Eileen Mary O'Reilly

Gemcitabine Plus Bevacizumab Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Phase III Trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 80303)

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine plus bevacizumab produced a 21% response rate and a median survival of 8.8 months in a multicenter phase II trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. These encouraging data led Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) to conduct a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine/bevacizumab versus gemcitabine/placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had no prior therapy for advanced disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 2, no tumor invasion of adjacent organs, and no increased bleeding risk. The primary end point was overall survival. Patients were stratified by performance status, extent of disease, and prior radiotherapy. Patients received gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. RESULTS Between June 2004 and April 2006, 602 patients were enrolled onto the study and 535 were treated. Median overall survival was 5.8 months for gemcitabine/bevacizumab and 5.9 months for gemcitabine/placebo (P = .95). Median progression-free survival was 3.8 and 2.9 months, respectively (P = .07). Overall response rates were 13% and 10%, respectively. Patients with a performance status of 0, 1, and 2 survived a median of 7.9, 4.8, and 2.4 months, respectively. The only statistically significant differences in grades 3 and 4 toxicity occurred for hypertension (10% v 3%; P < .001) and proteinuria (5% v 1%; P = .002); venous thrombosis grade > or = 3 was equivalent in both arms (14% and 15%, respectively). CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine does not improve survival in advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine Plus Cetuximab Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Southwest Oncology Group–Directed Intergroup Trial S0205

PURPOSE Patients with advanced pancreas cancer present with disease that is poorly responsive to conventional therapies. Preclinical and early clinical evidence has supported targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway in patients with pancreas cancer. This trial was conducted to evaluate the contribution of an EGFR-targeted agent to standard gemcitabine therapy. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody against the ligand-binding domain of the receptor. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine alone or gemcitabine plus cetuximab. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS A total of 745 eligible patients were accrued. No significant difference was seen between the two arms of the study with respect to the median survival time (6.3 months for the gemcitabine plus cetuximab arm v 5.9 months for the gemcitabine alone arm; hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.23; P = .23, one-sided). Objective responses and progression-free survival were similar in both arms of the study. Although time to treatment failure was longer in patients on gemcitabine plus cetuximab (P = .006), the difference in length of treatment was only 2 weeks longer in the combination arm. Among patients who were studied for tumoral EGFR expression, 90% were positive, with no treatment benefit detected in this patient subset. CONCLUSION In patients with advanced pancreas cancer, the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab did not improve the outcome compared with patients treated with gemcitabine alone. Alternate targets other than EGFR should be evaluated for new drug development.

Randomized Phase III Study of Exatecan and Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Untreated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status > or = 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). CONCLUSION Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II Trial of Weekly Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin in Advanced Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate the response, toxicity, survival, and quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal cancer treated with weekly irinotecan and cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-five patients with metastatic or unresectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (23 patients) or squamous cell carcinoma (12 patients) were treated. No prior chemotherapy was allowed. The majority of patients had metastatic and bidimensionally measurable disease (34 patients each [97%]). Patients were treated with cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 65 mg/m(2), repeated weekly for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period. Treatment was recycled every 6 weeks. Degree of dysphagia relief was monitored, and quality of life was measured prospectively using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General instruments. RESULTS Thirty-five patients were assessable for response and toxicity. Major objective responses were observed in 20 patients (57%; 95% confidence interval, 41% to 73%), including two complete responses (6%). Similar response rates were observed for adenocarcinoma (12 of 23 patients; 52%) and squamous carcinoma (eight of 12 patients; 66%). The median duration of response was 4.2 months (range, 1 to 8.8+ months). Median actuarial survival was 14.6 months (range, 1 to 15.2+ months). In 20 patients with dysphagia assessable at baseline, 18 (90%) noted either improvement or resolution of dysphagia on chemotherapy. Global quality of life improved in responding patients, primarily because of improvements in pain, emotional state, and relationships with family and friends. Toxicity was relatively mild and included only three patients (9%) with grade 4 neutropenia and four (11%) with grade 3 diarrhea. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION The combination of weekly cisplatin plus irinotecan had significant activity in metastatic esophageal carcinoma and resulted in significant relief of dysphagia. The regimen was well tolerated, with acceptable myelosuppression and rare treatment-related diarrhea. Further evaluation of the combination of weekly irinotecan and cisplatin, including the addition of other agents to this regimen, is indicated.

Phase II Study of the Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor Flavopiridol Administered to Patients With Advanced Gastric Carcinoma

PURPOSE Flavopiridol is the first cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor to enter clinical trials. Activity in gastric cancer xenografts and in a patient with gastric cancer on the phase I trial led to this phase II study of flavopiridol in patients with metastatic gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixteen patients were entered onto the study, and 14 were assessable for response. Flavopiridol was administered initially at a dose of 50 mg/m(2)/d by continuous infusion for 72 hours every 2 weeks. Assessment of plasma pharmacokinetics was performed in all patients. Peripheral mononuclear cells were collected throughout the 72-hour infusion for determinants of apoptosis. RESULTS There were no major objective responses (exact confidence interval 0% to 23%). One patient achieved a minor response in his liver metastases, though the primary progressed. Other patients exhibited histologic and radiographic evidence of tumor necrosis. Common toxicities included fatigue in 93% of patients (grade 3 or 4 in 27%) and diarrhea in 73% of patients (grade 3 or 4 in 20%). Five patients (33%) developed venous thromboses at the central catheter tip. The studies performed on peripheral mononuclear cells indicated no induction of apoptosis. CONCLUSION Flavopiridol administered as a single agent for 72 hours every 14 days is inactive in the treatment of gastric cancer. The drug also induced an unexpected higher incidence of vascular thrombosis and fatigue than was anticipated from the phase I trials. Future development of flavopiridol will depend on other doses and schedules in combination with chemotherapy.

