New approach for local cancer treatment using pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound and phase-change nanodroplets

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the combination effects of pulsed HIFU (pHIFU) and phase-change nanodroplets (PCND) as a sensitizer on efficient induction of mechanical effects of pHIFU and chemically enhanced tumor growth inhibition for local anti-tumor therapy.

METHOD

Changes in growth of colon 26 tumor tissue inoculated onto CDF1 mice were evaluated by the following treatments. (1) pHIFU exposure (1.1 MHz, 3.2 kW/cm(2), 300 cycles, and 50 ms interval) for 60 s, (2) PCND (1 %) injection, (3) adriamycin (4 mg/kg) injection, (4) pHIFU exposure after PCND injection, and (5) pHIFU exposure after PCND + adriamycin injection simultaneously.

RESULTS

Significant changes in tumor growth were observed in the group with combination of pHIFU and PCND, although single therapy did not show any significant difference. PCND enhanced mechanical tissue fractionation by pHIFU, which was detectable by Real-time tissue elastography. Moreover, the combination of pHIFU and PCND + Adriamycin suppressed the tumor growth for 2 weeks, and 3 of 4 mice did not show any sign of regrowth during the 30-day observation.

CONCLUSION

The combination of pHIFU and PCND exerted a significant anti-tumor effect and may be a new candidate for treatment of locally advanced cancer.

Efficacy and safety of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: subgroup analyses by region, including Japan, from the global randomized Phase III trial

Objective

Axitinib is a potent and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3. This analysis compared efficacy and safety of axitinib plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from Japan, North America and the European Union, enrolled in a randomized Phase III study.

Methods

Patients (n = 632), stratified by disease extent, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive axitinib/gemcitabine or placebo/gemcitabine. Axitinib was administered at a starting dose of 5 mg orally twice daily and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m² once weekly for 3 weeks in 4 week cycles. Primary endpoint was overall survival.

Results

Among Japanese patients, median overall survival was not estimable (95% confidence interval, 7.4 months—not estimable) with axitinib/gemcitabine (n = 58) and 9.9 months (95% confidence interval, 7.4–10.5) with placebo/gemcitabine (n = 56) (hazard ratio 1.093 [95% confidence interval, 0.525–2.274]). Median survival follow-up (range) was 5.1 months (0.02–12.3) with axitinib/gemcitabine vs. 5.4 months (1.8–10.5) with placebo/gemcitabine. Similarly, no difference was detected in overall survival between axitinib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine in patients from North America or the European Union. Common adverse events with axitinib/gemcitabine in Japanese patients were fatigue, anorexia, dysphonia, nausea and decreased platelet count. Axitinib safety profile was generally similar in patients from the three regions, although there were differences in incidence of some adverse events. An exploratory analysis did not show any correlation between axitinib/gemcitabine-related hypertension and overall survival.

Conclusions

Axitinib/gemcitabine, while tolerated, did not provide survival benefit over gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from Japan or other regions.

Phase I study of chemoradiation therapy (nab-paclitaxel/Gemcitabine) in 15 patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (UR-LAPC)

475

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Over 90% of cases, they are UR-LAPC or metastatic PC (mPC) at the first time of diagnosis. To prolong survival time, radiation therapy is considered to be promising with strong local control. Some papers reported that RT with 5-FU is effective to LAPC, but they are far from standard regimen. Gemcitabine (Gem) has enhancing effect of sensibility to RT. Gem and nab-paclitaxel (G+NP) showed priority compared with Gem monotherapy in mPC patients with Phase III study. So, we performed Phase I study to decide recommended dose of G+NP when we administer for concurrent CRT in URPC patients. Methods: From Aug 2013, we have registered patients who were examined as UR-LAPC because of cancer invasion to major artery. Dose of G+NP are classified by each level. At Level 1, Gem 600mg/m2 and NP 50mg/m2. At Level 2, Gem 600mg/m2 and NP 75mg/m2. At Level 3, Gem 600mg/m2 and NP 100mg/m2. At each level, patients accepted RT (50.4Gy/28fr). During performing RT period, we prescribed G + NP weekly. So, G+NP are prescribed 4-5 times if pts accomplish the study.We evaluate effectiveness and side effect of the regimen, and try to decide maximum tolerated dose. Results: Until July 2014, 14 pts (11 males and 3 females) have been registered in this trial. 6 cases were performed at Level 1, 7cases at Level 2, 1 cases at Level 3. 13 cases accomplish the prescription. 1 case at Level 1 dropped out because the patient suffered liver abscess. Effectiveness of the regimen is as follows; 4cases are PD (progressive disease), 6cases are SD (stable disease), and 2cases are PR (partial response). Conclusions: Now we prescribe the regimen at Level 3. We have not yet decided MDT. But, CRT with G + NP may be promising regimen for LAPC. When we accumulate more cases, and decide MDT, we will report later. Clinical trial information: UMIN000012254.

