Phase I study of panobinostat and imatinib in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Background:

Panobinostat, a pan-deacetylase inhibitor, overcomes imatinib resistance in preclinical models of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Here we determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of panobinostat in combination with imatinib (IM) for treatment of patients with refractory GIST.

Methods:

Following a 7-day run-in phase of IM (400 mg per day), escalating doses of panobinostat were added following a ‘3 plus 3'' design. Twelve heavily pretreated GIST patients were enrolled in two dose levels.

Results:

Most common adverse events were thrombocytopenia, anaemia, fatigue, creatinine elevation, nausea, emesis and diarrhoea. Twenty micrograms of panobinostat and 400 mg IM were declared the MTD. Pharmacologically active concentrations of panobinostat and IM were achieved as evidenced by histone H3 acetylation in blood mononuclear cells in vivo and inhibition of the IM-resistant KIT (D816) mutation in vitro. In FDG-PET-CT scans after IM run-in and following 3 weeks panobinostat treatment, 1 out of 11 evaluable patients showed a metabolic partial response, 7 patients were metabolically stable and 3 patients progressed. Longest treatment duration was 17 weeks (median 6).

Conclusion:

Panobinostat and IM can be administered at doses achieving target inhibition in vivo. Further clinical exploration of patients with treatment-refractory GIST is warranted. Correlative studies in this trial may help to optimise dosing schedules in GIST.     

Phase I study investigating the safety and feasibility of combining imatinib mesylate (Gleevec) with sorafenib in patients with refractory castration-resistant prostate cancer

Background:

Determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of sorafenib (S) plus imatinib (IM) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients.

Methods:

Refractory CRPC patients were enrolled onto this 3+3 dose escalation designed study. Imatinib pharmacokinetics (PK) were determined on day 15, 4 h post dose with a validated LC–MS assay.

Results:

Seventeen patients were enrolled; 10 evaluable (6 at 400 mg S qd with 300 mg IM qd (DL0) and 4 at 400 mg S bid with 300 mg IM qd (DL1)); inevaluable patients received <1 cycle. The median age was 73 (57–89); median prostatic serum antigen was 284 ng ml⁻¹ (11.7–9027). Median number of prior non-hormonal therapies was 3 (1–12). Dose-limiting toxicities were diarrhoea and hand-foot syndrome. Maximum tolerated dose was 400 mg S and 300 mg IM both daily. No biochemical responses were observed. Two patients had stable disease by RECIST. Median time to progression was 2 months (1–5). Median OS was 6 months (1–30+) with 3/17 patients (17%) alive at 21 months median follow-up. Ten patients had PK data suggesting that S reduced IM clearance by 55%, resulting in 77% increased exposure (P=0.005; compared with historical data).

Conclusion:

This is the first report showing that S+IM can be administered in CRPC at a dose of 400 mg S and 300 mg IM, daily.     

A randomised phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus for soft-tissue sarcomas

Background:

The MEK inhibitor, selumetinib, suppresses soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) cell proliferation in vitro. Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors possess modest activity against STS; however, resistance develops via MAPK pathway feedback activation. The combination of selumetinib and temsirolimus synergistically inhibits STS cell line growth. Therefore, a randomized phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus was conducted.

Methods:

Seventy-one adults with advanced STS who received ⩽2 prior chemotherapeutics were randomized to selumetinib 75 mg p.o. bid and allowed to crossover upon progression, or to selumetinib 50 mg p.o. bid plus temsirolimus 20 mg i.v. weekly, with primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

There was no difference in PFS between the two arms for the overall cohort (median 1.9 vs 2.1 months); an improved median PFS was observed in the combination arm (N=11) over single agent (N=10) in the prespecified leiomyosarcoma stratum (median 3.7 vs 1.8 months; P=0.01). Four-month PFS rate was 50% (95% confidence interval 0.19–0.81) with the combination vs 0% with selumetinib alone in the leiomyosarcoma cohort. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination were mucositis (29%), lymphopenia (26%), neutropenia and anaemia (20% each).

