Tomislav Dragovich

Phase II Trial of Erlotinib in Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Adenocarcinomas: SWOG 0127

PURPOSE A phase II trial of the oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor erlotinib in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas stratified according to primary tumor location into two groups: gastroesophageal junction (GEJ)/cardia and distal gastric adenocarcinomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the GEJ or stomach (ST) that was unresectable or metastatic; presence of measurable disease; no prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic cancer; Zubrod performance status (PS) of 0 to 1; and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function were treated with erlotinib 150 mg/d orally. Patient characteristics were median age, GEJ-63 years, ST-64 years; sex, GEJ-84% male and 16% female, ST-60 male and 40 female; Zubrod PS, GEJ-25 had a PS of 0 and 18 had a PS 1, ST-13 had a PS of 0 and 12 had a PS of 1. RESULTS Percentage of common toxicities were skin rash, 86% and 72%; fatigue, 51% and 44%; and AST/ALT elevation, 28% and 28%, respectively for GEJ and ST. There has been one confirmed complete response, three confirmed partial responses (PRs) and one unconfirmed PR for an overall response probability of 9% confirmed (95% CI, 3% to 22%), all occurring in GEJ stratum. No responses were observed in ST stratum. The median survival was 6.7 months in GEJ and 3.5 months in ST stratum. Neither intratumoral EGFR, transforming growth factor-alpha or phosphorylated Akt kinase expression nor plasma proteomic analyses were predictive of clinical outcome. No somatic mutations of the EGFR exons 18, 19, or 21 were detected and there was no gross amplification of EGFR by fluorescence in situ hybridization. CONCLUSION Erlotinib is active in patients with GEJ adenocarcinomas, but appears inactive in gastric cancers. The molecular correlates examined were not predictive of the patient therapeutic response.

Stability of Phosphoprotein as a Biological Marker of Tumor Signaling

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the stability of phosphoprotein as a marker of signaling activity in human tumors using clinical samples and xenografts. Experimental Design: The expression of phospho-Ser473-Akt (p-Akt) was assessed by immunohistochemistry in paraffin-embedded samples from patients enrolled in a Southwest Oncology Group clinical trial of gastroesophageal junction tumors and by immunohistochemistry and Western blotting in human colon tumor xenografts at various times after removal from the animal. Results: Clinical samples had evaluable p-Akt staining only when obtained as biopsies (9 of 13) and no staining was observed in tumors obtained as surgically resected samples (0 of 15). In HT-29 colon cancer xenografts, p-Akt staining was present in fresh sample but not in tissue that had been allowed to stand for 30 minutes at room temperature. Western blotting of HT-29 tumor xenografts at room temperature showed a slow decrease in total Akt with a half-life of 180 minutes and a rapid decrease in p-Akt with a half-life of 20 minutes. Conclusions: Caution should be used when using phosphoprotein levels in human tumor specimens to measure intrinsic signaling activity or drug effects because of the potential for rapid dephosphorylation. Rapid processing of biopsies is essential and postoperative surgical samples may be of limited value because of the time to fixation.

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).

Gemcitabine plus celecoxib in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: results of a phase II trial.

Objectives:Cycloxygenase-2 (COX-2) is overexpressed in pancreatic tumors where it may be involved in inflammation, carcinogenesis, and the regulation of neoangiogenesis. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the combination of intravenous gemcitabine with selective COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib for effect on survival, disease progression, and tolerability in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, limited pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses were preformed. Materials and Methods:Eligible patients included those with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer with no prior chemotherapy and ECOG performance status 0–2. The treatment consisted of intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly × 7 weeks and concurrent daily oral celecoxib 400 mg orally twice a day. Daily oral low-dose aspirin 81 mg was administered throughout the study as a precaution for increased risk of thrombotic events. Those with stable or responsive disease were continued on intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly × 3 weeks and concurrent oral celecoxib. Results:Twenty five patients have been enrolled at 3 centers. Five patients had locally advanced cancer; 20 had metastatic disease. The most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia (32%) and anemia (20%). Four patients (17%) had partial response and 7 (35%) demonstrated stable disease. The estimated 12-month survival rate was 15%, which did not reach the predetermined efficacy end point. There was a trend suggestive of correlation between a decrease in serum vascular endothelial growth factor and patient survival. Conclusion:The addition of celecoxib to gemcitabine therapy did not demonstrate significant improvement in measured clinical outcomes, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Higher doses of celecoxib may be needed to observe significant antitumor activity.