A randomized phase II trial of antithrombin (AT) products in patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) associated with sepsis in advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer

423

Background: A randomized phase 2 trial was conducted in order to investigate the most effective administration method of antithrombin (AT) products in patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) associated with sepsis during treatment for advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer (aPBC). Methods: Diagnoses of DIC were made according to the criteria of acute DIC of the Japan Association of acute Medicine. We examined 42 patients who were diagnosed with septic DIC and showed a level of AT lower than 70% during treatment for aPBC. The patients were evenly divided into two groups: Group A (21 patients) received continuous infusions of AT products 1500 IU per day for three days, and the group B (21 patients) received intermittent infusions of AT products 500 IU×3 per day for three days. Changes in the coagulation parameters, inflammatory markers, SIRS positive scores, and DIC scores that occurred during treatment were compared between the two groups. Furthermore, the survival outcomes of the patients were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Before treatment, there were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to their backgrounds. During treatment, statistically significant differences were seen in the platelet counts, D-dimer test results, Fibrinogen levels, and CRP levels between the two groups. However, no differences were observed between the two groups regarding the changes of AT activity levels, SIRS positive scores, and DIC scores. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in regards to their survival outcomes (28 day survival rates: 85.7% versus 71.4%, p=0.283). A multivariate analysis indicated that baseline AT activity levels were the sole factor associated with the 28-day survival rates. The survival outcomes didn’t depend on the administration method of AT products. Conclusions: In this trial, we found that baseline AT activity levels were the sole factor associated with the 28-day survival rates. There was no difference in therapeutic effects between the continuous and intermittent infusions of AT products. Clinical trial information: UMIN 000015105.

Phase II trial of combination therapy of gemcitabine plus anti-angiogenic vaccination of elpamotide in patients with advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer

Background Elpamotide is an HLA-A*24:02-restricted epitope peptide of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and induces cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) against VEGFR-2/KDR. Given the high expression of VEGFR-2 in biliary tract cancer, combination chemoimmunotherapy with elpamotide and gemcitabine holds promise as a new therapy. Patients and Methods Patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent biliary tract cancer were included in this single-arm phase II trial, with the primary endpoint of overall survival. Survival analysis was performed in comparison with historical control data. The patients concurrently received gemcitabine once a week for 3 weeks (the fourth week was skipped) and elpamotide once a week for 4 weeks. Results Fifty-five patients were registered, of which 54 received the regimen and were included in the full analysis set as well as the safety analysis set. Median survival was 10.1 months, which was longer than the historical control, and the 1-year survival rate was 44.4 %. Of these patients, injection site reactions were observed in 64.8 %, in whom median survival was significantly longer (14.8 months) compared to those with no injection site reactions (5.7 months). The response rate was 18.5 %, and all who responded exhibited injection site reactions. Serious adverse reactions were observed in five patients (9 %), and there were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion Gemcitabine and elpamotide combination therapy was tolerable and had a moderate antitumor effect. For future development of therapies, it will be necessary to optimize the target population for which therapeutic effects could be expected.