Conclusions:

While single-agent selumetinib has no significant activity in STS, the combination may be active for leiomyosarcomas.     

Prognostic and predictive value of VEGF,sVEGFR-2 and CEA in mCRC studies comparing cediranib,bevacizumab and chemotherapy

Background:

The prognostic/predictive value of potential vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling biomarkers was evaluated retrospectively using samples from two randomized Phase III studies (HORIZON II and III) investigating cediranib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

Baseline levels of VEGF, soluble VEGF receptor-2 (sVEGFR-2) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were measured in plasma/serum samples collected from patients participating in HORIZON II (n=860; FOLFOX/XELOX plus cediranib 20 mg (n=502) or placebo (n=358)) and HORIZON III (n=1422; mFOLFOX6 plus cediranib 20 mg (n=709) or bevacizumab (n=713)). Median biomarker baseline levels determined cutoff values for the patient subgroups.

Results:

Baseline data were available for 88–97% of patients/study (>2000 patients). In both the studies, high baseline VEGF and CEA were associated with worse outcomes for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) independent of treatment (HORIZON II OS: VEGF, hazard ratio (HR)=1.35 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–1.63); CEA, HR=1.63 (1.36–1.96); HORIZON III OS: VEGF, HR=1.32 (1.12–1.54); CEA, HR=1.50 (1.29–1.76)). sVEGFR-2 was not prognostic for PFS/OS. Baseline VEGF and CEA were not predictive for PFS/OS outcome to cediranib treatment; low sVEGFR-2 was associated with a trend towards improved cediranib effect in HORIZON II.

Conclusion:

Baseline VEGF and CEA levels were treatment-independent prognostic biomarkers for PFS and OS in both the studies.     

Dose escalation to rash for erlotinib plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: the phase II RACHEL study

Background:

This phase II, open-label, randomised study evaluated whether patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving erlotinib/gemcitabine derived survival benefits from increasing the erlotinib dose.

Methods:

After a 4-week run-in period (gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² once weekly plus erlotinib 100 mg per day), patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed grade 0/1 rash were randomised to receive gemcitabine plus erlotinib dose escalation (150 mg, increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks (maximum 250 mg); n=71) or gemcitabine plus standard-dose erlotinib (100 mg per day; n=75). The primary end point was to determine whether overall survival (OS) was improved by increasing the erlotinib dose. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of grade ⩾2 rash, and safety.

Results:

Erlotinib dose escalation induced grade ⩾2 rash in 29 out of 71 (41.4%) patients compared with 7 out of 75 (9.3%) patients on standard dose. Efficacy was not significantly different in the dose-escalation arm compared with the standard-dose arm (OS: median 7.0 vs 8.4 months, respectively, hazard ratio (HR), 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.80; P=0.2026; PFS: median 3.5 vs 4.5 months, respectively, HR, 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77–1.54; P=0.6298). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between randomised arms.

Conclusion:

The erlotinib dose-escalation strategy induced rash in some patients; there was no evidence that the higher dose translated into increased benefit.     

Safety and efficacy of the combination of erlotinib and sirolimus for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of sunitinib or sorafenib

Background:

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is an important therapeutic target in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Pre-clinical data indicate that the combined inhibition of both the epidermal growth factor receptor and mTOR results in enhanced anticancer activity.

Methods:

All patients had metastatic RCC with progression after treatment with sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Treatment consisted of erlotinib 150 mg orally once a day starting on day 1 and sirolimus 6 mg orally on day 8 followed by 2 mg daily, adjusted according to blood levels.

