Se Hoon Park

Salvage Chemotherapy for Pretreated Gastric Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Chemotherapy Plus Best Supportive Care With Best Supportive Care Alone

PURPOSE When designing this trial, there was no evidence that salvage chemotherapy (SLC) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) resulted in substantial prolongation of survival when compared with best supportive care (BSC). However, SLC is often offered to pretreated patients with AGC for anecdotal reasons. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with AGC with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens involving both fluoropyrimidines and platinum and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:1 to SLC plus BSC or BSC alone. Choice of SLC-either docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or irinotecan 150 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks-was left to the discretion of investigators. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median OS was 5.3 months among 133 patients in the SLC arm and 3.8 months among 69 patients in the BSC arm (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% CI, 0.485 to 0.891; one-sided P = .007). OS benefit for SLC was consistent in most of the prospectively defined subgroups, including age, PS, number of prior treatments, metastatic sites, hemoglobin levels, and response to prior chemotherapy. SLC was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were similar in the SLC and BSC arms. We found no median OS difference between docetaxel and irinotecan (5.2 v 6.5 months; P = .116). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest phase III trial comparing SLC plus BSC with BSC alone in AGC. In pretreated patients, SLC is tolerated and significantly improves OS when added to BSC.

Phase III Trial Comparing Capecitabine Plus Cisplatin Versus Capecitabine Plus Cisplatin With Concurrent Capecitabine Radiotherapy in Completely Resected Gastric Cancer With D2 Lymph Node Dissection: The ARTIST Trial

PURPOSE The ARTIST (Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Stomach Cancer) trial was the first study to our knowledge to investigate the role of postoperative chemoradiotherapy therapy in patients with curatively resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection. This trial was designed to compare postoperative treatment with capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) versus XP plus radiotherapy with capecitabine (XP/XRT/XP). PATIENTS AND METHODS The XP arm received six cycles of XP (capecitabine 2,000 mg/m2 per day on days 1 to 14 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks) chemotherapy. The XP/XRT/XP arm received two cycles of XP followed by 45-Gy XRT (capecitabine 1,650 mg/m2 per day for 5 weeks) and two cycles of XP. RESULTS Of 458 patients, 228 were randomly assigned to the XP arm and 230 to the XP/XRT/XP arm. Treatment was completed as planned by 75.4% of patients (172 of 228) in the XP arm and 81.7% (188 of 230) in the XP/XRT/XP arm. Overall, the addition of XRT to XP chemotherapy did not significantly prolong disease-free survival (DFS; P = .0862). However, in the subgroup of patients with pathologic lymph node metastasis at the time of surgery (n = 396), patients randomly assigned to the XP/XRT/XP arm experienced superior DFS when compared with those who received XP alone (P = .0365), and the statistical significance was retained at multivariate analysis (estimated hazard ratio, 0.6865; 95% CI, 0.4735 to 0.9952; P = .0471). CONCLUSION The addition of XRT to XP chemotherapy did not significantly reduce recurrence after curative resection and D2 lymph node dissection in gastric cancer. A subsequent trial (ARTIST-II) in patients with lymph node-positive gastric cancer is planned.

Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes

Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, is a heterogeneous disease. We aim to establish clinically relevant molecular subtypes that would encompass this heterogeneity and provide useful clinical information. We use gene expression data to describe four molecular subtypes linked to distinct patterns of molecular alterations, disease progression and prognosis. The mesenchymal-like type includes diffuse-subtype tumors with the worst prognosis, the tendency to occur at an earlier age and the highest recurrence frequency (63%) of the four subtypes. Microsatellite-unstable tumors are hyper-mutated intestinal-subtype tumors occurring in the antrum; these have the best overall prognosis and the lowest frequency of recurrence (22%) of the four subtypes. The tumor protein 53 (TP53)-active and TP53-inactive types include patients with intermediate prognosis and recurrence rates (with respect to the other two subtypes), with the TP53-active group showing better prognosis. We describe key molecular alterations in each of the four subtypes using targeted sequencing and genome-wide copy number microarrays. We validate these subtypes in independent cohorts in order to provide a consistent and unified framework for further clinical and preclinical translational research.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without erlotinib in advanced biliary-tract cancer: A multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and a platinum-based agent is regarded as a standard treatment for patients with advanced biliary-tract cancer. Results of phase 2 trials of single-agent erlotinib in biliary-tract cancer and of gemcitabine plus erlotinib in pancreatic cancer have shown modest benefits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for advanced biliary-tract cancer. METHODS In this open label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (in a 1:1 ratio) with metastatic biliary-tract cancer (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampulla of Vater cancer) to receive either first-line treatment with chemotherapy alone (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2) or chemotherapy plus erlotinib (100 mg daily). Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was done centrally (stratified by participating centre and presence of measurable lesion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149122. FINDINGS 133 patients were randomly assigned to the chemotherapy alone group and 135 to the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The groups were balanced except for a higher proportion of patients with cholangiocarcinoma in the group given erlotinib than in the chemotherapy alone group (96 [71%] patients vs 84 [63%]). Median progression-free survival was 4·2 months (95% CI 2·7-5·7) in the chemotherapy alone group and 5·8 months (95% CI 4·6-7·0) in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·61-1·03; p=0·087). Significantly more patients had an objective response in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group than in the chemotherapy alone group (40 patients vs 21 patients; p=0·005), but median overall survival was the same in both groups (9·5 months [95% CI 7·5-11·5] in the chemotherapy alone group and 9·5 months [7·6-11·4] in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group; HR 0·93, 0·69-1·25; p=0·611). All-cause deaths within 30 days of random assignment occurred in one (1%) of the patients in the chemotherapy alone group and in four (3%) of those in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was febrile neutropenia (eight [6%] patients in the chemotherapy alone group and six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group). No patient died of treatment-related causes during the study. Subgroup analyses by primary site of disease showed that for patients with cholangiocarcinoma, the addition of erlotinib to chemotherapy significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (5·9 months [95% CI 4·7-7·1] for chemotherapy plus erlotinib vs 3·0 months [1·1-4·9] for chemotherapy alone; HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION Although no significant difference in progression-free survival was noted between groups, the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin showed antitumour activity and might be a treatment option for patients with cholangiocarcinoma. FUNDING None.

