BAYPAN study: a double-blind phase III randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus sorafenib and gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BackgroundSorafenib is an oral anticancer agent targeting Ras-dependent signaling and angiogenic pathways. A phase I trial demonstrated that the combination of gemcitabine and sorafenib was well tolerated and had activity in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The BAYPAN study was a multicentric, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/sorafenib and gemcitabine/placebo in the treatment of APC.Patients and methodsThe patient eligibility criteria were locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior therapy for advanced disease and a performance status of zero to two. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² i.v., weekly seven times followed by 1 rest week, then weekly three times every 4 weeks plus sorafenib 200 mg or placebo, two tablets p.o., twice daily continuously.ResultsBetween December 2006 and September 2009, 104 patients were enrolled on the study (52 pts in each arm) and 102 patients were treated. The median and the 6-month PFS were 5.7 months and 48% for gemcitabine/placebo and 3.8 months and 33% for gemcitabine/sorafenib (P = 0.902, stratified log-rank test), respectively. The median overall survivals were 9.2 and 8 months, respectively (P = 0.231, log-rank test). The overall response rates were similar (19 and 23%, respectively).ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine does not improve PFS in APC patients.     

A phase II trial of gemcitabine plus capecitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Purpose While gemcitabine (GEM) is widely accepted for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, capecitabine (CAP) has shown single agent activity and promising efficacy in combination with GEM. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of GEM combined with dose escalated 14-day CAP as first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, we also analyzed the correlation between CA19-9 response and clinical outcomes. Methods Patients had advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior systemic chemotherapy other than that given concurrently with radiation therapy, at lease one measurable disease, and adequate organ functions. The patients were treated with GEM 1,000 mg/m² IV on days 1, 8 and CAP 1,000 mg/m² twice a day PO on days 1–14, in 21-day cycles. Results The objective RR among 45 patients was 40.0% (95% CI; 25.1–54.9), including 1CR (2.2%). The median TTP and OS were 5.4 months (95% CI; 1.8–9.0) and 10.4 months (95% CI; 6.2–14.5), respectively. Patients with ≥25% decline of serum CA19-9 had significantly better outcomes in terms of TTP and OS than those who did not (P < 0.03). The most frequent, grade 3–4, non-hematologic toxicity was hand–foot syndrome (6.7%). Conclusions The combination of GEM with dose escalated 14-day CAP is well tolerated and offers encouraging activity in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, CA19-9 response correlates well with clinical outcomes in this population.     

A double-blind placebo-controlled,randomised study comparing gemcitabine and marimastat with gemcitabine and placebo as first line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Cimetidine has been shown to have beneficial effects in colorectal cancer patients. In this study, a total of 64 colorectal cancer patients who received curative operation were examined for the effects of cimetidine treatment on survival and recurrence. The cimetidine group was given 800 mg day(-1) of cimetidine orally together with 200 mg day(-1) of 5-fluorouracil, while the control group received 5-fluorouracil alone. The treatment was initiated 2 weeks after the operation and terminated after 1 year. Robust beneficial effects of cimetidine were noted: the 10-year survival rate of the cimetidine group was 84.6% whereas that of control group was 49.8% (P<0.0001). According to our previous observations that cimetidine blocked the expression of E-selectin on vascular endothelium and inhibited the adhesion of cancer cells to the endothelium, we have further stratified the patients according to the expression levels of sialyl Lewis antigens X (sL(x)) and A (sL(a)). We found that cimetidine treatment was particularly effective in patients whose tumour had higher sL(x) and sL(a) antigen levels. For example, the 10-year cumulative survival rate of the cimetidine group with higher CSLEX staining, recognizing sL(x), of tumours was 95.5%, whereas that of control group was 35.1% (P=0.0001). In contrast, in the group of patients with no or low levels CSLEX staining, cimetidine did not show significant beneficial effect (the 10-year survival rate of the cimetidine group was 70.0% and that of control group was 85.7% (P=n.s.)). These results clearly indicate that cimetidine treatment dramatically improved survival in colorectal cancer patients with tumour cells expressing high levels of sL(x) and sL(a).     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly x 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P =.75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade > or = 3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.     

Prospective randomised evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine combined with chemotherapy: a randomised phase II study of wild toad extract plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinomas

Background:

An intravenous formulated extract of the venom of the wild toad Bufo bufo gargarizans Cantor or Bufo melanostictus Schneider, huachansu, is currently used in China for the treatment of lung, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers. We performed a randomised, single-blinded, phase II clinical study of huachansu plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas.

Methods:

Patients with tissue-proven locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarinoma were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² on days 1, 8, and 15 with huachansu 20 ml m⁻² daily for 21 days (arm A) or placebo (arm B); treatment cycles were 28 days in length. Primary end point was 4-month progression-free overall survival (PFS); secondary end points were objective radiographical response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and toxicity.

Results:

A total of 80 subjects were enrolled; 76 patients were evaluable (received at least 1 week therapy). Median overall survival was 160 days for arm A and 156 days for arm B (P=0.339); ORR was 9 and 3% in arms A and B, respectively (P=0.332), median TTP was 98 and 115 days, respectively (P=0.825); the median 4-month PFS was 99 and 98 days, respectively (P=0.679).