Results:

A total of 25 patients were enrolled between July 2006 and March 2008. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 weeks (95% CI 5.9–18.1) and median overall survival (OS) 40 weeks (95% CI 0–85.7). No confirmed complete or partial responses were observed, but stable disease >6 months was noted in 21.8% (95% CI 4.9–38.6) of patients. The most common adverse events were rash and diarrhoea. There was no correlation between erlotinib, OSI-420 (days 8 and 15) or sirolimus (days 15 and 29) blood levels and PFS or OS.

Conclusions:

The combination of sirolimus and erlotinib for RCC failed to demonstrate an advantage over available single-agent therapy in the second-line setting.     

Randomised phase II trial of S-1 plus oxaliplatin vs S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

Background:

This randomised, open-label, multicenter phase II study compared progression-free survival (PFS) of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) with that of S-1 alone in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

Methods:

Patients with confirmed progressive disease following the first-line treatment with a gemcitabine-based regimen were randomised to receive either S-1 (80/100/120 mg day⁻¹ based on body surface area (BSA), orally, days 1–28, every 6 weeks) or SOX (S-1 80/100/120 mg day⁻¹ based on BSA, orally, days 1–14, plus oxaliplatin 100 mg m⁻², intravenously, day 1, every 3 weeks). The primary end point was PFS.

Results:

Between January 2009 and July 2010, 271 patients were randomly allocated to either S-1 (n=135) or SOX (n=136). Median PFS for S-1 and SOX were 2.8 and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR)=0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–1.08; stratified log-rank test P=0.18). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 vs 7.4 months (HR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.79–1.34; stratified log-rank test P=0.82). The response rate (RR) was 11.5% vs 20.9% (P=0.04). The major grade 3/4 toxicities (S-1 and SOX) were neutropenia (11.4% and 8.1%), thrombocytopenia (4.5% and 10.3%) and anorexia (12.9% and 14.7%).

Conclusions:

Although SOX showed an advantage in RR, it provided no significant improvement in PFS or OS compared with S-1 alone.     

A phase I,dose-finding study of sunitinib in combination with irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:

Sunitinib is a multitargeted, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumour and antiangiogenic activity. We investigated the safety and pharmacokinetics of sunitinib in combination with irinotecan in patients with advanced, refractory solid tumours.

Methods:

Sunitinib was initially administered once daily at 37.5 mg per day on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle, in which irinotecan 250 mg m⁻² was given on day 1. In a second cohort, the sunitinib dose was reduced to 25 mg per day. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic studies.

Results:

In the sunitinib 37.5 mg per day cohort, 3 out of 10 evaluable patients had objective responses, but dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of neutropenia, pneumococcal sepsis, and fatigue were observed. There were no DLTs in the sunitinib 25 mg per day cohort. Paired observations of pharmacokinetic parameter values of sunitinib and irinotecan alone vs the combination did not reveal significant drug–drug interactions. The maximum tolerated dose was defined as sunitinib 25 mg per day (days 1–14) with irinotecan 250 mg m⁻² (day 1), but no activity was observed at this dose.

Conclusion:

Although a higher sunitinib dose of 37.5 mg per day (days 1–14) with irinotecan showed preliminary evidence of antitumour activity, this dose was poorly tolerated. Therefore, this particular combination will not be pursued for further studies.     

A multicenter phase 1 study of PX-866 in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:

This phase I, dose-finding study determined the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, and antitumour activity of PX-866, a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor, combined with docetaxel in patients with incurable solid tumours.

Methods:

PX-866 was administered at escalating doses (4–8 mg daily) with docetaxel 75 mg m⁻² intravenously every 21 days. Archived tumour tissue was assessed for potential predictive biomarkers.

Results:

Forty-three patients were enrolled. Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 or 2. The most frequent study drug-related AE was diarrhoea (76.7%), with gastrointestinal disorders occurring in 79.1% (docetaxel-related) and 83.7% (PX-866-related). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The RP2D was 8 mg, the same as the single-agent MTD. Co-administration of PX-866 and docetaxel did not affect either drug''s PKs. Best responses in 35 evaluable patients were: 2 partial responses (6%), 22 stable disease (63%), and 11 disease progression (31%). Eleven patients remained on study for >180 days, including 8 who maintained disease control on single-agent PX-866. Overall median progression-free survival (PFS) was 73.5 days (range: 1–569). A non-significant association between longer PFS for PIK3CA-MUT/KRAS-WT vs PIK3CA-WT/KRAS-WT was observed.

