Randomized Phase II Trial of Irinotecan/Docetaxel or Irinotecan/Docetaxel Plus Cetuximab for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review synthesises all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making. It updates the previous version of the review, published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both on overall survival, severe or life-threatening adverse events, and quality of life in people undergoing first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CANCERLIT, and handsearched various sources for additional studies. The latest search dates were in March and July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both with another intervention or best supportive care. Participants were required to have locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer or metastatic pancreatic cancer not amenable to curative intent treatment. Histological confirmation was required. Trials were required to report overall survival.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies in the review and 51 in the meta-analysis (11,333 participants). We divided the studies into seven categories: any anti-cancer treatment versus best supportive care; various chemotherapy types versus gemcitabine; gemcitabine-based combinations versus gemcitabine alone; various chemotherapy combinations versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; fluoropyrimidine-based studies; miscellaneous studies; and radiotherapy studies. In general, the included studies were at low risk for random sequence generation, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias, at unclear risk for allocation concealment, and high risk for performance bias. Compared to best supportive care, chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.33; absolute risk of death at 12 months of 971 per 1000 versus 962 per 1000; 4 studies, 298 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse effects of chemotherapy and impacts on quality of life (QoL) were uncertain. Many of the chemotherapy regimens were outdated. Eight studies compared non-gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens to gemcitabine. These showed that 5-fluorouracil (5FU) likely reduces OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27; risk of death at 12 months of 914 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 1 study, 126 participants; moderate certainty), and grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). Fixed dose rate gemcitabine likely improves OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; risk of death at 12 months of 683 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 644 participants; moderate certainty), and likely increase grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). FOLFIRINOX improves OS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60; risk of death at 12 months of 524 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; P < 0.001; 2 studies, 652 participants; high certainty), and delays deterioration in QoL, but increases grade 3/4 adverse events. Twenty-eight studies compared gemcitabine-based combinations to gemcitabine. Gemcitabine plus platinum may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; risk of death at 12 months of 745 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 6 studies, 1140 participants; low certainty), may increase grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely worsens QoL. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improves OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; risk of death at 12 months of 722 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 10 studies, 2718 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely improves QoL. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitors result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; risk of death at 12 months of 770 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 3 studies, 839 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely does not alter QoL. Gemcitabine plus taxane result in a large improvement in OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; risk of death at 12 months of 644 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 986 participants; high certainty), and likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events and improves QoL. Nine studies compared chemotherapy combinations to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Fluoropyrimidine-based combination regimens improve OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; risk of death at 12 months of 542 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 6 studies, 1285 participants; high certainty). The treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles, and there was little to no difference in QoL. Alternative schedules of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47; risk of death at 12 months of 663 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 2 studies, 367 participants; moderate certainty) or QoL, but may increase grade 3/4 adverse events. Four studies compared fluoropyrimidine-based combinations to fluoropyrimidines alone, with poor quality evidence. Fluoropyrimidine-based combinations are likely to result in little to no impact on OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; risk of death at 12 months of 765 per 1000 versus 704 per 1000; P = 0.27; 4 studies, 491 participants; moderate certainty) versus fluoropyrimidines alone. The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in grade 3/4 adverse events or QoL between the two groups. We included only one radiotherapy (iodine-125 brachytherapy) study with 165 participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of radiotherapy on outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy remains standard of care for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Both FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus a taxane improve OS compared to gemcitabine alone. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy regimens improve OS compared to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. The effects of radiotherapy were uncertain as only one low-quality trial was included. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individuals still remains unpersonalised, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to assist in rationalising treatment selection for patients.

Food Intolerances, Food Allergies and IBS: Lights and Shadows

This narrative review delves into the intricate relationship between irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and food intolerances. IBS, a chronic functional gastrointestinal disorder, is characterized by symptoms like abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. The prevalence of IBS has increased globally, especially among young adults. Food and dietary habits play a crucial role in IBS management. About 85-90% of IBS patients report symptom exacerbation linked to specific food consumption, highlighting the strong connection between food intolerances and IBS. Food intolerances often exhibit a dose-dependent pattern, posing a challenge in identifying trigger foods. This issue is further complicated by the complex nature of gastrointestinal physiology and varying food compositions. This review discusses various dietary patterns and their impact on IBS, including the low-FODMAP diet, gluten-free diet, and Mediterranean diet. It highlights the importance of a personalized approach in dietary management, considering individual symptom variability and dietary history. In conclusion, this review emphasizes the need for accurate diagnosis and holistic management of IBS, considering the complex interplay between dietary factors and gastrointestinal pathophysiology. It underlines the importance of patient education and adherence to treatment plans, acknowledging the challenges posed by the variability in dietary triggers and the psychological impact of dietary restrictions.