Conclusion:

Huachansu when combined with gemcitabine did not improve the outcome of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic cancer.     

A phase II study of capecitabine plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE: This open-label, multicenter phase II study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus gemcitabine combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 63 patients who received capecitabine 830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-21 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) as a 30-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients had partial responses giving an overall response rate of 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13-34%) in the intent-to-treat population. The median time to progression and overall survival were 3.9 months (95% CI 3.5-5.7) and 7.5 months (95% CI 5.0-10.0), respectively, and 1-year survival rate was 27.1% in the intent-to-treat population. Capecitabine plus gemcitabine was well tolerated. Grade 3 hematological adverse events were neutropenia (21%) and thrombocytopenia (2%); the only grade 4 hematological events were anemia (2%) and neutropenia (6%). Non-hematological adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal events and hand-foot syndrome, which affected 16% of patients. Grade 3/4 non-hematological events were infrequent. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine plus gemcitabine appears to be active and well tolerated as first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.     

Randomized,multicenter, phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: We conducted a phase II randomized study to assess the efficacy, with response as the primary endpoint, and the toxicity of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to GP (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) day 2) or GC (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin AUC=5 day 2). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized to GP and 58 to GC. A total of 533 cycles were delivered (264 GP, 269 GC), with a median of four cycles/patient. The objective response rate was 41.9% (95% C.I., 29.6-54.2%) for GP and 31.0% (95% C.I., 18.2-42.8%) for GC (P=0.29). No significant differences between arms were observed in median survival (10.4 months GP, 10.8 months GC) and median time to progression (5.4 months GP, 5.1 months GC). Both regimens were very well tolerated with no statistical differences between arms in grade 3/4 toxicities. When all toxicity grades were combined, emesis, neuropathy and renal toxicity occurred more frequently on the GP arm (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: GC arm did not provide a significant difference in response rate compared with GP arm, with better overall tolerability. Carboplatin could be a valid alternative to cisplatin in the palliative setting.     

Cationic liposomal paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled phase II trial

BackgroundPaclitaxel embedded in cationic liposomes (EndoTAG™-1; ET) is an innovative agent targeting tumor endothelial cells. This randomized controlled phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ET in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic cancer (PDAC).Patients and methodsChemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive weekly GEM 1000 mg/m² or GEM plus twice-weekly ET 11, 22 or 44 mg/m² for 7 weeks. After a safety run-in of 100 patients, a second cohort continued treatment. End points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and safety.ResultsTwo hundred and twelve patients were randomly allocated to the study and 200 were treated (80% metastatic, 20% locally advanced). Adverse events were manageable and reversible. Transient thrombocytopenia and infusion reactions with chills and pyrexia mostly grade 1 or 2 occurred in the ET groups. Disease control rate after the first treatment cycle was 43% with GEM and 60%, 65% and 52% in the GEM + ET cohorts. Median PFS reached 2.7 compared with 4.1, 4.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Median OS was 6.8 compared with 8.1, 8.7 and 9.3 months, respectively.ConclusionsTreatment of advanced PDAC with GEM + ET was generally well tolerated. GEM + ET showed beneficial survival and efficacy. A randomized phase III trial should confirm this positive trend.     

A randomized,multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study

Vandetanib did not demonstrate any superiority alone or in combination with gemcitabine in the progression-free survival of patients affected by advanced biliary tract cancer compared with gemcitabine alone. The safety profile of vandetanib given (alone or in combination with gemcitabine) does not show any additional adverse events (AEs) or worsening of already known AEs.BackgroundThe management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes.ResultsA total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72–155), 114 (91–193) and 148 (71–225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm).ConclusionsVandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs.Clinical trial numberNCT00753675.     

CA 19-9 as a biomarker in advanced pancreatic cancer patients randomised to gemcitabine plus axitinib or gemcitabine alone

Background:

Response assessment in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) is difficult and predictive markers are needed. There are insufficient data on the value of carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA 19-9) and cytostatic-targeted therapies. Axitinib, a selective vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, 3 inhibitor, may increase overall survival (OS) in APC.

Methods:

We assessed serum CA 19-9, clinical outcomes and diastolic blood pressure (dBP) in APC patients receiving gemcitabine plus axitinib (Gem+A) or gemcitabine alone.

Results:

In the total population (N=95), median OS was significantly longer in patients with baseline CA 19-9 values at or below the median than in those with values above it (12.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.6–16.6%] vs 5.0 months [95% CI, 3.9–5.7%]; P<0.0001). This also reached significance in the Gem+A arm (median OS, 12.5 months [95% CI, 8.6–16.6%] vs 4.9 months [95% CI, 3.6–5.6%]; P<0.0001). Patients with any dBP>90 mmHg had significantly longer OS than those who did not. However, there was no predictive significance of CA 19-9.

Conclusion:

Baseline CA 19-9 levels had prognostic value for OS, but caution is advised in interpreting CA 19-9 as a predictive biomarker for novel cytostatic agents such as VEGF-targeted therapies in phase II studies.