A multicenter randomized, open-label, proof-of-concept, phase II trial comparing gemcitabine with and without IMM-101 in advanced pancreatic cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 336-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus George Dalgleish ◽  

336 Background: Immunotherapy is becoming established as an effective way of treating cancer. Immodulon Therapeutics is developing IMM-101, a heat-killed whole cell preparation of Mycobacterium obuense (NCTC 13365), which modulates systemic immune responses, as an adjunctive immunotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and a WHO score of 0-2 were assigned randomly to receive IMM-101 (0.1 mL intradermal injection of 10 mg/mL) plus Gemcitabine (Gem) (1000 mg/m2for 3 consecutive weeks out of 4) or Gem alone. Per protocol, this could be continued to a 12-cycle maximum. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS). Safety, tolerability and progression free survival (PFS) were also assessed. Results: A total of 110 patients were randomized, 75 to receive IMM-101 plus Gem and 35 Gem alone (ITT population). The PP population consisted of 63 and 35 patients, respectively. Conclusions were similar; here we report results of the PP analysis. Median OS was increased significantly by 29% to 7.2 months in the IMM-101 plus Gem group compared to 5.6 months in the Gem group (p=0.022; HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.94). Median PFS was increased significantly by 83% to 4.4 months in the IMM-101 plus Gem group compared to 2.4 months in the Gem group (p=0.003; HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.81). In the pre-defined sub-group of patients with metastatic disease (n=82), median OS was increased significantly by 70% to 7.5 months in the IMM-101 plus Gem group (n=54) compared to 4.4 months in the Gem group (n=28) (p=0.002; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76). A highly significant 91% increase in median PFS from 2.3 months in the Gem group to 4.4 months in the IMM-101 plus Gem group was observed (p<0.001; HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66). IMM-101 was well tolerated. The only adverse events of NCI CTC ≥Grade 3 occurring more frequently in the IMM-101 group (absolute difference in frequency between the groups >5%) were asthenia 10.8% and abdominal pain 8.1% (both 2.9% in the Gem group). Conclusion: Clinically meaningful increases in OS and PFS were demonstrated with IMM-101. No additional burden of adverse events above those relating to chemotherapy or the underlying disease was observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01303172.

Chemotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kotone Hayuka ◽  
Hiroyuki Okuyama ◽  
Akitsu Murakami ◽  
Yoshihiro Okita ◽  
Takamasa Nishiuchi ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis. FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been established as first-line treatment, but they have not been confirmed as second-line treatment after FFX. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GnP as second-line therapy after FFX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-five patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients were treated with GnP after FFX between September 2015 and September 2019. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The response rate, disease control rate, median PFS, and median OS were 12%, 96%, 5.3 months, and 15.6 months, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%) and anemia (16%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> GnP after FOLFIRINOX is expected to be one of the second-line recommendations for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoki Mita ◽  
Takuji Iwashita ◽  
Shinya Uemura ◽  
Kensaku Yoshida ◽  
Yuhei Iwasa ◽  
...  

FOLFIRINOX (FX) and gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been reported as effective regimens for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). FX may be more effective but is also associated with more adverse events (AEs). Therefore, first-line treatment with FX followed by second-line GnP may be appropriate. Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of second-line GnP for patients with APC after first-line FX failure. Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective phase II study evaluating second-line GnP in patients with APC after failed first-line FX. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and the frequency and degree of adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty patients (14 male; median age, 64 years) were enrolled. The RR was 13.3%, with a median follow-up time of 9.3 months. The median OS and PFS were 7.6 and 3.8 months, respectively. From the beginning of first-line treatment, the median OS and PFS were 14.2 and 9.3 months, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 AEs were seen in 70% of patients. Conclusion: Second-line GnP after FX failure for patients with APC could be more effective than GEM alone. Further comparison studies are warranted.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591985036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Guido Giordano ◽  
George Kim ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran

Background: No clinical trial has directly compared nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P/G) with FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer (mPC or aPC). We conducted a systematic review of real-world studies comparing these regimens in the first-line setting. Methods: Embase and MEDLINE databases through 22 January 2019, and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2019 abstracts were searched for real-world, retrospective studies comparing first-line nab-P/G versus FOLFIRINOX in mPC or aPC that met specific parameters. Studies with radiotherapy were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Of 818 records initially identified, 35 were duplicates and 749 did not meet the eligibility criteria, mostly because they were either not comparative ( n = 356) or not first line ( n = 245). The remaining 34 studies (21 mPC; 13 aPC) assessed >6915 patients who received nab-P/G or FOLFIRINOX. In the studies identified, the median overall survival (OS) reached 14.4 and 15.9 months with nab-P/G and FOLFIRINOX, respectively, and median progression-free survival reached 8.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. Safety data were reported in 14 studies (2205 patients), including 8 single-institutional studies. In most single-institutional studies that reported safety data, rates were higher with FOLFIRINOX versus nab-P/G for grade 3/4 neutropenia (five of six studies) and febrile neutropenia (all three studies), while rates of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy were higher with nab-P/G in four of seven studies. Conclusions: Although FOLFIRINOX was associated with slightly longer median OS in more studies, the differences, when available, were not statistically significant. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial is warranted. Toxicity profile differences represent key considerations for treatment decisions.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Cheng ◽  
Yu-Wen Zhou ◽  
Ye Chen ◽  
Zhi-Ping Li ◽  
Meng Qiu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Irinotecan-based doublet chemotherapy strategy was standard second-line backbone treatment for patients with oxaliplatin‑refractory metastatic colorectal cancer(mCRC). The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan biweekly administered as the second-line therapy for mCRC patients.Methods The study was a single-center, non-randomized, open-label phase II trial. Patients with mCRC after failure with first-line treatment of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine or its derivatives were enrolled. Irinotecan (180 mg/m2) and raltitrexed (2.5 mg/m2) were given intravenously on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival and treatment related adverse events. Results Between December 2012 and October 2016, 35 patients were enrolled. 33 and 35 patients were assessed for response and safety, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was 8.6 %, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.8–5.2). The median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.5–15.5). Four patients received conversion therapy to no evidence of disease (NED), and 2 patients were still alive with beyond 24 months survival. The most common grade 3/4 hematological adverse events were leukopenia (8.6%), neutropenia (5.7%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematological adverse events were anorexia (14.3%), vomiting (14.3%), nausea (11.4%) and fatigue (8.6%). Two patients discontinued the protocol treatment because of treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events. No one died from treatment-related events. The incidence and severity of toxicity was irrelevant to UGT1A1 status.Conclusions The combination of irinotecan with raltitrexed is an active, convenient and acceptable toxic regimen for second-line treatment for mCRC patients, which needs further study as a chemotherapy backbone to be combined with targeted agents in mCRC.Trial registration No. ChiCTR-ONC-12002767. The study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at 29 Octorber 2012, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 252-252
Author(s):  
Sohei Satoi ◽  
Motoki Miyazawa ◽  
Masaji Tani ◽  
Manabu Kawai ◽  
Seiko Hirono ◽  
...  

252 Background: Based on the results of GEST, S-1 was confirmed to be non-inferior to gemcitabine. However, the recommended regimen of 4 weeks of administration interrupted by 2 weeks of drug withdrawal frequently causes adverse effect. Grade3/4 toxicities (%) in S-1 were neutropenia 8.8, anorexia 11.4, diarrhea 5.5. On the other hand, we experienced in clinical practice that the alternate-day administration of S-1 reduced adverse effects and was tolerable for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer patients unwilling to continue the standard daily administration. We therefore conducted a multi-center cooperative prospective study to compare daily with alternate-day administration of S-1 for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer (PS, 0 to 1; age, 20 to 80 years; no other therapy) were eligible for enrollment in this trial. S-1 was administered a dose of 40 to 60 mg twice daily, assigned according to body-surface area, on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday (specified days). Each treatment cycle will be 42 days (6 weeks). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were safety, response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF). Results: A total of 50 patients were enrolled from Sep 2009 to Feb 2011. 48 patients were evaluable for response. Male/Female was 21/27, PS: 0/1 was 40/8. With a median follow-up time of 28.2 months, OS as primary endpoint was 8.4 months (95% CI, 5.4-10.8) with the 1 year survival rate 29.2%. PFS was 5.5 months, and TTF was 3.9 months. RR was 10.4% (95% CI: 3.5-19.1), and Disease Control rate was 79.2%. Grade 3/4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were minor. All of those adverse reactions were tolerable and reversible. Conclusions: We will report the data from the final analysis at this meeting. The current data show mitigation of adverse effects with alternate-day administration of S-1, and it appears to be a more sustainable option for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer. A randomized phase II trial comparing this regimen of S-1 with standard regimen of S-1 is ongoing. Clinical trial information: 000003453.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 102-102
Author(s):  
Atsushi Takeno ◽  
Youichi Makari ◽  
Shunji Endo ◽  
Jin Matsuyama ◽  
Ryohei Kawabata ◽  
...  