A Phase I Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study of PX-12, a Novel Inhibitor of Thioredoxin-1, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Purpose: Thioredoxin-1 (Trx-1) is a cellular redox protein that promotes tumor growth, inhibits apoptosis, and up-regulates hypoxia-inducible factor-1α and vascular endothelial growth factor. Objectives of this study were to determine safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of PX-12, a small-molecule inhibitor of Trx-1. Experimental Design: Thirty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors received PX-12 at doses of 9 to 300 mg/m2, as a 1- or 3-h i.v. infusion on days 1 to 5, repeated every 3 weeks. Results: At the 300 mg/m2 dose level, one patient experienced a reversible episode of pneumonitis during the first cycle, and a second patient developed pneumonitis after the second cycle. Doses up to 226 mg/m2 were well tolerated, and grade 3/4 events were uncommon (<3% of patients). The limiting factor on this dosing schedule was pungent odor caused by expired drug metabolite, 2-butanethiol. The best response was stable disease in seven patients (126-332 days). Whereas PX-12 was not detectable following the infusion, the Cmax of its inactive metabolite, 2-mercaptoimidazole, increased linearly with dose. PX-12 treatment lowered plasma Trx-1 concentrations in a dose-dependent manner. Conclusions: PX-12, the first Trx-1 inhibitor to enter clinical trials, was tolerated up to a dose of 226 mg/m2 by a 3-h infusion. Based on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data, a trial of prolonged infusion schedule of PX-12 has been initiated.

Phase I Trial of Imexon in Patients With Advanced Malignancy

PURPOSE Imexon, a pro-oxidant small molecule, has antitumor activity in preclinical models. The drug induces apoptosis through accumulation of reactive oxygen species. The purpose of this trial was to define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of imexon in patients with advanced cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-nine patients with metastatic cancer received intravenous imexon over 30 to 45 minutes for 5 consecutive days (one course) every other week (days 1 through 5 and 15 through 19) monthly. Doses were initially escalated using an accelerated trial design and then a modified Fibonacci method. Plasma imexon levels and six different thiols were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography assays. RESULTS There were 13 dose levels evaluated, from 20 mg/m2/d to 1,000 mg/m2/d. The MTD recommended for phase II studies was 875 mg/m2/d for 5 days every 2 weeks (n = 9 patients). The two dose-limiting toxicities at 1,000 mg/m2/d involved grade 3 abdominal pain and fatigue and grade 4 neutropenia, which occurred in one patient each. Other common toxicities included nausea and vomiting (58%) and constipation (63%); both were managed well with prophylactic medications. One partial response was obtained in a heavily pretreated patient with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Pharmacokinetic studies showed dose-independent clearance, with a 95-minute mean half-life. Plasma thiol studies showed a dose- and area under the curve-dependent decrease in cystine levels 8 hours after dosing at 750 mg/m2/d. CONCLUSION The phase II recommended dose of imexon is 875 mg/m2/d for 5 days every other week. A decrease in plasma thiols did correlate with imexon exposure.

Anti-EGFR-Targeted Therapy for Esophageal and Gastric Cancers: An Evolving Concept

Cancers of the esophagus and stomach present a major health burden worldwide. In the past 30 years we have witnessed some interesting shifts in terms of epidemiology of esophago gastric cancers. Regardless of a world region, the majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancers die from progression or recurrence of their disease. While there are many active cytotoxic agents for esophageal and stomach cancers, their impact on the disease course has been modest at best. Median survival for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer is still less than a year. Therefore, novel strategies, based on our understanding of biology and genetics, are desperately needed. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway has been implicated in pathophysiology of many epithelial malignancies, including esophageal and stomach cancers. EGFR inhibitors, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, have been explored in patients with esophageal and gastric cancers. It appears that tumors of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) may be more sensitive to EGFR blockade than distal gastric adenocarcinomas. Investigations looking into potential molecular predictors of sensitivity to EGFR inhibitors for patients with esophageal and GEJ cancers are ongoing. While we are still searching for those predictors, it is clear that they will be different from ones identified in lung and colorectal cancers. Further development of EGFR inhibitors for esophageal and GEJ cancers should be driven by better understanding of EGFR pathway disregulation that drives cancer progression in a sensitive patient population.