Emerging antibody therapies for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a review of recent phase 2 trials

Introduction: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is now the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the US which can be attributed to rising incidence, diagnosis at advanced stages and early development of metastasis. Systemic therapy remains palliative with early development of resistance possibly related to the constitutive activation of 'undruggable' KRAS, immunosuppressive microenvironment, and intense desmoplasia. The advancements in molecular biology has led to the development and investigation of targeted and immune therapeutics.Areas covered: This study provides a comprehensive review of the literature to further the understanding of molecular targets with their respective antibody-based therapies in clinical development in pancreatic cancer. PubMed was systematically searched for English-language articles discussing antibody-based therapies under phase 2 clinical trial investigation in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Expert opinion: PDAC remains highly resistant to chemotherapy with no significant improvement in survival for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of the antibody-based targeted and immune therapeutics have failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints in early phase trials. However, there are a few promising antibody-based drugs with intriguing preliminary data that merit further investigation, while many more continue to be developed and investigated preclinically, and in early phase trials.

Therapeutic Application of Monoclonal Antibodies in Pancreatic Cancer: Advances, Challenges and Future Opportunities

Pancreatic cancer remains as one of the most aggressive cancer types. In the absence of reliable biomarkers for its early detection and more effective therapeutic interventions, pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer death in the Western world in the next decade. Therefore, it is essential to discover novel therapeutic targets and to develop more effective and pancreatic cancer-specific therapeutic agents. To date, 45 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved for the treatment of patients with a wide range of cancers; however, none has yet been approved for pancreatic cancer. In this comprehensive review, we discuss the FDA approved anticancer mAb-based drugs, the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials with mAbs in pancreatic cancer and the factors contributing to the poor response to antibody therapy (e.g. tumour heterogeneity, desmoplastic stroma). MAb technology is an excellent tool for studying the complex biology of pancreatic cancer, to discover novel therapeutic targets and to develop various forms of antibody-based therapeutic agents and companion diagnostic tests for the selection of patients who are more likely to benefit from such therapy. These should result in the approval and routine use of antibody-based agents for the treatment of pancreatic cancer patients in the future.

Optimum multi-drug regime for compartment model of tumour: cell-cycle-specific dynamics in the presence of resistance

This work is focused on multi-objective optimisation of a multi-drug chemotherapy schedule for cell-cycle-specific cancer treatment under the influence of drug resistance. The acquired drug resistance to chemotherapeutic agents is incorporated into the existing compartmental model of breast cancer. Furthermore, the toxic effect of drugs on healthy cells and overall drug concentration in the patient body are also constrained in the proposed model. The objective is to determine the optimal drug schedule according to the patient's physiological condition so that the tumour burden is minimised. A multi-objective optimisation algorithm, non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) is utilised to solve the problem. The obtained results are thoroughly analysed to illustrate the impact of drug resistance on the treatment. The capability of optimised schedules to deal with parametric uncertainty is also analysed. The drug schedules obtained in this work align well with the clinical standards. It is also revealed that the NSGA-II optimised drug schedule with proper rest period between successive dosages yields the minimum cancer load at the end of the treatment.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: molecular drivers and the role of targeted therapy

Prognosis from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) continues to be poor despite the many efforts channeled to improve its management. Although the mainstay treatment is still traditional chemotherapy, recent advances highlighted a promising potential for targeted therapy in the management of this disease. Those advances emphasize the significance of timely genomic profiling of tumor tissue as well as germline testing of patients to identify potential markers of targeted therapy. While targeted therapy is reserved for a relatively small subset of patients with PDAC, ongoing research is uncovering additional markers, and targeted agents, that will hopefully translate to better outcomes for patients.

A Retrospective Look at Anti-EGFR Agents in Pancreatic Cancer Therapy

Background:

The introduction of Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs) that target the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), marks a huge step forward in the Pancreatic Cancer (PC) therapy. However, anti-EGFR therapy is found to be successful only in a fraction of patients. Although anti-EGFR agents have shown considerable clinical promise, a serious adverse event associated with anti- EGFR therapy has been challenging. At this juncture, there is still more to be done in the search for effective predictive markers with therapeutic applicability.

Methods:

A focused literature search was conducted to summarize the existing evidence on anti-EGFR agents in pancreatic cancer therapy.

Results:

This review discusses various anti-EGFR agents currently in use for PC therapy and potential adverse effects associated with it. Existing evidence on EGFR TKIs demonstrated better tolerant effects and outcomes with multiple toxic regimens. Anti-EGFR therapy in combination with chemotherapy is necessary to achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Conclusion:

Future prospective studies on the identification of additional biological agents and novel anti-EGFR agents are warranted.

