Malcolm J. Moore

Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial.

PURPOSE Most patients with advanced pancreas cancer experience pain and must limit their daily activities because of tumor-related symptoms. To date, no treatment has had a significant impact on the disease. In early studies with gemcitabine, patients with pancreas cancer experienced an improvement in disease-related symptoms. Based on those findings, a definitive trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of gemcitabine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced pancreas cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred twenty-six patients with advanced symptomatic pancreas cancer completed a lead-in period to characterize and stabilize pain and were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter (63 patients), or to fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m2 once weekly (63 patients). The primary efficacy measure was clinical benefit response, which was a composite of measurements of pain (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight. Clinical benefit required a sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement in at least one parameter without worsening in any others. Other measures of efficacy included response rate, time to progressive disease, and survival. RESULTS Clinical benefit response was experienced by 23.8% of gemcitabine-treated patients compared with 4.8% of 5-FU-treated patients (P = .0022). The median survival durations were 5.65 and 4.41 months for gemcitabine-treated and 5-FU-treated patients, respectively (P = .0025). The survival rate at 12 months was 18% for gemcitabine patients and 2% for 5-FU patients. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that gemcitabine is more effective than 5-FU in alleviation of some disease-related symptoms in patients with advanced, symptomatic pancreas cancer. Gemcitabine also confers a modest survival advantage over treatment with 5-FU.

Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS A total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

Irinotecan plus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND The combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin has until recently been standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with colorectal cancer that is refractory to treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin. In a multicenter trial, we compared a combination of irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin with bolus doses of fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. A third group of patients received irinotecan alone. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously), fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus), and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) weekly for four weeks every six weeks; fluorouracil (425 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) daily for five consecutive days every four weeks; or irinotecan alone (125 mg per square meter intravenously) weekly for four weeks every six weeks. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS Of 683 patients, 231 were assigned to receive irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin; 226 to receive fluorouracil and leucovorin; and 226 to receive irinotecan alone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 7.0 vs. 4.3 months; P=0.004), a higher rate of confirmed response (39 percent vs. 21 percent, P<0.001), and longer overall survival (median, 14.8 vs. 12.6 months; P=0.04). Results for irinotecan alone were similar to those for fluorouracil and leucovorin. Grade 3 (severe) diarrhea was more common during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin than during treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, but the incidence of grade 4 (life-threatening) diarrhea was similar in the two groups (<8 percent). Grade 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin. Adding irinotecan to the regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin did not compromise the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Weekly treatment with irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin is superior to a widely used regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival.

K-ras Mutations and Benefit from Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Treatment with cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, improves overall and progression-free survival and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value. METHODS We analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9%) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene. We assessed whether the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups. RESULTS Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3% had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene. The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (P=0.01 and P<0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively). In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved overall survival (median, 9.5 vs. 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (median, 3.7 months vs. 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.54; P<0.001). Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.98; P=0.89) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P=0.96). In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS Patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab. The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.)

Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points.

PURPOSE To investigate the benefit of chemotherapy in patients with symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer using relevant end points of palliation in a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS We randomized 161 hormone-refractory patients with pain to receive mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone (10 mg daily). Nonresponding patients on prednisone could receive mitoxantrone subsequently. The primary end point was a palliative response defined as a 2-point decrease in pain as assessed by a 6-point pain scale completed by patients (or complete loss of pain if initially 1 +) without an increase in analgesic medication and maintained for two consecutive evaluations at least 3 weeks apart. Secondary end points were a decrease of > or = 50% in use of analgesic medication without an increase in pain, duration of response, and survival. Health-related quality of life was evaluated with a series of linear analog self-assessment scales (LASA and the Prostate Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument [PROSQOLI]), the core questionnaire of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), and a disease-specific module. RESULTS Palliative response was observed in 23 of 80 patients (29%; 95% confidence interval, 19% to 40%) who received mitoxantrone plus prednisone, and in 10 of 81 patients (12%; 95% confidence interval, 6% to 22%) who received prednisone alone (P = .01). An additional seven patients in each group reduced analgesic medication > or = 50% without an increase in pain. The duration of palliation was longer in patients who received chemotherapy (median, 43 and 18 weeks; P < .0001, log-rank). Eleven of 50 patients randomized to prednisone treatment responded after addition of mitoxantrone. There was no difference in overall survival. Treatment was well tolerated, except for five episodes of possible cardiac toxicity in 130 patients who received mitoxantrone. Most responding patients had an improvement in quality-of-life scales and a decrease in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level. CONCLUSION Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone and prednisone provides palliation for some patients with symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer.

Long-Term Survival Results of a Randomized Trial Comparing Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin, With Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, Plus Cisplatin in Patients With Bladder Cancer

Purpose To compare long-term survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium treated with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) or methotrexate/vinblastine/doxorubicin/cisplatin (MVAC). Patients and Methods Efficacy data from a large randomized phase III study of GC versus MVAC were updated. Time-to-event analyses were performed on the observed distributions of overall and progression-free survival. Results A total of 405 patients were randomly assigned: 203 to the GC arm and 202 to the MVAC arm. At the time of analysis, 347 patients had died (GC arm, 176 patients; MVAC arm, 171 patients). Overall survival was similar in both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.34; P = .66) with a median survival of 14.0 months for GC and 15.2 months for MVAC. The 5-year overall survival rates were 13.0% and 15.3%, respectively (P = .53). The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months for GC and 8.3 months for MVAC, with an HR of 1.09. The 5-year progress...

Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced cancer have reduced quality of life, which tends to worsen towards the end of life. We assessed the effect of early palliative care in patients with advanced cancer on several aspects of quality of life. METHODS The study took place at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada), between Dec 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2011. 24 medical oncology clinics were cluster randomised (in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-generated sequence, stratified by clinic size and tumour site [four lung, eight gastrointestinal, four genitourinary, six breast, two gynaecological]), to consultation and follow-up (at least monthly) by a palliative care team or to standard cancer care. Complete masking of interventions was not possible; however, patients provided written informed consent to participate in their own study group, without being informed of the existence of another group. Eligible patients had advanced cancer, European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and a clinical prognosis of 6-24 months. Quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy--Spiritual Well-Being [FACIT-Sp] scale and Quality of Life at the End of Life [QUAL-E] scale), symptom severity (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-P16), and problems with medical interactions (Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System Medical Interaction Subscale [CARES-MIS]) were measured at baseline and monthly for 4 months. The primary outcome was change score for FACIT-Sp at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included change score for FACIT-Sp at 4 months and change scores for other scales at 3 and 4 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248624. FINDINGS 461 patients completed baseline measures (228 intervention, 233 control); 393 completed at least one follow-up assessment. At 3-months, there was a non-significant difference in change score for FACIT-Sp between intervention and control groups (3·56 points [95% CI -0·27 to 7·40], p=0·07), a significant difference in QUAL-E (2·25 [0·01 to 4·49], p=0·05) and FAMCARE-P16 (3·79 [1·74 to 5·85], p=0·0003), and no difference in ESAS (-1·70 [-5·26 to 1·87], p=0·33) or CARES-MIS (-0·66 [-2·25 to 0·94], p=0·40). At 4 months, there were significant differences in change scores for all outcomes except CARES-MIS. All differences favoured the intervention group. INTERPRETATION Although the difference in quality of life was non-significant at the primary endpoint, this trial shows promising findings that support early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. FUNDING Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab in Combination With Gemcitabine and Erlotinib in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE Treatment with gemcitabine provides modest benefits in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine shows a small but significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus gemcitabine alone. Phase II results for bevacizumab plus gemcitabine provided the rationale for a phase III trial of gemcitabine-erlotinib plus bevacizumab or placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)/week), erlotinib (100 mg/day), and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine, erlotinib, and placebo in this double-blind, phase III trial. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate, and safety. RESULTS A total of 301 patients were randomly assigned to the placebo group and 306 to the bevacizumab group. Median OS was 7.1 and 6.0 months in the bevacizumab and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.07; P = .2087); this difference was not statistically significant. Adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.86; P = .0002). Treatment with bevacizumab plus gemcitabine-erlotinib was well tolerated: safety data did not differ from previously described safety profiles for individual drugs. CONCLUSION The primary objective was not met. The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in OS in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PFS, however, was significantly longer in the bevacizumab group compared with placebo. No unexpected safety events were observed from adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib.

Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the most lethal of the solid tumors and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in North America. Most patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease that precludes curative resection. These patients have an extremely poor prognosis. In the absence of effective screening methods, considerable efforts have been made during the past decade to identify better systemic treatments. Unfortunately most trials have not shown a survival advantage for most therapies. In tandem with this increased clinical research, there has also been an expansion of preclinical laboratory investigation. These preclinical studies revealed many of the molecular mechanisms involved in pancreatic cancer development, which has provided insights into why current therapies are ineffective. These new discoveries provide some optimism that new agents inhibiting specific targets will improve outcome and overcome the resistance of pancreatic cancer to most standard treatments. We review the current standards of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic carcinoma and outline some future directions for the development of new treatment strategies.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Potentially Curative Resection of Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Trials

PURPOSE Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy administered after surgical resection of colorectal cancer metastases may reduce the risk of recurrence and improve survival, but its benefit has never been demonstrated. Two phase III trials (Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive [FFCD] Trial 9002 and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group/Gruppo Italiano di Valutazione Interventi in Oncologia [ENG] trial) used a similar design and showed a trend favoring adjuvant chemotherapy, but both had to close prematurely because of slow accrual, thus lacking the statistical power to demonstrate the predefined difference in survival. We report here a pooled analysis based on individual data from these two trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS After complete resection of colorectal liver or lung metastases, patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (CT arm; fluorouracil [FU] 400 mg/m(2) administered intravenously [IV] once daily plus dl-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) [FFCD] x 5 days or FU 370 mg/m(2) plus l-leucovorin 100 mg/m(2) IV x 5 days [ENG] for six cycles at 28-day intervals) or to surgery alone (S arm). RESULTS A total of 278 patients (CT, n = 138; S, n = 140) were included in the pooled analysis. Median progression-free survival was 27.9 months in the CT arm as compared with 18.8 months in the S arm (hazard ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.76; P = .058). Median overall survival was 62.2 months in the CT arm compared with 47.3 months in the S arm (hazard ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.82; P = .095). Adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION This pooled analysis shows a marginal statistical significance in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy with an FU bolus-based regimen after complete resection of colorectal cancer metastases.