Abstract 4650: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of adjuvant gemcitabine therapy of biliary tract cancer following major hepatectomy (KHBO1101)

Background: Gemcitabine at a standard dose of 1000 mg/m2 on Day 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks is not tolerated in biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients who have undergone surgical resection with major hepatectomy due to severe toxicities such as myelosuppression. Our dose-finding study of adjuvant gemcitabine therapy determined that the recommended dose is 1000 mg/m2 on Day 1 and 15 every 4 weeks. Here, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of gemcitabine at this recommended dose. Methods: This study evaluated BTC patients scheduled to undergo surgical resection with major hepatectomy followed by postoperative gemcitabine therapy. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of gemcitabine and 2′,2′-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU) was conducted at the initial administration of gemcitabine, which was given by intravenous infusion over 30 min at a dose of 800 to 1000 mg/m2. Physical examination and adverse events were assessed for two weeks. Results: Thirteen patients were enrolled from August 2011 to January 2013, with 12 completing the study. Eight patients had hilar cholangiocarcinoma, three had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and one had distal extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Median interval from surgery to first administration of gemcitabine was 65.5 days (range, 43-83 days). In the twelve patients, the following disorders at all grades of severity were observed: leukopenia (83.3%), neutropenia (66.7%), and thrombocytopenia (50.0%). Further, Grade 3 of neutropenia was observed in 16.7% of these patients. The dose-normalized AUC of gemcitabine and dFdU in patients with major hepatectomy was 10.22 ± 2.54 and 94.38 ± 45.38 mg/L/hr, respectively. These values were generally similar to those of patients with pancreatic cancer who did not undergo hepatectomy in a previous study. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that major hepatectomy did not affect the pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine and dFdU, despite an increase in hematological toxicity.

Citation Format: Yutaka Fujiwara, Shogo Kobayashi, Hiroaki Nagano, Masashi Kanai, Etsuo Hatano, Masanori Toyoda, Tetsuo Ajiki, Yuki Takashima, Akinobu Hamada, Hironobu Minami, Tatsuya Ioka. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of adjuvant gemcitabine therapy of biliary tract cancer following major hepatectomy (KHBO1101). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 4650. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-4650

Phase II study of FOLFIRINOX for chemotherapy-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

The FOLFIRINOX combination of chemotherapy drugs had not been fully evaluated for Japanese pancreatic cancer patients. Therefore, we carried out a phase II study to examine the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX in chemotherapy-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. FOLFIRINOX (i.v. infusion of 85 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin, 180 mg/m(2) irinotecan, and 200 mg/m(2) l-leucovorin, followed by a bolus of 400 mg/m(2) fluorouracil and a 46-h continuous infusion of 2400 mg/m(2) fluorouracil) was given every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the response rate. The 36 enrolled patients received a median of eight (range, 1-25) treatment cycles. The response rate was 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1-56.5); median overall survival, 10.7 months (95% CI, 6.9-13.2); and median progression-free survival, 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.0-7.8). Major grade 3 or 4 toxicities included neutropenia (77.8%), febrile neutropenia (22.2%), thrombocytopenia (11.1%), anemia (11.1%), anorexia (11.1%), diarrhea (8.3%), nausea (8.3%), elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (8.3%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5.6%). Febrile neutropenia occurred only during the first cycle. There were no treatment-related deaths. FOLFIRINOX can be a standard regimen showing favorable efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile in chemotherapy-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Duodenal Hemorrhage from Pancreatic Cancer Infiltration Controlled through Combination Therapy with Gemcitabine and S-1

2.6% of pancreatic cancer patients have the primary manifestation of gastrointestinal bleeding. It is not feasible to stop the duodenal hemorrhage caused by the pancreatic cancer infiltration. A 43-year-old woman who was diagnosed as having pancreatic cancer with multiple hepatic metastases and duodenal infiltration was administered gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy. During the chemotherapy, initially, bleeding occurred due to duodenal infiltration. However, we continued the chemotherapy and duodenal infiltration was markedly reduced in size and did not rebleed. Aggressive chemotherapy contributed to maintenance of performance status as well as improvement of quality of life for the patient.

Phase I study of adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer undergoing curative resection without major hepatectomy (KHBO1004)

PURPOSE

We conducted a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended dose (RD) of this gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) combination in the adjuvant setting for biliary tract cancer (BTC). GC has become a standard chemotherapy regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC; however, the benefit of adjuvant therapy for BTC is unclear.

