scholarly journals Raising the Bar in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Sharlene Gill ◽  

Pancreatic cancer remains one of our greatest clinical challenges. In the last 5 years we have witnessed the introduction of new agents into our armamentarium, which has fortunately translated into incremental improvements in overall survival. We have level 1 evidence for the use of FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel in the first-line setting; however, the generalizability of randomized studies in the second-line setting has been less compelling. The use of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) post-gemcitabine progression was shown to improve survival in the CONKO-003 trial but failed to do so in the PANCREOX trial. Nano-liposomal irinotecan in combination with 5FU in pre-treated patients yielded an improved survival in the NAPOLI-1 trial, presenting an option in this setting. However, these trials were largely conducted in an era of first-line gemcitabine monotherapy, which is no longer a standard practice. Better evidence with contemporary first-line regimens is needed in order to define the optimal post-progression strategy in advanced pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (23) ◽  
pp. 2423-2429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Oettle ◽  
Hanno Riess ◽  
Jens M. Stieler ◽  
Gerhard Heil ◽  
Ingo Schwaner ◽  
...  

Purpose To assess the efficacy of a second-line regimen of oxaliplatin and folinic acid–modulated fluorouracil in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who have experienced progression while receiving gemcitabine monotherapy. Patients and Methods A randomized, open-label, phase III study was conducted in 16 institutions throughout Germany. Recruitment ran from January 2004 until May 2007, and the last follow-up concluded in December 2012. Overall, 168 patients age 18 years or older who experienced disease progression during first-line gemcitabine therapy were randomly assigned to folinic acid and fluorouracil (FF) or oxaliplatin and FF (OFF). Patients were stratified according to the presence of metastases, duration of first-line therapy, and Karnofsky performance status. Results Median follow-up was 54.1 months, and 160 patients were eligible for the primary analysis. The median overall survival in the OFF group (5.9 months; 95% CI, 4.1 to 7.4) versus the FF group (3.3 months; 95% CI, 2.7 to 4.0) was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; log-rank P = .010). Time to progression with OFF (2.9 months; 95% CI, 2.4 to 3.2) versus FF (2.0 months; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.3) was significantly extended also (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94; log-rank P = .019). Rates of adverse events were similar between treatment arms, with the exception of grades 1 to 2 neurotoxicity, which were reported in 29 patients (38.2%) and six patients (7.1%) in the OFF and FF groups, respectively (P < .001). Conclusion Second-line OFF significantly extended the duration of overall survival when compared with FF alone in patients with advanced gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
Osama E. Rahma ◽  
David J. Liewehr ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
Austin G. Duffy ◽  
Tim F Greten

275 Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers with an estimated 5 years survival rate of 5%. Until recently gemcitabine had been considered the first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Although many chemotherapy regimens have been used there is no standard of care for second line therapy. The aim of this analysis was to identify superior regimen in the second line setting. Methods: We conducted a general search on PubMed for “second line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer”. We limited our search to trials published in English from 2000 through 2012. Studies presented as abstracts in major meetings were also included. Trials that used targeted therapy other than erlotinib were excluded. We compared in an exploratory fashion the RR, PFS and OS of BSC and each of the following regimens to the rest of the treatments: 5FU+platinum, gemcitabine+platinum, taxol, erlotinib. In addition, we compared the combinations of platinum with either 5FU or gemcitabine. Finally, we explored the trend of these treatments outcomes over time. Results: Forty-four trialswere identified, of which 34 trials (T) met the inclusion criteria treating 1503 patients (N). There was a trend toward an improved overall survival with treatments (T: 33; N: 1269) compared to BSC (T: 2; N: 234) only (P= 0.013). The combination of gemcitabine and platinum (T: 5; N: 154) was the only regimen that showed a trend toward superior outcomes compared to the other regimens (T: 28; N: 1115) in terms of RR and PFS (P= 0.006 and 0.059, respectively). However, there was no difference in overall survival (P= 0.10). When compared to 5FU+platinum (T: 12; N: 450) the regimen of gemcitabine+platinum (T: 5; N: 154) showed only a trend toward significance in terms of improved RR (P= 0.030) with no difference in PFS or OS (P= 0.60 and 0.22, respectively). Overall, there was a trend toward a worse RR and PFS with no change in OS over the past 13 years. Conclusions: The combination of gemcitabine and platinum may provide a valid second line option in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who progress on gemcitabine.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 296-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Nagrial ◽  
Venessa T. Chin ◽  
Katrin Sjoquist ◽  
Lorraine A. Chantrill ◽  
Desmond Yip

