A phase II/III study comparing intravenous ZD9331 with gemcitabine in patients with pancreatic cancer

Resistance to Gemcitabine in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Physiopathologic and Pharmacologic Review

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a very aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis and inadequate response to treatment. Many factors contribute to this therapeutic failure: lack of symptoms until the tumor reaches an advanced stage, leading to late diagnosis; early lymphatic and hematic spread; advanced age of patients; important development of a pro-tumoral and hyperfibrotic stroma; high genetic and metabolic heterogeneity; poor vascular supply; a highly acidic matrix; extreme hypoxia; and early development of resistance to the available therapeutic options. In most cases, the disease is silent for a long time, andwhen it does become symptomatic, it is too late for ablative surgery; this is one of the major reasons explaining the short survival associated with the disease. Even when surgery is possible, relapsesare frequent, andthe causes of this devastating picture are the low efficacy ofand early resistance to all known chemotherapeutic treatments. Thus, it is imperative to analyze the roots of this resistance in order to improve the benefits of therapy. PDAC chemoresistance is the final product of different, but to some extent, interconnected factors. Surgery, being the most adequate treatment for pancreatic cancer and the only one that in a few selected cases can achieve longer survival, is only possible in less than 20% of patients. Thus, the treatment burden relies on chemotherapy in mostcases. While the FOLFIRINOX scheme has a slightly longer overall survival, it also produces many more adverse eventsso that gemcitabine is still considered the first choice for treatment, especially in combination with other compounds/agents. This review discusses the multiple causes of gemcitabine resistance in PDAC.

First-line chemotherapy regimens for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a Bayesian analysis

Background

Systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, but there is no consensus on the optimum regimen. We aimed to compare and rank the locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma chemotherapy regimens evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the past 15 years.

Materials and methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs comparing chemotherapy regimens as first-line treatment for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas. By using Bayesian network meta-analysis, we compared and ranked all included chemotherapy regimens in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and hematological toxicity.

Results

The analysis included 68 RCTs, with 14,908 patients and 63 treatment strategies. For overall survival, NSC-631570 (hazard ratio [HR] vs gemcitabine monotherapy 0.44, 95% credible interval: 0.24–0.76) and gemcitabine+NSC-631570 (HR 0.45, 0.24–0.86) were the two top-ranked chemotherapy regimens. For progression-free survival, PEFG (cisplatin + epirubicin + fluorouracil + gemcitabine) ranked first (HR 0.51, 0.34–0.77). PG (gemcitabine + pemetrexed) (odds ratio [OR] 4.68, 2.24–9.64) and FLEC (fluorouracil + leucovorin + epirubicin + carboplatin) (OR 4.52, 1.14–24.00) were ranked the most hematologically toxic, with gastrazole having the least toxicity (OR 0.03, 0.00–0.46).

Conclusion

The chemotherapy regimens NSC-631570 and gemcitabine+NSC-631570 were ranked the most efficacious for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas in terms of overall survival, which warrants further confirmation in large-scale RCTs.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

The major facilitative folate transporters solute carrier 19A1 and solute carrier 46A1: biology and role in antifolate chemotherapy of cancer

This review summarizes the biology of the major facilitative membrane transporters, the reduced folate carrier (RFC) (Solute Carrier 19A1) and the proton-coupled folate transporter (PCFT) (Solute Carrier 46A1). Folates are essential vitamins, and folate deficiency contributes to a variety of health disorders. RFC is ubiquitously expressed and is the major folate transporter in mammalian cells and tissues. PCFT mediates the intestinal absorption of dietary folates and appears to be important for transport of folates into the central nervous system. Clinically relevant antifolates for cancer, such as methotrexate and pralatrexate, are transported by RFC, and loss of RFC transport is an important mechanism of methotrexate resistance in cancer cell lines and in patients. PCFT is expressed in human tumors, and is active at pH conditions associated with the tumor microenvironment. Pemetrexed is an excellent substrate for both RFC and PCFT. Novel tumor-targeted antifolates related to pemetrexed with selective membrane transport by PCFT over RFC are being developed. In recent years, there have been major advances in understanding the structural and functional properties and the regulation of RFC and PCFT. The molecular bases for methotrexate resistance associated with loss of RFC transport and for hereditary folate malabsorption, attributable to mutant PCFT, were determined. Future studies should continue to translate molecular insights from basic studies of RFC and PCFT biology into new therapeutic strategies for cancer and other diseases.

Pooled survival and response data from phase III randomized controlled trials for gemcitabine-based regimes in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer

Although gemcitabine remains current first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, median survival times have not improved significantly since its introduction 15 years ago. Of the phase III trials which have investigated alternative regimens to single-agent gemcitabine, most have used combination regimens as the investigational arm. Accurate data on median overall, progression-free survival and objective response rates is important, for two principle reasons: advising patients about their prognosis and when powering phase II trials and evaluating the results of single-armed trials. This study aims to pool results from published randomized trials to date. Twenty-one randomized phase III trials involving a total of 6348 patients were identified from 1997 to 2010. Only one trial investigating a novel agent in combination with gemcitabine showed a significantly prolonged median and progression-free survival compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Pooled median and progression-free survivals for the single-agent gemcitabine arm involving 3171 patients across all studies were 6.15 and 3.3 months, respectively. Length of survival for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer remains disappointing. Further trials of novel agents to complement or replace gemcitabine are indicated.