102 Background: This phase II study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of XP compared to SP in the first-line treatment of HER2 negative AGC. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SP (S-1 at 40–60 mg twice daily for 21 days plus cisplatin at 60 mg/ m2 on day 8, every 5 weeks) or XP (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, every 3 weeks). Primary endpoint was response rate (RR), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and adverse events. Results: 84 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive SP ( N = 41) or XP ( N = 43). No statistical difference was observed in overall RR between the SP and XP groups [51.2% (95% CI, 35.1% to 67.1%) vs. 53.5% (95% CI, 37.7% to 68.8%), P = 1.000]. Despite not significant, however, SP vs. XP showed a trend toward better PFS [median, 5.9 months vs. 4.1 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.763; 95% CI, 0.462 to 1.259; P = .284] and OS (median, 13.5 months vs. 10.0 months; HR, 0.776; 95% CI, 0.485 to 1.244; P = .290). This trend in the SP vs. XP comparison was more pronounced in TTF (median, 4.5 months vs. 3.1 months; HR, 0.651; 95% CI, 0.421 to 1.006; P = .052). Common grade 3 to 4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia and anemia (SP group, 23% and 23%; XP group, 35% and 28%). Grade 3-4 anorexia and hyponatremia were more frequently seen in the XP group (31% and 16%) compared to the SP group (13% and 5%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient (2.3%) in the XP group. Conclusions: XP failed to demonstrate the superior efficacy over SP. Higher incidence of severe toxicities by XP suggests SP as the standard 1st line chemotherapy for HER2 negative AGC in Japan. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006755.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 469-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Ohba ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Yasunari Sakamoto ◽  
Shunsuke Kondo ◽  
Chigusa Morizane ◽  
...  

469 Background: Various modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimens have been reported and widely used in clinical practice. Although there are retrospective studies and single-arm phase 2 studies comparing modified regimens to the full-dose regimen of the historical control group, head-to-head comparisons in the same population are limited. This study aimed to compare mFFX with full-dose FOLFIRINOX (fFFX) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Methods: We reviewed 85 patients with APC who received mFFX (no bolus fluorouracil and irinotecan 150 mg per square) or fFFX as first-line chemotherapy between January 2014 and December 2016. mFFX has been used since January 2016 on the basis of results of a Japanese phase 2 study. The efficacy, safety, and dose reduction pattern were evaluated. Results: A total of 56 eligible patients (26 treated with mFFX and 30 with fFFX) were selected. Baseline characteristics of each group were well-balanced. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, and continuous infusion fluorouracil were 68.6%, 78.5%, 0%, and 88.5% in the mFFX group, and 80.5%, 76.5%, 25.6%, and 83.6% in the fFFX group, respectively. Second cycle dose reduction occurred in 38% of the patients in the mFFX group and in 62% of those in the fFFX group. The median overall survival (OS) was 19.0 months in the mFFX group, compared to 13.2 months in the fFFX group (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25–1.47, P = 0.27). In a multivariate analysis to adjust for prognostic factors for OS, the hazard ratio for death with mFFX was significant (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14–0.93, P = 0.04). The median progression-free survival was 8.3 months in the mFFX group and 5.9 months in the fFFX group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44–1.54, P = 0.55). The response rate was 35% in the mFFX group versus 30% (P = 0.78) in the fFFX group, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 leucopenia (15% versus 40%), neutropenia (42% versus 70%), febrile neutropenia (8% versus 17%), and nausea (4% versus 13%) were decreased in the mFFX group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: mFFX had equivalent or higher efficacy and improved safety compared to fFFX in the same population.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 351-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Giommoni ◽  
Evaristo Maiello ◽  
Vanja Vaccaro ◽  
Ermanno Rondini ◽  
Caterina Vivaldi ◽  
...  