296 Background: There is currently no standard of care for the second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Very few randomised studies have been performed in this setting. The aim of this analysis was to compare the different therapeutic approaches in this setting, and the rate of second line treatment delivery and its influence on reported overall survival. Methods: We carried out a systematic analysis of studies in advanced pancreatic cancer. 1st and 2nd line chemotherapy trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE & CENTRAL using the COCHRANE sensitive search strategy. Objective response rates (ORR) and survival (PFS & OS) were extracted and compared amongst groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. For 1st line studies, the percentage of patients who received 2nd line chemotherapy was also extracted and plotted against reported median overall survival (OS) and post-progression survival (PPS), defined as arithmetic difference between median OS and progression-free survival. Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between overall survival and second-line chemotherapy. Results: 20 first line clinical trials with 42 treatment arms met the inclusion criteria treating an aggregate total of 5,768 patients. Overall survival was positively correlated with use of second-line chemotherapy (r=0.65; p=0.012). 61 second-line studies were identified treating an aggregate total of 2,562 patients in 66 treatment arms. Combination treatment was associated with an improved response rate (p=0.045) and PFS (p=0.024) when compared to single agent therapy. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, these data suggest that there is a small benefit of second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. In first-line chemotherapy studies, the use of subsequent treatment correlates with improved overall survival. In second line studies, combination chemotherapy is associated with higher response rates and survival.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592094797
Author(s):  
Francesca Foschini ◽  
Fabiana Napolitano ◽  
Alberto Servetto ◽  
Roberta Marciano ◽  
Eleonora Mozzillo ◽  
...  

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. In cases with metastasis, the combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens are considered the standard of care. However, the optimal sequence of these regimens is unclear. Methods: This retrospective study initially evaluated 186 patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer at three Italian institutions between February 2013 and October 2019. All patients had progressed after receiving gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy and were subsequently offered second-line FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX-6, or FOLFIRI treatment. This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival from the start of second-line treatment (OS2), overall survival from the start of first-line treatment (OS1), and safety outcomes. Results: A total of 77 patients received ⩾4 cycles of second-line chemotherapy and were considered eligible: 15 patients received FOLFIRINOX, 32 patients received FOLFOX-6, and 30 patients received FOLFIRI. The FOLFIRINOX group had median PFS of 26.29 weeks and median OS2 of 47.86 weeks, while the FOLFIRI group had median PFS of 10.57 weeks and median OS2 of 25.00 weeks ( p = 0.038). No significant differences were observed between the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups in terms of PFS (26.29 weeks versus 23.07 weeks) or OS2 (47.86 weeks versus 42.00 weeks). The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups. Conclusion: Relative to the FOLFIRI regimen, the FOLFIRINOX regimen had a favorable toxicity profile and better survival outcomes. No significant differences were observed relative to the FOLFOX-6 regimen.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14680-e14680
Author(s):  
Milton Jose B. Silva ◽  
Joyce Maria L. Maia ◽  
Adriana Regina G. Ribeiro ◽  
Ludmilla T. D. Chinen ◽  
Tadeu Ferreira Paiva Jr ◽  
...  