Relationship between Progression-free Survival and Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials of Targeted and Biologic Agents in Oncology

Introduction: With a gap in a full understanding of the mechanisms by which survival is extended for patients with cancer who are treated with novel biologic and targeted agents, there is the risk that discordant progression-free and overall survival outcomes are observed due to poor clinical trial design or biases in the interpretation of data. This study was designed to examine the role of study quality and design on the outcomes observed with biologic and targeted agents. Methods: A review of studies in clinicaltrials.gov supplemented with a literature review in OVID Medline was conducted to identify all randomized trials of a biologic/targeted agent versus a non-biologic/targeted comparator in oncology that report both median overall and progression-free survival outcomes. Details of the study, design, population, drugs, and outcomes were extracted. Study quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Data were summarized using SPSS 22.0.0.0. Results: A total of 192 unique studies of 206 pairwise comparisons between a biologic/targeted and comparator were identified. The average absolute magnitude of post-progression survival (difference between OS and PFS) was 9.7 months for biologic/targeted therapy and 9.8 for the comparator. A total of 64 comparisons (31.1%) showed an increase in OS and decrease in PFS, or vice versa, and 25 (12.1%) showed a magnitude of more than 4 months difference between the delta of OS and delta of PFS between the biologic/targeted and comparator arms. Average study quality was high overall (7.7/10), and was comparable for studies with directional differences (7.2/10) as well as for those with the greatest magnitude in post-progression survival (7.4/10). Conclusion: This review and analysis specifically examined small PFS benefit with large OS benefit as well as small OS benefit with large PFS benefit, including differences in direction of PFS and OS outcomes. No evidence was identified that these are the result of poor study design, but may rather be due to the mechanism of action, specific disease, and population under study. Further work is needed to understand the mechanism of action of novel biologic/targeted agents to better understand their interaction with the tumor microenvironment.

A combination of irinotecan/cisplatinum and irinotecan/temozolomide or tumor-targeting Salmonella typhimurium A1-R arrest doxorubicin- and temozolomide-resistant myxofibrosarcoma in a PDOX mouse model

Myxofibrosarcoma (MFS) is the most common sarcomas in elderly patients and is either chemo-resistant or recurs with metastasis after chemotherapy. This recalcitrant cancer in need of improved treatment. We have established a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) of MFS. The MFS PDOX model was established in the biceps femoris of nude mice and randomized into 7 groups of 7 mice each: control; doxorubicin (DOX); pazopanib (PAZ); temozolomide (TEM); Irinotecan (IRN); IRN combined with TEM; IRN combined with cisplatinum (CDDP) and Salmonella typhimurium A1-R (S. typhimurium A1-R). Treatment was evaluated by relative tumor volume and relative body weight. The MFS PDOX models were DOX, PAZ, and TEM resistant. IRN combined with TEM and IRN combined with CDDP were most effective on the MFS PDOX. S. typhimurium A1-R arrested the MFS PDOX tumor. There was no significant body weight loss in any group. The present study suggests that the combination of IRN with either TEM or CDDP, and S. typhimurium have clinical potential for MFS.

Systemic Chemotherapy as First-line Treatment for Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Bayesian Analysis

Objective The preferred chemotherapy regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer remains a matter of controversy. In the present study, we aimed to assess and rank the effectiveness and toxicity of all of the available chemotherapy regimens included in the last 15 years' randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas objectively. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs comparing chemotherapy regimens as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Using a Bayesian network meta-analysis, we compared and ranked all included chemotherapy regimens in terms of the overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and hematological toxicity. Results We identified 2,206 articles and included in the analysis 46 eligible articles reporting 44 RCTs with a total of 9,133 patients and 48 first-line intravenous systemic chemotherapy regimens. The models showed a good fit to the data. The top-ranked chemotherapy regimen for the overall survival was FP (simplified leucovorin + fluorouracil + nab-paclitaxel), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 versus gemcitabine monotherapy (95% credible interval 0.28-0.71). The regimen ranked first for the progression-free survival was gemcitabine + erlotinib + bevacizumab (HR 0.39, 0.23-0.62). GS (gemcitabine + S-1) had the highest overall response rate [odds ratio (OR) versus gemcitabine monotherapy 7.06, 1.15-51.15]. GemCape (gemcitabine + capecitabine) + erlotinib was ranked the most hematologically toxic (OR 7.78, 0.75-95.60). Conclusion The available evidence suggests that FP ranked first for metastatic pancreatic cancer in terms of the overall survival. GemCape + erlotinib ranked the most toxic.

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.