Conclusion:

Treatment with PX-866 and docetaxel was well tolerated, without evidence of overlapping/cumulative toxicity. Further investigation with this combination is justified.     

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. Bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody with clinical benefit in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

Patients with mCRC who had progressed following first-line therapy were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to modified (m)FOLFOX6 plus cediranib (20 or 30 mg day⁻¹) or bevacizumab (10 mg kg⁻¹ every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms.

Results:

A total of 210 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (cediranib 20 mg, n=71; cediranib 30 mg, n=73; bevacizumab, n=66). Median PFS in the cediranib 20 mg, cediranib 30 mg and bevacizumab groups was 5.8, 7.2 and 7.8 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS (cediranib 20 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.28 (95% CI, 0.85–1.95; P=0.29); cediranib 30 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.17 (95% CI, 0.77–1.76; P=0.79)) or overall survival (OS). Grade ⩾3 adverse events were more common with cediranib 30 mg (91.8%) vs cediranib 20 mg (81.4%) or bevacizumab (84.8%).

Conclusion:

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS or OS. When combined with mFOLFOX6, the 20 mg day⁻¹ dose of cediranib was better tolerated than the 30 mg day⁻¹ dose.     

A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas

Background:

This study evaluated the addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinoma first-line therapy.

Methods:

Patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas received gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² and cisplatin 25 mg m⁻² on a 2 weeks on/1 week off cycle and sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. After the initial 16 patients were enrolled, the chemotherapy doses were amended in view of grade 3 and 4 hand–foot skin reaction and haematologic toxicity. Subsequently, 21 patients received gemcitabine 800 mg m⁻², cisplatin 20 mg m⁻² and sorafenib 400 mg. The primary end point was an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) from historical 57–77% (90% power, type I error of 10%). Pretreatment pERK, evaluated by immunostaining, was correlated with clinical outcome.

Results:

A total of 39 patients were accrued. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities noted in >10% of patients were fatigue, elevated liver function tests and haematologic toxicities including thromboemboli, hyponatraemia and hypophosphataemia. Six-month progression-free survival was 51% (95% confidence interval (CI) 34–66%). Median PFS and overall survival were 6.5 (95% CI: 3.5–8.3) and 14.4 months (95% CI: 11.6–19.2 months), respectively. No correlation was observed between pERK and outcomes.

Conclusion:

The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinomas did not improve efficacy over historical data, and toxicity was increased.     

Treatment with docetaxel and cisplatin in advanced adrenocortical carcinoma,a phase II study

Background:

Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare disease with a poor response to chemotherapy. Cisplatin is the most widely investigated drug in the treatment of ACC and in vitro studies have indicated activity of taxanes. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin combined with docetaxel as first-line treatment of advanced ACC.

Methods:

Patients with advanced ACC were included in this phase II trial investigating the response to a combination of cisplatin (50 mg m⁻²) and docetaxel (60 mg m⁻²) administered with a 3-week interval.

Results:

Nineteen patients were included in this study. The response rate was 21% (95% CI: 3–39%). No patients obtained a complete response, 32% had stable disease, and 37% progressed while on treatment. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months (95% CI: 0.7–5.3 months) and 1 year PFS was 21% (95% CI: 3–39%). Median survival was 12.5 months (95% CI: 6–19 months). The predominant grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (35%); febrile neutropenia occurred in 5% of cycles.

Conclusion:

This study could not demonstrate that the combination of cisplatin and docetaxel has higher efficacy than other regimens reported in previous studies.     