e14680 Background: Despite the lack of high-quality clinical trial data suggesting that second-line chemotherapy (SLC) may affect survival on metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), most of centers utilizes them after the failure of initial treatment in patients who maintain a good performance status. The aim of the present study was to review our institutional experience with SLC and estimate its role in overall survival (OS). Methods: We performed a retrospective matched case-control analysis based on search of medical records in 106 consecutive patients with mPC at our institution. Patients received first line chemotherapy (FLC) and SLC (n = 49) or FLC only (n =57) from September 2005 to December 2010. Case matching was performed with respect to age (< 60y versus ≥ 60y), topography (head of the pancreas versus body or tail), sites of metastasis. Overall survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Median age was 63 (32-86) and 60 (38-85) for SLC group and FLC group respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding topography, TNM stage at diagnosis, and sites of metastasis. The main site of metastasis was the liver (24,4%), followed by peritoneum (2,8%).Median follow-up of both groups was 8.4 months (0.23m-54.93m). First line treatment consisted of Gemcitabine (55.1% x 49.1%) and gemcitabine + cisplatin (18.4%x14%) in SLC and FLC group respectively. The most used second line treatment was Capecitabine (32.7%), followed by Folfox (16.3%), and Fluoracil (10.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the overall median survival, 1-year and 2-years survival rate was 15.72 months versus 7.2 months (p:0.021), and 60% vs. 32%, and 30% vs. 19% in SLC and FLC group, respectively. Conclusions: Our result suggests that second-line chemotherapy may be beneficial to improve overall survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. It’s important that new and ongoing clinical trials clarify which is the best chemotherapy scheme in this setting.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingwen Chen ◽  
Yiqian Liu ◽  
Yizhi Zhu ◽  
Shiyun Cui ◽  
Chongqi Sun ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There have not been standard second-line or maintenance regimens with definite survival benefits so far for patients with pancreatic carcinoma who have lost the opportunity of curable resections or failed first-line chemotherapy. Anlotinib, a potent small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits anti-angiogenic and anti-tumour effects by specifically binding to multiple targets such as VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, c-Kit and Ret. Toripalimab, a novel anti-PD-1 mAb, has been proved to significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in various solid tumours with manageable toxicities when combining with cytotoxic chemotherapy. We design this study to assess the combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel as a second-line or maintenance therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). Patients and Methods: This is an open-label, non-randomized, single-arm phase Ⅱ study, aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety profile of the above-mentioned combination strategy in first-line therapy-failed LAPC or MPC. Totally 53 patients are to be enrolled and receive anlotinib (12 mg, po. qd.) plus toripalimab (240 mg, ivgtt. q3w.) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2, ivgtt, d1, d8) every 3 weeks as a cycle until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. The primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary end points include OS, disease control rate (DCR), object response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and safety. Enrollment started in April 2021, and follow-up will be finished in April 2023. Discussion and Significance: Combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel may promote vessel normalization and drug delivery, and activate the immune response, thus exerting synergistic anti-tumour effects and counteracting the immunosuppressive microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. As the first intending to assess this combination in pancreatic cancer, this study will provide comprehensive evidence for second-line or maintenance therapy of LAPC and MPC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: ATNPA, NCT04718701. Registered January 22, 2021. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04718701?term=NCT04718701&draw=2&rank=1)


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. S. McDermott ◽  
P. Calvert ◽  
M. Parker ◽  
G. Webb ◽  
B. Moulton ◽  
...  