Consensus report of the national cancer institute clinical trials planning meeting on pancreas cancer treatment

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality, despite significant improvements in diagnostic imaging and operative mortality rates. The 5-year survival rate remains less than 5% because of microscopic or gross metastatic disease at time of diagnosis. The Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in pancreatic cancer was convened by the National Cancer Institutes Gastrointestinal Cancer Steering Committee to discuss the integration of basic and clinical knowledge in the design of clinical trials in PDAC. Major emphasis was placed on the enhancement of research to identify and validate the relevant targets and molecular pathways in PDAC, cancer stem cells, and the microenvironment. Emphasis was also placed on developing rational combinations of targeted agents and the development of predictive biomarkers to assist selection of patient subsets. The development of preclinical tumor models that are better predictive of human PDAC must be supported with wider availability to the research community. Phase III clinical trials should be implemented only if there is a meaningful clinical signal of efficacy and safety in the phase II setting. The emphasis must therefore be on performing well-designed phase II studies with uniform sets of basic entry and evaluation criteria with survival as a primary endpoint. Patients with either metastatic or locally advanced PDAC must be studied separately.

Phase I Study of the Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor Flavopiridol in Combination With Paclitaxel in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors

PURPOSE Preclinical studies indicate that the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor flavopiridol potentiates the induction of apoptosis by paclitaxel, provided paclitaxel is followed by flavopiridol. We therefore designed a phase I clinical trial of sequential paclitaxel and flavopiridol. PATIENTS AND METHODS Paclitaxel was administered at a fixed dose, as either a 24- or 3-hour infusion on day 1, followed by a 24-hour infusion of flavopiridol on day 2. Doses of flavopiridol were escalated in successive cohorts according to a modified Fibonacci design. Flavopiridol pharmacokinetics were obtained on all patients. RESULTS Dose-limiting neutropenia developed with 24-hour paclitaxel doses of 135 and 100 mg/m(2) and flavopiridol doses of 10 and 20 mg/m(2), respectively. With 3-hour paclitaxel at 100 mg/m(2), flavopiridol could be escalated to 70 mg/m(2) without dose-limiting toxicity. With 3-hour paclitaxel next escalated to 135 mg/m(2), dose-limiting neutropenia and pulmonary toxicity occurred when flavopiridol was escalated to 94 mg/m(2). This did not correlate with any change in flavopiridol or paclitaxel pharmacokinetics. At a 3-hour paclitaxel dose of 175 mg/m(2), dose-limiting pulmonary toxicity occurred in only one patient at flavopiridol doses under 94 mg/m(2). Clinical activity was observed in patients with esophagus, lung, and prostate cancer, including patients who had progressed on paclitaxel. CONCLUSION The recommended phase II doses will be a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel at 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by a 24-hour infusion of flavopiridol at 70 mg/m(2) on day 2. Flavopiridol dose escalations to 80 mg/m(2) are possible. At these doses, toxicities are manageable and clinical activity is promising.

Gallbladder cancer (GBC): 10-year experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC)

The incidence of gallbladder cancer (GBC) in the US is 1.2/100,000. This report examines the patterns of presentation, adjuvant treatment and survival of a large cohort of patients with GBC evaluated at MSKCC over a 10‐year period.

Phase 2 multi‐institutional trial evaluating gemcitabine and stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma

This phase 2 multi‐institutional study was designed to determine whether gemcitabine (GEM) with fractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) results in acceptable late grade 2 to 4 gastrointestinal toxicity when compared with a prior trial of GEM with single‐fraction SBRT in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

An Emerging Entity: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Associated with a Known BRCA Mutation: Clinical Descriptors, Treatment Implications, and Future Directions

BACKGROUND BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations are associated with an elevated risk for pancreas adenocarcinoma (PAC). Other BRCA-associated cancers have been shown to have greater sensitivity to platinum and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with better clinical outcomes than in sporadic cases; however, outcomes in BRCA-associated PAC have not been reported. METHODS Patients with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and a diagnosis of PAC were identified from the Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Familial Pancreas Cancer Registry, and Clinical Genetics Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. RESULTS Fifteen patients, five male, with a BRCA1 (n = 4) or BRCA2 (n = 11) mutation and PAC and one patient with a BRCA1 mutation and acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas were identified. Seven female patients (70%) had a prior history of breast cancer. Four patients received a PARP inhibitor alone or in combination with chemotherapy; three demonstrated an initial radiographic partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors whereas one patient had stable disease for 6 months. Six patients received platinum-based chemotherapy first line for metastatic disease; five of those patients had a radiographic partial response. CONCLUSION BRCA mutation-associated PAC represents an underidentified, but clinically important, subgroup of patients. This is of particular relevance given the ongoing development of therapeutic agents targeting DNA repair, which may potentially offer a significant benefit to a genetically selected population. We anticipate that further study and understanding of the clinical and biologic features of BRCA-mutant PAC will aid in the identification of tissue biomarkers indicating defective tumor DNA repair pathways in sporadic PAC.