Phase III Trial to Compare Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Capecitabine and Cisplatin Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Gastric Cancer: Final Report of the Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Stomach Tumors Trial, Including Survival and Subset Analyses

PURPOSE The Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Stomach Tumors (ARTIST) trial tested whether the addition of radiotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy improved disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer (GC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between November 2004 and April 2008, 458 patients with GC who received gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were randomly assigned to either six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin (XP) or to two cycles of XP followed by chemoradiotherapy and then two additional cycles of XP (XPRT). This final update contains the first publication of overall survival (OS), together with updated DFS and subset analyses. RESULTS With 7 years of follow-up, DFS remained similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.740; 95% CI, 0.520 to 1.050; P=.0922). OS also was similar (HR, 1.130; 95% CI, 0.775 to 1.647; P=.5272). The effect of the addition of radiotherapy on DFS and OS differed by Lauren classification (interaction P=.04 for DFS; interaction P=.03 for OS) and lymph node ratio (interaction P<.01 for DFS; interaction P<.01 for OS). Subgroup analyses also showed that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved DFS in patients with node-positive disease and with intestinal-type GC. There was a similar trend for DFS and OS by stage of disease. CONCLUSION In D2-resected GC, both adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy are tolerated and equally beneficial in preventing relapse. Because results suggest a significant DFS effect of chemoradiotherapy in subsets of patients, the ARTIST 2 trial evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in patients with node-positive, D2-resected GC is under way.

Impact of MET amplification on gastric cancer: possible roles as a novel prognostic marker and a potential therapeutic target.

Identification of critical genes which play pivotal roles in controlling tumor growth and survival will establish the basis for developing therapeutic targets. With the aim of establishing personalized medicine for treatment of solid tumors, we focused on MET amplification in gastric cancer patients, given the extreme sensitivity to c-Met inhibitor in MET amplified gastric cancer cell lines. We tested MET amplification and activation of c-Met in various gastric cancer cell lines and tissue samples from 482 gastric cancer patients who underwent curative surgery. Gastric cancer cell lines with MET amplification by quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and FISH predicted sensitivity to PHA-665,752, a selective c-Met kinase inhibitor. Of the 472 patients who had DNA sample available for qPCR analysis, 100 patients (21.2%) had a MET copy number greater than 4.0 copies and demonstrated poorer survival following curative surgery with statistical significance (5-year OS; 50.0 vs. 59.1%; MET amplification (+) vs. MET amplification (-); P = 0.0134). These results suggest that the increased MET copy number measured by qPCR plays an important role in determining prognosis in gastric cancer patients. However, the predictive role of MET amplification for treatment response should be further explored in upcoming clinical trials.

Gefitinib (ZD1839) Monotherapy as a Salvage Regimen for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose: A worldwide compassionate-use program has enabled >42,000 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to receive gefitinib treatment. Here we report the outcome of gefitinib therapy in patients who enrolled in the “Iressa” Expanded Access Program at the Samsung Medical Center. Experimental Design: Patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed after prior systemic chemotherapy and for whom no other treatment option was available were eligible to receive gefitinib treatment as part of the Expanded Access Program. A post hoc assessment of potential prognostic factors for response and survival was performed by multivariate analysis. Results: All 111 evaluable patients had stage IV disease; most patients had a baseline performance status of 2 [n = 52 (47%)] or 3 [n = 18 (16%)] and had received ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens (56%). The objective response rate was 26%, the disease control rate (measured over ≥8 weeks) was 40%, and the 1-year survival rate was 44%. Adenocarcinoma histology was associated with better response and disease control rates, and a performance status of 0–2 was also associated with a better disease control rate. Both of these factors, as well as female gender, were significantly associated with longer survival. Gefitinib was well tolerated; the most common adverse event was grade 1 skin rash. Conclusions: Gefitinib demonstrated significant antitumor activity and a favorable tolerability profile in this series of NSCLC patients with poor prognosis.