315 Background: The combination of capecitabine plus erlotinib in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer patients has proved beneficial in terms of median survival duration, objective radiological response rate and decrease in tumour marker levels from baseline. In the phase I study of capecitabine and lapatinib carried out in advanced solid tumors, the optimal tolerated regimen was determined to be lapatinib 1,250 mg plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m2/day. At these dose levels, the combination was well tolerated with few grade 3 toxicities and no grade 4 toxicity. Our preclinical work suggested synergistic activity of capecitabine and lapatinib in pancreatic cancer. We initiated a study of this combination in the first-line therapy of metastatic pancreas cancer. Methods: This was a single-arm multicenter study in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic pancreatic cancer. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The study was designed as a Simons two-stage optimal design and was divided into two stages. The first stage was to recruit up to 12 patients. If at least seven of these patients survived for at least six months, then a further 20 patients would be enrolled into the study. If six or fewer of the initial 12 patients met the specified study survival criteria, the study would be halted. Treatment was to be administered until disease progression or until withdrawal from the study due to unacceptable toxicity or other reasons. Clinical and laboratory parameters were assessed to evaluate disease response and toxicity of therapy. The study patients received lapatinib 1,250 mg/day, plus capecitabine 2000 mg/m2/day on days 1-14 every 21 days. Results: Nine patients were enrolled. Seven of these patients did not achieve the interim protocol response requirement of survival for at least 6 months, to allow for the study to continue to the second cohort of patients. Median overall survival from first dose was 4 months. Median time on treatment was 2 months. There were no objective responses. There were no unexpected toxicities. Conclusions: The addition of lapatinib to capecitabine does not improve overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer patients. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 421-421
Author(s):  
Christopher Larson ◽  
Tony R. Reid

421 Background: The options for treatment of pancreatic cancer follow progression on first line therapy are limited and associated with significant toxicity. Erlotinib has been approved for treatment of pancreatic cancer in first-line therapy. We conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for patients that had failed first-line therapy. Erlotinib was administered by a novel pulse-dose schedule where the drug was given orally for 3 days every two weeks. Purpose: Assess the safety and determine a recommended phase II dose for pulsed high dose erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer, and obtain preliminary data on activity. Methods: Patients with pancreatic cancer that progressed on or after first-line therapy were treated in a dose escalation study with erlotinib at 750 to 2,000 mg daily for three days every two weeks in combination with weekly gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 for three weeks on and one week off. Results: No dose limiting toxicities were encountered and erlotinib-induced rash was mild and transient. Median overall survival was 6.7 months and 12-month overall survival was 27%. Progression free survival but not overall survival was longer in patients who did not previously receive gemcitabine. Rash was not associated with longer survival. Conclusions: The recommended phase II dose is erlotinib 2,000 mg daily for three consecutive days every two weeks in combination with gemcitabine. Tolerability was excellent, and outcomes were better than expected for second-line therapy in pancreatic cancer. Further studies are warranted, both as therapy after first-line and as first-line therapy for patients unable to tolerate more aggressive regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02154737.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4517-4517 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Riess ◽  
U. Pelzer ◽  
J. Stieler ◽  
I. Schwaner ◽  
G. Heil ◽  
...  

4517 Objective: For nearly ten years gemcitabine (G) was standard first line therapy for patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). There is no consensus about second line therapy after disease progression while receiving G, but 5-FU-based regimens are considered. Results about randomized second line studies in APC are very rare. Our phase II study (ASCO 2002) showed activity of the OFF (oxaliplatin/folinic Acid (FA)/5-fluorouracil (FU) [24h] ) regimen in 23 pts. To examine the impact and the side effects of oxaliplatin we initiated a multicenter phase III study to compare OFF and FF in pts with G refractory APC. Methods: Pts with CT/ MRT confirmed failure with G in first line therapy, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) >60%, controlled pain, adequate hematological, renal and liver functions were eligible. Pts were stratified according to duration of first line therapy, KPS and tumor stage. We randomized pts to outpatient treatment with FF (FU 2g/m2 (24h)/ FA 200 mg/m2 (30min) on d1, d8, d15 and d22) or OFF (FF+Oxaliplatin 85mg/m2, d8, d22). In both arms the next cycle started on day 43. Pts were followed with regular staging every 3 months or at any signs of disease progression. Results: Until now we randomized 161 of 165 (planned) pts between 02/2004 and 01/2007. So we expect to present first results (side effects, progression free survival, overall survival) at the meeting. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document