Long term survivors with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with gemcitabine: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a short median overall survival (OS) of 5-6 months. However, a subgroup of patients survives more than 1 year. We analyzed the survival outcomes of this subgroup and evaluated clinical and pathological factors that might affect survival durations.

METHODS

We identified 20 patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received single-agent gemcitabine and had an OS longer than 1 year. Baseline data available after the diagnosis of metastatic or recurrent disease was categorized as: 1) clinical/demographic data (age, gender, ECOG PS, number and location of metastatic sites); 2) Laboratory data (Hematocrit, hemoglobin, glucose, LDH, renal and liver function and CA19-9); 3) Pathologic data (margins, nodal status and grade); 4) Outcomes data (OS, Time to Treatment Failure (TTF), and 2 year-OS). The lowest CA19-9 levels during treatment with gemcitabine were also recorded. We performed a univariate analysis with OS as the outcome variable.

RESULTS

Baseline logarithm of CA19-9 and total bilirubin had a significant impact on OS (HR = 1.32 and 1.31, respectively). Median OS and TTF on gemcitabine were 26.9 (95% CI = 18 to 32) and 11.5 (95% CI = 9.0 to 14.3) months, respectively. Two-year OS was 56.4%, with 7 patients alive at the time of analysis.

CONCLUSION

A subgroup of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer has prolonged survival after treatment with gemcitabine. Only bilirubin and CA 19-9 levels were predictive of longer survival in this population. Further analysis of potential prognostic and predictive markers of response to treatment and survival are needed.

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

There are a large number of randomized controlled trials involving chemotherapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer. Several chemotherapeutic agents, either alone or in combination with other chemotherapy or novel agents, have been used. The aim of these meta-analyses was to examine the different therapeutic approaches, and the comparisons examined were as follows: chemotherapy versus best supportive care; fluorouracil (FU) versus FU combination chemotherapy; gemcitabine versus FU; and gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers, and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival.

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified, of which 51 trials involving 9,970 patients met the inclusion criteria. Chemotherapy improved survival compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.98). FU-based combination chemotherapy did not result in better overall survival compared with FU alone (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.08). There was insufficient evidence of a survival difference between gemcitabine and FU, but the wide CI includes clinically important differences in both directions, making a clear conclusion difficult (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.31). Survival was improved after gemcitabine combination chemotherapy compared with gemcitabine alone (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant survival benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care and gemcitabine combinations over gemcitabine alone. This supports the use of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

Single-agent gemcitabine was established as standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after a superior clinical benefit response was demonstrated in a randomized study comparing it to 5-fluorouracil (FU). Until recently, many subsequent randomized trials of newer, often gemcitabine-based combinations have not been able to show improved survival over gemcitabine. Combination gemcitabine and capecitabine is likely to become the preferred standard treatment, at least in the UK, on the basis of the positive interim results of the UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) randomized study of chemotherapy with this combination. At present, there is no standard second-line treatment for patients who have become refractory to gemcitabine, although a recently reported study has suggested that oxaliplatin with FU and leucovorin is superior to best supportive care in these patients. This article will review and discuss the clinical trials of chemotherapy for this disease, including the more recent trials, which have included the novel targeted agents.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the nonpolyglutamatable thymidylate synthase inhibitor ZD9331 plus docetaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of administering ZD9331, a thymidylate synthase (TS) inhibitor that does not undergo polyglutamation and has broad antitumor activity, in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies. The study also sought to determine the principal toxicities of the regimen and recommend appropriate doses for phase II studies, characterize the pharmacokinetics of the agents, evaluate the possibility of major drug-drug interactions, and seek preliminary evidence of anti-cancer activity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced solid malignancies were treated with escalating doses of docetaxel as a 60-minute intravenous (IV) infusion followed 30 minutes later by ZD9331 as a 30-minute IV infusion every 3 weeks. At least three patients were treated at each dose level, and the maximum tolerated dose level was defined as the highest dose level that was not associated with an unacceptably high incidence of severe toxicity. The pharmacokinetics of both ZD9331 and docetaxel were also characterized.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were treated with 71 cycles of ZD9331 and docetaxel (ZD9331/docetaxel) at dose levels that encompassed dosing iterations of ZD9331 ranging from 65 to 260 mg/m(2) and docetaxel doses in the range of 50 to 75 mg/m(2). Neutropenia was the principal toxicity of the ZD9331/docetaxel regimen. Since five of six patients treated at the ZD9331/docetaxel dose-level of 260/60 mg/m(2) had grade 4 neutropenia that was brief and uncomplicated in the first course, a rigorous exploration of higher dose levels was not undertaken. Nonhematologic toxicities, consisting of malaise, diarrhea, rash, nausea, and vomiting, were also observed, but these effects were rarely severe. No major antitumor responses were observed. The pharmacokinetics of both ZD9331 and docetaxel were similar to those reported in previous studies of each agent administered alone, suggesting the lack of major drug-drug interactions.

CONCLUSION

The combination regimen, consisting of ZD9331 and docetaxel, is feasible and well tolerated at single-agent doses that are clinically-relevant. This ZD9331/docetaxel regimen does not appear to be associated with either major pharmacokinetic or toxicologic drug-drug interactions. A ZD9331/docetaxel dose level of 260/60 mg/m(2) is recommended as an initial dose level in disease-directed studies of the regimen, with further dose escalation of docetaxel to 75 mg/m(2) if the initial treatment is well tolerated. Further studies with this regimen are warranted in tumor types that have demonstrated sensitivity to both agents.