combination of sunitinib and capecitabine resulted in an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors. Further evaluation of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine may be undertaken using the MTD for any of the three treatment schedules.

Prognostic Factors of Survival in a Randomized Phase III Trial (MPACT) of Weekly nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND nab-Paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), based on superiority over gemcitabine demonstrated in the phase III MPACT trial. Previously, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and the presence of liver metastases were shown to be predictive of survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine treatment. This analysis sought to further explore the relationship between clinical characteristics and survival in the MPACT trial and to identify potential predictors of overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with MPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors and a stepwise multivariate analysis of prespecified baseline prognostic factors were performed. RESULTS Treatment effect was significantly associated with survival, with a similar magnitude of reduction in risk of death compared with the previously reported primary analysis. Treatment effect consistently favored nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine across the majority of the prespecified factors. In addition to KPS score and presence of liver metastases, age and number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors of overall and progression-free survival. Baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival in this analysis. CONCLUSION The results of this analysis confirm broad utility of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the treatment of MPC. In addition, these findings suggest that KPS score, presence of liver metastases, age, and number of metastatic sites are important predictors of survival that may be useful when making treatment decisions and designing future clinical trials.

An Open-Label Phase Ib Dose-Escalation Study of TRC105 (Anti-Endoglin Antibody) with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Purpose: Endoglin, an endothelial cell membrane receptor expressed on angiogenic tumor vessels, is essential for angiogenesis and upregulated in the setting of VEGF inhibition. TRC105 is an anti-endoglin IgG1 monoclonal antibody that potentiates VEGF inhibitors in preclinical models. This study assessed safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab. Experimental Design: Patients (n = 38) with advanced solid tumors, Eastern Cooperative Group performance status 0–1, and normal organ function were treated with escalating doses of TRC105 plus bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using a standard 3 + 3 phase I design. Results: TRC105 and bevacizumab were well tolerated at their recommended single-agent doses (10 mg/kg) when the initial dose of TRC105 was delayed by one week and divided over 2 days to limit the frequency of headache. The concurrent administration of bevacizumab and TRC105 did not otherwise potentiate known toxicities of TRC105 or bevacizumab. Hypertension and proteinuria were observed, though not at rates expected for single-agent bevacizumab. Several patients who had previously progressed on bevacizumab or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR TKI) treatment experienced reductions in tumor volume, including two partial responses by RECIST, and 6 remained without progression for longer periods than during their prior VEGF inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: TRC105 was well tolerated with bevacizumab and clinical activity was observed in a VEGF inhibitor–refractory population. Ongoing clinical trials are testing TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab in glioblastoma and with VEGFR TKIs in renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Cancer Res; 20(23); 5918–26. ©2014 AACR.

Combining Hedgehog Signaling Inhibition with Focal Irradiation on Reduction of Pancreatic Cancer Metastasis

Pancreatic cancer often presents in advanced stages and is unresponsive to conventional treatments. Thus, the need to develop novel treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer has never been greater. Here, we report that combination of focal irradiation with hedgehog (Hh) signaling inhibition exerts better than additive effects on reducing metastases. In an orthotopic model, we found that focal irradiation alone effectively reduced primary tumor growth but did not significantly affect metastasis. We hypothesized that cancer stem cells (CSC) of pancreatic cancer are responsible for the residual tumors following irradiation, which may be regulated by Hh signaling. To test our hypothesis, we showed that tumor metastasis in our model was accompanied by increased expression of CSC cell surface markers as well as Hh target genes. We generated tumor spheres from orthotopic pancreatic and metastatic tumors, which have elevated levels of CSC markers relative to the parental cells and elevated expression of Hh target genes. Irradiation of tumor spheres further elevated CSC cell surface markers and increased Hh target gene expression. Combination of Hh signaling inhibition with radiation had more than additive effects on tumor sphere regeneration in vitro. This phenotype was observed in two independent cell lines. In our orthotopic animal model, focal radiation plus Hh inhibition had more than additive effects on reducing lymph node metastasis. We identified several potential molecules in mediating Hh signaling effects. Taken together, our data provide a rationale for combined use of Hh inhibition with irradiation for clinical treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 12(6); 1038–48. ©2013 AACR.

A Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Trial of Erlotinib in Combination with Weekly Docetaxel in Patients with Taxane-Naive Malignancies

Purpose: This study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose of weekly docetaxel combined with daily erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Experimental Design: Patients with any solid tumor received 150 mg erlotinib with escalating doses of docetaxel (20, 25, 30, and 35 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. The pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and erlotinib was determined on cycle 2, day 1. Erlotinib was given for a maximum of 12 cycles and docetaxel was given for up to 6 cycles. Results: Twenty-five patients (17 males and 8 females) were enrolled with a median age of 56 years (range, 34-76); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 was 20/5. One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity in cycle 1 at the 25 mg/m2 level (grade 3 enterocolitis). At 35 mg/m2 docetaxel dose level, 6 of 10 patients required dose reductions to 30 mg/m2 beyond cycle 1 due to neutropenia (3 patients) and mucositis, increased bilirubin, and diarrhea (1 patient each). The clearance of docetaxel and erlotinib of 61.7 and 8.16 L/h, respectively, did not seem to differ from historical controls. Responses were seen in non–small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, and hepatobiliary cancers, including a complete response lasting 36+ months in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusion: Although no maximum tolerated dose was reached in cycle 1 with 35 mg/m2 docetaxel, repetitive dosing proved intolerable in a substantial number of patients; thus, the recommended phase II dose of weekly docetaxel is 30 mg/m2 when combined with 150 mg of daily erlotinib.