Bortezomib With or Without Irinotecan in Relapsed or Refractory Colorectal Cancer: Results From a Randomized Phase II Study

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib with or without irinotecan, in patients with relapsed or refractory colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:4 ratio to bortezomib 1.5 mg/m(2) (arm A) or bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) plus irinotecan 125 mg/m(2) (arm B). A treatment cycle of 21 days consisted of four bortezomib doses on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, plus, in arm B, irinotecan on days 1 and 8. The primary objective of this randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase II study was to determine tumor response to treatment. Secondary objectives were safety and tolerability. RESULTS A preplanned interim analysis to assess efficacy revealed inadequate activity, resulting in early termination of this study. A total of 102 patients were treated, 45 in arm A and 57 in arm B. Baseline characteristics were comparable. The investigator-assessed response rate was 0 in arm A and 3.5% in arm B (all partial responses). Adverse events in both treatment arms were as expected, with no significant additive toxicity. The most common grade >or= 3 adverse events reported, per patient, during the study were fatigue (27%), vomiting (13%), nausea (11%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (11%) in arm A, and diarrhea (33%), fatigue (25%), neutropenia (23%), thrombocytopenia (18%), dyspnea (12%), abdominal pain (12%), dehydration (12%), and anemia (11%) in arm B. CONCLUSION Bortezomib alone or in combination with irinotecan was not effective in patients with relapsed or refractory CRC.

Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy With Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil Compared With Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy With Fluorouracil and Leucovorin After Curative Resection of Gastric Cancer: Results From CALGB 80101 (Alliance)

Purpose After curative resection of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, Intergroup Trial 0116 (Phase III trial of postoperative adjuvant radiochemotherapy for high risk gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: Demonstrated superior survival for patients who received postoperative chemoradiotherapy with bolus fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (LV) compared with surgery alone. CALGB 80101 (Alliance; Phase III Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Chemoradiation After Resection of Gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma) assessed whether a postoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen that replaced FU plus LV with a potentially more active systemic therapy could further improve overall survival. Patients and Methods Between April 2002 and May 2009, 546 patients who had undergone a curative resection of stage IB through IV (M0) gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either postoperative FU plus LV before and after combined FU and radiotherapy (FU plus LV arm) or postoperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and infusional FU (ECF) before and after combined FU and radiotherapy (ECF arm). Results With a median follow-up duration of 6.5 years, 5-year overall survival rates were 44% in the FU plus LV arm and 44% in the ECF arm ( Plogrank = .69; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.24 comparing ECF with FU plus LV). Five-year disease-free survival rates were 39% in the FU plus LV arm and 37% in the ECF arm ( Plogrank = .94; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.20). In post hoc analyses, the effect of treatment seemed to be similar across all examined patient subgroups. Conclusion After a curative resection of gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, postoperative chemoradiotherapy using a multiagent regimen of ECF before and after radiotherapy does not improve survival compared with standard FU and LV before and after radiotherapy.

Management strategies in pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE Current first-line and adjuvant chemotherapeutic strategies for management of patients with pancreatic cancer are reviewed. SUMMARY Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the 10th most prevalent cancer and the fourth most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States. More than 80% of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease and are not candidates for surgery; these patients often require multimodal treatment. The most widely used chemotherapy for such patients, as well as patients requiring adjuvant therapy after surgery, is gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. All current chemotherapies for pancreatic cancer are associated with dose-limiting hematologic toxicity and other adverse effects that require ongoing monitoring and dosage adjustment to balance the benefits and risks of treatment. Pharmacists can play an important role in monitoring and providing drug information and guidance to patients and oncologists. Current investigational strategies include efforts to improve chemotherapy response rates and outcomes through modulation of cell signaling pathways and use of nanotechnology to improve drug delivery. CONCLUSION Current management of pancreatic cancer is multifaceted, involving anticancer therapy, supportive care, and toxicity management. Standard systemic therapy with gemcitabine as a single agent or in combination with other cytotoxic agents provides modest benefits in terms of response and symptom control.