Supplemental folic acid in pregnancy and childhood cancer risk

Background:

We investigated the association between supplemental folic acid in pregnancy and childhood cancer in a nation-wide study of 687 406 live births in Norway, 1999–2010, and 799 children diagnosed later with cancer.

Methods:

Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) compared cancer risk in children by approximated periconceptional folic acid levels (folic acid tablets and multivitamins (0.6 mg), only folic acid (0.4 mg), only multivitamins (0.2 mg)) and cancer risk in unexposed.

Results:

Any folic acid levels were not associated with leukemia (e.g., high-level folic acid HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.89–1.76, P_Trend 0.20), lymphoma (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.42–2.21, P_Trend 0.51), central nervous system tumours (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.42–1.10, P_Trend 0.32), neuroblastoma (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.53–2.06, P_Trend 0.85), Wilms'' tumour (HR 1.16; 95% CI 0.52–2.58, P_Trend 0.76), or soft-tissue tumours (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.34–1.75, P_Trend 0.90).

Conclusions:

Folic acid supplementation was not associated with risk of major childhood cancers.     

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial

Background:

This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Methods:

In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m⁻² every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity.

Results:

Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49–73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43–80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m⁻² every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51–77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2–4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8–9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%).

Conclusion:

The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00989469","term_id":"NCT00989469"}}NCT00989469).     

Insulin-like growth factors and liver cancer risk in male smokers

Background:

The liver is the primary source of circulating insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, yet the relation between IGFs and liver cancer is uncertain.

Methods:

In a case–cohort study within a cohort of 29 133 male smokers we examined associations of serum IGF-I and IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-3 with liver cancer (50 cases).

Results:

Nonlinear associations between liver cancer and IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were observed (P=0.04 and P<0.01, respectively), strongest association at lowest levels (odds ratio (OR)=0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.1–0.7 for 80 vs 30 ng ml⁻¹ of IGF-I; OR=0.2, 95% CI=0.1–0.6 for 1400 vs 700 ng ml⁻¹ of IGFBP-3).

Conclusions:

Low IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels in male smokers are associated with increased risk of liver cancer.     

Phase I–II study of plitidepsin and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma

Background:

This phase I–II trial compared plitidepsin 1-h infusion alone or combined with dacarbazine (DTIC) 1-h infusion as front-line therapy for advanced melanoma.

Methods:

The recommended dose (RD) for plitidepsin/DTIC was defined in the first stage. In the second stage, patients were randomised to receive single-agent plitidepsin 3.2 mg m⁻² (n=20) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (q4wk) or plitidepsin 2.4 mg m⁻² on days 1, 8 and 15 q4wk combined with DTIC 800 mg m⁻² q4wk (n=38).

Results:

The overall response rate with plitidepsin/DTIC was 21.4% all responders had normal serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels and performance status ⩽1 at baseline. Median progression-free survival (PFS) with plitidepsin/DTIC was 3.3 months in all patients, and 4.3 months in those with baseline normal LDH. No responses occurred with single-agent plitidepsin and median PFS was 1.5 months. Both regimens were well tolerated. Haematological abnormalities were more common and transaminase increases more severe with plitidepsin/DTIC. Treatment-related transaminase increases leading to infusion omission on day 8 were relatively common. No drug–drug pharmacokinetic interactions were found.

Conclusion:

This plitidepsin/DTIC schedule has antitumour activity and manageable toxicity in advanced melanoma. Further evaluation of plitidepsin 2.4 mg m⁻² fortnightly and DTIC 800 mg m⁻² q4wk is recommended.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled multi-centre phase III trial of XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

The purpose of this randomised phase III trial was to evaluate whether the addition of simvastatin, a synthetic 3-hydroxy-3methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, to XELIRI/FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimens confers a clinical benefit to patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of 269 patients previously treated for metastatic colorectal cancer and enrolled in 5 centres in South Korea. Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to one of the following groups: FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus simvastatin (40 mg) or FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus placebo. The FOLFIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 180 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion, leucovorin at 200 mg m⁻² as a 2-h infusion, and a bolus injection of 5-FU 400 mg m⁻² followed by a 46-h continuous infusion of 5-FU at 2400 mg m⁻². The XELIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 250 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion with capecitabine 1000 mg m⁻² twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), time to progression, and toxicity.