351 Background: FOLFIRINOX is an approved regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). We performed a modification in FOLFIRINOX schedule, using nab-paclitaxel (nab-p) to obtain two regimens that could be as effective and less toxic than the original triplet. NabucCO study was a randomized phase II trial to assess activity and toxicity of nab-p instead of either oxaliplatin (Nab-FOLFIRI) or irinotecan (Nab-FOLFOX) in first line setting. Previous dose–finding NabucCO study defined that maximum tolerated dose of nab-p with FOLFIRI is 120 mg/m2, and with FOLFOX is 160 mg/m2. Methods: The study was a 1:1 parallel arm, open label, not comparative one to assess overall response rate (ORR) of Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX as primary end-point. Patients (pts) with PS 0-1, untreated for mPC were randomized to receive leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5FU bolus 400 mg/m2, 5FU 48h ci 2400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2 plus nab-p 120 mg/m2 (arm A) or leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5FU bolus 400 mg/m2, 5FU 48h ci 2400 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 iv plus nab-p 160 mg/m2 (arm B) every 2 weeks for up to 12 cycles. Secondary end points were clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: From November 2015 to January 2017, 84 pts were treated (42 for each arm). Median age was 60 years (29-65) in arm A and 64 years (47-64) in arm B. The ORR was 31 % for both schedules, with a CBR of 69% and 71%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 11.4 months for arm A and 14.5 months for arm B (censored on august, 31th 2017), 1-year survival is 41% and 50%, respectively. For Nab-FOLFIRI PFS and mOS were 6 months (90% CI: 4.9-8.0) and 13.2 months (90% CI: 8.3-14.8), while in Nab-FOLFOX were 5.6 months (90% CI:4.9-7.2) and 10.8 months (90% CI: 8.4-12.8). Grade ≥3 toxicities in arm A were neutropenia (19%) and febrile neutropenia (12%). In arm B, main grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (29%), fatigue (14%), peripheral neuropathy (7%). No toxic death were registered. Conclusions: Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab–FOLFOX demonstrated a similar activity to FOLFIRINOX, with better safety profile in terms of neutropenia, fatigue and neuropathy. These results could justify a future phase III evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT02109341.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (33) ◽  
pp. 5513-5518 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Ian Chau ◽  
Deborah D. Stocken ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
David Smith ◽  
...  

PurposeBoth gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP).Patients and MethodsPatients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted.ResultsBetween May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity.ConclusionOn the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15597-e15597
Author(s):  
M. Mazzer ◽  
E. Zanon ◽  
L. Foltran ◽  
F. De Pauli ◽  
G. Cardellino ◽  
...  

e15597 Background: Few regimens showed efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer patients (pts) who had failed a first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. However, there is growing evidence suggesting that second-line treatment may provide further disease control in selected pts. Both pemetrexed and oxaliplatin demonstrated activity in this setting, and their combination resulted safe and tolerable.Methods: Pancreatic cancer pts with advanced disease, PS>60, age>18 years, who progressed after a gemcitabine-based therapy were enrolled in a phase II trial, and treated with pemetrexed 500 mg/mq followed by oxaliplatin 120 mg/mq, day 1 every 3 weeks, together with adequate oral folinic acid and intramuscular vitamin B12 supplementation. Accordingly to the Simon Minimax two-stage study design, an accrual of 31 patients was planned, with a minimum response rate considered of interest of 25%, α level 0.10 and β level 0.10. Results: To date, 16 patients have been treated. Of them, 12 progressed during or shortly after gemcitabine (13) or gemcitabine-cisplatin combination (3), with a median time to progression of 186 days. 62 cycles were delivered, with a median of 4 cycles per patient (range 2–8). Overall, the regimen was well tolerated: most common adverse events were mild-to-moderate sensory neurotoxicity and gastrointestinal disturbances. We reported grade 3 anemia, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and grade 3 fatigue in 1 patient each. Three among the treated patients died within 30 days from last delivered cycle due to progressive disease. Confirmed partial (3) or minor responses (6) were observed in 9 out of 15 evaluable pts, with a median decrease in the Ca 19.9 value of 43% among those who responded. Median progression-free survival was 99 days. At the time of analysis, 3 out of 16 patients are still on treatment.Conclusions: The preliminary results suggest that second-line pemetrexed-oxaliplatin combination is well tolerated and reasonably active, and allow the continuation of the study until the full sample of 31 pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document