Bioinformatory-assisted analysis of next-generation sequencing data for precision medicine in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a tumor with an extremely poor prognosis, predominantly as a result of chemotherapy resistance and numerous somatic mutations. Consequently, PDAC is a prime candidate for the use of sequencing to identify causative mutations, facilitating subsequent administration of targeted therapy. In a feasibility study, we retrospectively assessed the therapeutic recommendations of a novel, evidence-based software that analyzes next-generation sequencing (NGS) data using a large panel of pharmacogenomic biomarkers for efficacy and toxicity. Tissue from 14 patients with PDAC was sequenced using NGS with a 620 gene panel. FASTQ files were fed into treatmentmap. The results were compared with chemotherapy in the patients, including all side effects. No changes in therapy were made. Known driver mutations for PDAC were confirmed (e.g. KRAS, TP53). Software analysis revealed positive biomarkers for predicted effective and ineffective treatments in all patients. At least one biomarker associated with increased toxicity could be detected in all patients. Patients had been receiving one of the currently approved chemotherapy agents. In two patients, toxicity could have been correctly predicted by the software analysis. The results suggest that NGS, in combination with an evidence-based software, could be conducted within a 2-week period, thus being feasible for clinical routine. Therapy recommendations were principally off-label use. Based on the predominant KRAS mutations, other drugs were predicted to be ineffective. The pharmacogenomic biomarkers indicative of increased toxicity could be retrospectively linked to reported negative side effects in the respective patients. Finally, the occurrence of somatic and germline mutations in cancer syndrome-associated genes is noteworthy, despite a high frequency of these particular variants in the background population. These results suggest software-analysis of NGS data provides evidence-based information on effective, ineffective and toxic drugs, potentially forming the basis for precision cancer medicine in PDAC.

Evaluating the Potential for Delivery of Irinotecan via the Buccal Route: Physicochemical Characterization and In Vitro Permeation Assessment Across Porcine Buccal Mucosa

Irinotecan (CPT-11) is used to treat advanced colorectal cancer as an intravenous therapy. Depending on pH, CPT-11 exists in either a lactone (active) or carboxylate (inactive) form, or both. In this investigation, the feasibility for systemic delivery of CPT-11 through the buccal route was evaluated. Permeation of CPT-11 across porcine buccal mucosa was studied in vitro using side-by-side flow through diffusion cells at 37°C. Experiments were performed over a pH range from 4 to 9, and the permeability of both the lactone and carboxylate forms of CPT-11 was measured. CPT-11 steady state flux was determined over a range of donor concentrations at pH 4 (0.5, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 mg/ml) and pH 6.8 (0.5, 5, 10 mg/ml). Steady state flux increased linearly with increasing donor concentration of CPT-11 at pH 4 (r ² = 0.9935) and at pH 6.8 (r ² = 0.9886). CPT-11 permeability was independent of pH, although the distribution coefficient increased with increasing pH. Estimates of permeability for the lactone and carboxylate forms were 4.16 × 10^-5 cm/s and 2.6 × 10^-5 cm/s, respectively. These calculated permeability values were in agreement with the in vitro experimental data. Overall, CPT-11 was found to permeate through porcine buccal mucosa via passive diffusion. CPT-11 permeability was independent of pH, suggesting that the compound was transported mainly via a paracellular route. Overall, the results of this research suggest that the buccal route is a potential extravascular mode of delivery for CPT-11.

Incidence and risk of severe infections associated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have been widely used in a variety of malignancies. Severe infections (≥grade 3) are potentially life-threatening adverse events with these drugs. However, the contribution of anti-EGFR MoAbs to infections is still unknown. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the overall incidence and risk of severe infections in cancer patients treated with these drugs.

METHODS

The databases of PubMed and abstracts presented at oncology conferences and published in the proceedings were searched for relevant studies from January 2000 to May 2014. Summary incidences, relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 14,066 patients from 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The use of anti-EGFR-MoAbs significantly increased the risk of developing severe infections (RR 1.34, 95%CI: 1.10 to 1.62, P=0.003) in cancer patients, but not for fatal infections (RR 1.62, 95%CI: 0.81 to 3.26, P=0.18). Meta-regression indicated the infections might possibly occur early in the treatment with anti-EGFR MoAbs. On sub-group analysis, the risk of severe infections significantly varied with tumor type (P=0.001). When stratified by specific anti-EGFR MoAbs, a significantly increased risk of infections with cetuximab was observed (P<0.001), but not for panitumumab (P=0.98). Additionally, the use of anti-EGFR MoAbs significantly increased the risk of severe infections when used in conjunction with cisplatin (RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.22 to 1.79, P<0.001) or irinotecan (RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.10, P=0.008). When stratified by specific infectious events, anti-EGFR-MoAbs significantly increased the risk of developing severe sepsis (RR 4.30, 95%CI: 1.80 to 10.27; P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-EGFR MoAbs treatment significantly increases the risk of developing severe infectious events in cancer patients. The risk may vary with tumor types. Clinicians should be aware of the risks of severe infections with the administration of these drugs in cancer patients.