Impact of KRAS Mutations on Clinical Outcomes in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with First-line Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy

Although erlotinib has become an important therapeutic option in addition to gemcitabine, the high frequency of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer probably limits the benefits. We retrospectively studied 136 pancreatic cancer patients with available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor blocks from 2003 to 2009 to understand the clinical significance of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. KRAS mutations were analyzed by sequencing codons 12, 13, and 61. In this study, 71 (52.2%) of the 136 pancreatic adenocarcinomas examined harbored a point mutation in codons 12 (n = 70) and 61 (n = 1) of KRAS. KRAS mutation was not associated with clinicopathologic parameters. Patients with KRAS mutations showed a worse response (11.3%) than those with wild-type KRAS (26.2%) and poor survival (mutant KRAS, 5.8 months vs. wild-type KRAS, 8.0 months; P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed good prognostic factors for overall survival as well to moderately differentiated histology (P < 0.001; HR = 0.437, 95% CI: 0.301–0.634), locally advanced disease (P < 0.001; HR = 0.417, 95% CI: 0.255–0.681), response to first-line chemotherapy (P = 0.003; HR = 0.482, 95% CI: 0.297–0.780), and wild-type KRAS (P = 0.001; HR = 0.523, 95% CI: 0.355–0.770). However, the observed survival advantage is derived from the subgroup of patients treated with gemcitabine/erlotinib (9.7 vs. 5.2 months; P = 0.002), whereas no survival difference based on KRAS mutation status is obvious in the other subgroup of patients treated without erlotinib (7.0 vs. 7.0 months; P = 0.121). These results need to be further explored in upcoming prospective studies to provide a rationale for personalized medicine in pancreatic cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 10(10); 1993–9. ©2011 AACR.

A phase II study of sunitinib as a second-line treatment in advanced biliary tract carcinoma: A multicentre, multinational study

BACKGROUND Biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) is rare in the West, but not uncommon in Asia and is a highly fatal malignancy. VEGF expression is related with poor outcome in patients with BTC. Therefore, we conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sunitinib as second-line treatment. METHODS This was a prospective, single-arm, multicentre, multinational study. Patients with unresectable, metastatic BTC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy were eligible. Sunitinib was administered at 37.5mg once daily continuously with 4-week cycle. The primary end point was the time to progression (TTP). RESULTS Between May 2009 and October 2010, a total of 56 patients were enrolled from three countries. The median age was 55 years (range 38-75) and male to female ratio was 37:19. Median TTP was 1.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-2.4). The objective response rate was 8.9% (5 partial response) and disease control rate was 50.0%. (23 stable disease) Grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in 46.4% of the patients with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia being the most frequent (21.4%). CONCLUSIONS This phase II study suggests that sunitinib monotherapy demonstrated marginal efficacy in metastatic BTC patients although toxicity should be concerned in Asian population.

Multicenter phase II study of sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND Retrospective and molecular biologic data suggest that sunitinib may be effective in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria included advanced nccRCC except for collecting duct carcinoma and sarcomatoid carcinoma without identifiable renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Patients were treated with 50 mg/day oral sunitinib for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of rest. The primary end point was overall response rate (RR). RESULTS Thirty-one eligible patients were enrolled. Twenty-four patients (77%) had prior nephrectomy. By Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center criteria, 8 patients (26%) had poor risk and 14 (45%) had intermediate risk. Twenty-two patients had papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and three had chromophobe RCC. Eleven patients had partial response with a RR of 36% (95% confidence interval (CI) 19% to 52%) and an additional 17 patients (55%) had stable disease. Median duration of response was 12.7 months (95% CI 6.3-19.1 months), and median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI 4.2-8.6 months). At a median follow-up duration of 18.7 months (95% CI 13.7-23.7 months), 13 patients (42%) had died, resulting in an estimated median survival of 25.6 months (95% CI 8.4-42.9 months). Toxicity profiles were commensurate with prior reports. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib has promising activity in patients with nccRCC (NCT01219751).BACKGROUND Retrospective and molecular biologic data suggest that sunitinib may be effective in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria included advanced nccRCC except for collecting duct carcinoma and sarcomatoid carcinoma without identifiable renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Patients were treated with 50 mg/day oral sunitinib for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of rest. The primary end point was overall response rate (RR). RESULTS Thirty-one eligible patients were enrolled. Twenty-four patients (77%) had prior nephrectomy. By Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center criteria, 8 patients (26%) had poor risk and 14 (45%) had intermediate risk. Twenty-two patients had papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and three had chromophobe RCC. Eleven patients had partial response with a RR of 36% (95% confidence interval (CI) 19% to 52%) and an additional 17 patients (55%) had stable disease. Median duration of response was 12.7 months (95% CI 6.3-19.1 months), and median progression-free survival was 6.4 months (95% CI 4.2-8.6 months). At a median follow-up duration of 18.7 months (95% CI 13.7-23.7 months), 13 patients (42%) had died, resulting in an estimated median survival of 25.6 months (95% CI 8.4-42.9 months). Toxicity profiles were commensurate with prior reports. CONCLUSIONS Sunitinib has promising activity in patients with nccRCC (NCT01219751).