METHODS

Patients with BTC were eligible if they met the following criteria: Stage IB or higher; and undergoing resection without major hepatectomy. The starting dose matched the standard dose of gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (25 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for up to 24 weeks. The dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were determined during the first 6 weeks, and a 3+3 dose finding design with cohorts of 3-6 patients was used. Further cohort expansion took place.

RESULTS

One DLT, namely grade 4 neutropenia, was observed among six patients at the starting dosages. Then, we expanded the cohort with a total of eighteen patients to evaluate RD and no further DLTs were observed. During the entire study, the most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (94 %) and leucopenia (56 %). Non-hematological toxicities were manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

We defined the standard dose of GC as the RD for adjuvant chemotherapy for BTC treated by curative resection without major hepatectomy. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety and efficacy of this regimen for all patients.

Comparative outcomes of elderly and non-elderly patients receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Few studies have reported the efficacy and safety of palliative chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of palliative chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer in elderly patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 403 consecutive patients who received palliative chemotherapy between April 2006 and March 2009 for pathologically confirmed unresectable or recurrent biliary tract cancer. Clinical outcomes of the elderly group (≥ 75 years old; n = 94) were compared with those of the non-elderly group (< 75 years old; n = 309).

RESULTS

Except for the extent of disease, patient baseline characteristics were well balanced between both groups. The median overall survival was 10.4 months in the elderly group and 11.5 months in the non-elderly group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.45; P = 0.31). Although the frequency of adverse events between both groups was similar, interstitial pneumonitis was significantly more frequent in the elderly group than in the non-elderly group (4.3% vs 0%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced biliary tract cancer, overall survival of elderly patients receiving palliative chemotherapy is comparable with that of non-elderly patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies that have reported the clinical outcomes of elderly patients following palliative chemotherapy.

Phase I study of adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer undergoing curative resection without major hepatectomy (KHBO1004)

347

Background: GC has become a standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC. The benefit of adjuvant therapy for BTC is unclear, however, it is used worldwide due to BTC’s dismal prognosis. We conducted a phase I study for adjuvant chemotherapy with GC in patients with BTC in order to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). Methods: Patients with BTC were eligible if they met the following criteria: Stage IB or higher; undergoing resection without major hepatectomy; over 20 years of age; ECOG PS 0-1; adequate organ functions. The starting dose (Level 1) of GC was the same as the standard dose of advanced disease and dose was planned to adjust, using a 3+3 design with cohorts of 3-6 patients and further cohort expansion took place. The Dose Limiting Toxicities (DLTs) were determined during the first six weeks and RD was determined through the entire treatment. Results: One DLT out of 6 patients, with grade 4 neutropenia, was observed at Level 1 and an expanded cohort was further examined. A total of eighteen patients were enrolled and one DLT was observed as described above. During the first six weeks, the most common grade 3 or 4 related adverse events were neutropenia (n=10: 56%) and leukopenia (n=6: 33%). Through the entire treatment, non-hematologic toxicities were manageable. Seven (39%) patients completed the protocol treatment, seven (39%) dropped off due to the need of second time dose reduction, two didn’t meet starting criteria of creatinin with grade 1 increase in CTCAE, one had rapid tumor progression died within 30 days after the last administration of GC and one withdrew after reporting dead case. Conclusions: A standard dose of GC might be feasible for adjuvant chemotherapy for BTC undergoing curative resection without major hepatectomy. We selected standard dose of GC as RD for a subsequent phase II study. Clinical trial information: NCT01297998.

Phase I/II study of gemcitabine plus S-1 with concurrent radiotherapy in patients of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer

261

Background: We conducted chemoradiotherapy of gemcitabine plus S-1, key drugs for pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients were eligible for the study if they had received a histopathological diagnosis of locally advanced pancreatic cancer and were diagnosed as unresectable by multiple clinicians including surgeons due to main arterial invasions and more. Radiation (RT) was perfomed for twenty-eight days continuously except Saturday, Sunday and National holiday in 1.8Gy once daily (total 50.4Gy). PTV was defined as GTV plus 10-15mm. Prophylactic irradiation to regional lymph nodes was not performed. Administration level of the anti-cancer drugs was referred to the following table. Results: A total of fifteen cases were enrolled to the phase I study from February, 2006 through May, 2007. RT was achieved in 13 of 15 cases (87%). Two cases of DLT occurred in level 2 (two cases of emesis) while three did in level 3 (one case of emesis and two of neutropenia of grade 4). We decided level 3 as MTD and level 2 as recommended dose. The overall response rate (more than PR) was 33.3% (5 in 15 cases) and tumor-control (more than SD) was achieved in 13 of 15 cases (87%). The one-year and two-year survival rate was 86.7% and 44.4%, respectively. Conclusions: We conducted the phase 1 study of chemoradiotherapy with two key drugs of pancreatic cancer and achieved the recommended dose in this phase I study. Ongoing study We have already finished the enrollment of 110 cases for a phase II randomized allocated study, comparing the chemoradiotherapy of administration dose decided in this phase 1 study with the combination therapy of gemcitabine plus S-1. Now we are carefully following the patients to compare two-year survival rate as a primary endpoint in phase II study. Clinical trial information: NCT01430052.

A prognostic examination of the chemotherapeutic selection for pancreatic cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination: A retrospective study from a single center

331

Background: Pancreatic cancer(PC) patients(pts) with peritoneal dissemination are poor prognosis. This retrospective study evaluated the prognosis of Gemcitabine(GEM)-based current chemotherapy(G), GEM plus S-1 combination therapy(GS) and single agent of S-1 as 1st line chemotherapy regimen in PC pts with peritoneal dissemination. Methods: This is a retrospective study of PC pts with ascites or peritoneal nodules in the CT or US image who underwent chemotherapy between 2002 and 2011. We collected data on age, sex, Performance Status(PS), tumor location, other metastasis location, status of peritoneal dissemination, CA19-9, CEA, albumin, CRP. We classified 1st line chemotherapy regimen in G, GS and S-1, and we evaluated 1-year survival rate, progression free survival(PFS), overall survival(OS) for the 3 regimens. Results: A total of 81 pts were included. Median age were 64 (38-78), males 50%, PS 0-1 89%. The number of pts treated with G, GS, S-1 was 54, 14, 13. The 1-year survival rate of G, GS and S-1 were 20.3%, 28.5% and 53.8%. The median PFS were 106 days, 84 days and 88 days, respectively. The median OS were 196 days, 154 days, 359 days, respectively. The 1-year survival rate of S-1 was significantly better than that of G (p=0.01). Median PFS and median OS of S-1 didn’t demonstrate the superiority compared with that of G (p=0.40, p=0.08). Conclusions: We suggest the selection of S-1 as 1st line chemotherapy regimen in PC pts with peritoneal dissemination might be effective and we need further investigation.

Phase I/II trial of gemcitabine (Gem) plus irinotecan (CPT-11) for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC)

301

Background: Treatment options for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are still limited. Recently, new strategies to prolong disease control are reported. We conducted phase I/II trial of GEM+CPT-11 combination chemotherapy for MPC to evaluate the effectiveness and safety. Methods: As phase I study, traditional 3 + 3 dose-escalation design was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose. Four escalating dose levels of GEM/CPT-11 (800/60 mg/m2, 1000/60 mg/m2, 1000/80 mg/m2, and 1000/100 mg/m2) were studied. As results of this investigation, the recommended phase II dose was GEM 1000 mg/m2 and CPT-11 100 mg/m2, biweekly. Phase II eligibility included naïve MPC, PS0-2, Pathological diagnosis, no refractory ascites and pleural effusion, and adequate organ function. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: Eighteen patients were entered phase I study. The DLTs were anorexia, and nausea/vomiting. Severe neutropenia was rare. MTDs were determined GEM 1000 and CPT-11 100 mg/m2. After that, we investigated phase II trial in 40 patients. There were 6 partial response, 14 stable disease, 18 progressive disease and 2 in-evaluable. Response rate was 16%. The median overall survival was 7.5 months; progressive disease 4.0 months. Grade 3 to 4 toxicity included neutropenia (7%), anemia (7%), diarrhea (7%), ALT elevation (10%), pneumonitis(7%). There was no treatment-related death. Conclusions: This combination chemotherapy is not effective as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. But this is safe and generally well tolerated. This chemotherapy could be effective of salvage chemotherapy with low toxicity after standard chemotherapy such as FOLFIRINOX.