Results:

Between April 2010 and July 2013, 269 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (134 simvastatin, 135 placebo). The median PFS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.5–7.3) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin group and 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.4–8.6) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus placebo group (P=0.937). No significant difference was observed between the two groups with respect to OS (median, 15.9 months (simvastatin) vs 19.9 months (placebo), P=0.826). Grade ⩾3 nausea and anorexia were noted slightly more often in patients in the simvastatin arm compared with with the placebo arm (4.5% vs 0.7%, 3.0% vs 0%, respectively).

Conclusions:

The addition of 40 mg simvastatin to the XELIRI/FOLFIRI regimens did not improve PFS in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer nor did it increase toxicity.     

Phase II study of gemcitabine,oxaliplatin in combination with panitumumab in KRAS wild-type unresectable or metastatic biliary tract and gallbladder cancer

Background:

Current data suggest that platinum-based combination therapy is the standard first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer. EGFR inhibition has proven beneficial across a number of gastrointestinal malignancies; and has shown specific advantages among KRAS wild-type genetic subtypes of colon cancer. We report the combination of panitumumab with gemcitabine (GEM) and oxaliplatin (OX) as first-line therapy for KRAS wild-type biliary tract cancer.

Methods:

Patients with histologically confirmed, previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic KRAS wild-type biliary tract or gallbladder adenocarcinoma with ECOG performance status 0–2 were treated with panitumumab 6 mg kg⁻¹, GEM 1000 mg m⁻² (10 mg m⁻² min⁻¹) and OX 85 mg m⁻² on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary objective was to determine the objective response rate by RECIST criteria v.1.1. Secondary objectives were to evaluate toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival.

Results:

Thirty-one patients received at least one cycle of treatment across three institutions, 28 had measurable disease. Response rate was 45% and disease control rate was 90%. Median PFS was 10.6 months (95% CI 5–24 months) and median overall survival 20.3 months (95% CI 9–25 months). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anaemia 26%, leukopenia 23%, fatigue 23%, neuropathy 16% and rash 10%.

Conclusions:

The combination of gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and panitumumab in KRAS wild type metastatic biliary tract cancer showed encouraging efficacy, additional efforts of genetic stratification and targeted therapy is warranted in biliary tract cancer.     

Phase II study of pemetrexed and carboplatin plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background:

The aim of this open label phase II study ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00407459","term_id":"NCT00407459"}}NCT00407459) was to assess the activity of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor bevacizumab combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with previously untreated, unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

Methods:

Eligible patients received pemetrexed 500 mg m⁻², carboplatin area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) 5 mg ml⁻¹ per minute and bevacizumab 15 mg kg⁻¹, administered intravenously every 21 days for six cycles, followed by maintenance bevacizumab. The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). A 50% improvement in median PFS in comparison with standard pemetrexed/platinum combinations (from 6 to 9 months) was postulated.

Results:

Seventy-six patients were evaluable for analysis. A partial response was achieved in 26 cases (34.2%, 95% CI 23.7–46.0%). Forty-four (57.9%, 95% CI 46.0–69.1%) had stable disease. Median PFS and overall survival were 6.9 and 15.3 months, respectively. Haematological and non-haematological toxicities were generally mild; however, some severe adverse events were reported, including grade 3–4 fatigue in 8% and bowel perforation in 4% of patients. Three toxic deaths occurred.

Conclusion:

The primary end point of the trial was not reached. However, due to the limitation of a non-randomised phase II design, further data are needed before drawing any definite conclusion on the role of bevacizumab in MPM.