An early phase II study of S-1 in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant S-1-based chemoradiotherapy in resectable and borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer: a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of S-1-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) in patients with resectable or borderline-resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with PDAC who underwent S-1-based NACRT at our institute between 2010 and 2017.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study, including 15 (37.5%) with resectable PDAC and 25 (62.5%) with borderline-resectable PDAC. The NACRT completion and resection rates were 85.0% (n = 34) and 67.5% (n = 27), respectively. Several grade 3 adverse events were observed, including leukopenia (25.0%), anorexia (17.5%), neutropenia (10.0%), thrombocytopenia (7.5%), febrile neutropenia (2.5%), elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (2.5%) levels, and hyponatremia (2.5%). The R0 resection rate was 70.4% (n = 19/27) in patients who underwent pancreatectomy. Grades 1, 2, and 3 according to the College of American Pathologists grading system were observed in 1 (3.7%), 12 (44.4%), and 14 (51.9%) patients, respectively. Over a median follow-up period of 32.9 months (interquartile range, 9.1-68.0), the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 81.4%, 45.5%, and 30.3%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the curative-intent surgery cohort (n = 27), the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 88.9%, 48.2%, and 37.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1-based NACRT is safe and yields acceptable long-term outcomes for patients with resectable or borderline-resectable PDAC.

Enhancing preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and mass-forming chronic pancreatitis: a study on normalized conventional MR imaging parameters

PURPOSE

To assess the utility of signal intensity ratio (SIR) in distinguishing between mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (MFCP) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), thereby reducing unnecessary pancreatectomies or delayed diagnosis brought by misdiagnosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 170 participants (34 with MFCP and 136 with PDAC) who underwent radical pancreatic surgery and were diagnosed via specimen pathology. The study group was carefully selected with a 1:4 ratio matching for sex, age, and operation time between two entities. T1 SIR, T2 SIR, arterial phase (AP) SIR, portal venous phase (VP) SIR, delay phase (DP) SIR, DWI0-50 SIR, and DWI500-1000 SIR, were calculated by dividing the signal intensity of lesions by that of the paraspinal muscle, serving as a reference organ. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was estimated to evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Wilcoxon tests were employed for univariate analysis, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine optimal cutoff points and AUC values for selected predictors. A tenfold cross-validation method was applied to validate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The ICC demonstrated excellent correlation for both intraobserver and interobserver(ICCs > 0.8). T1 SIR, AP SIR, VP SIR, and DP SIR were significantly lower in the PDAC group compared to the MFCP group, and exhibited good independent predictive properties with the sensitivities of 61.8, 61.8, 70.6, and 73.5%, specificities of 66.2, 68.4, 59.6, and 55.9%, and AUCs of 0.620, 0.659, 0.670, and 0.668, respectively, hovering around 0.7. The tenfold cross-validation confirmed the reliability and robustness of our findings, with consistent AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals over 1000 iterations.

CONCLUSION

T1 SIR, AP SIR, VP SIR, and DP SIR show promise as potential imaging biomarkers for distinguishing between MFCP and PDAC.

Efficacy of nab‑paclitaxel vs. Gemcitabine in combination with S‑1 for advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter phase II randomized trial

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) need a cost-effective treatment regimen. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) regimens in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC. In this open-label, multicenter, randomized study named AvGmPC, eligible patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14) or GS (1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14). The treatment was administered every 3 weeks until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occurred. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Between December 2018 and March 2022, 101 of 106 randomized patients were treated and evaluated for analysis (AS, n=49; GS, n=52). As of the data cutoff, the median follow-up time was 11.37 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.31-13.24]. The median PFS was 7.16 months (95% CI, 5.19-12.32) for patients treated with AS and 6.41 months (95% CI, 3.72-8.84) for patients treated with GS (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.21; P=0.264). The AS regimen showed a slightly improved overall survival (OS; 13.27 vs. 10.64 months) and a significantly improved ORR (44.90 vs. 15.38%; P=0.001) compared with the GS regimen. In the subgroup analyses, PFS and OS benefits were observed in patients treated with the AS regimen who had KRAS gene mutations and high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥5 mg/l). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia, anemia and alopecia in the two groups. Thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently in the GS group than in the AS group. While the study did not meet the primary endpoint, the response benefit observed for AS may be suggestive of meaningful clinical activity in this population. In particular, promising survival benefits were observed in the subsets of patients with KRAS gene mutations and high CRP levels, which is encouraging and warrants further investigation. This trial was retrospectively registered as ChiCTR1900024588 on July 18, 2019.

Real‑world treatment outcomes among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan: The Tokushukai real‑world data project

The present study aimed to investigate temporal trends in treatment patterns and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. From the Tokushukai REAl-world Data project, 1,093 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine, tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (S-1), gemcitabine plus S-1, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, or fluorouracil, folic acid, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) between April 2010 and March 2020 were identified. Stratified/conventional Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine associations between patient- and tumor-related factors, study period, hospital volume, hospital type and first-line chemotherapy regimens. Overall, 846 patients were selected (503 male patients; median age, 70 years) after excluding ineligible patients. Over a median follow-up of 5.4 months, the median OS was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.4). The median OS for gemcitabine, S-1, gemcitabine plus S-1, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX regimens was 5.9, 5.3, 7.7, 9.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. The median OS for 2010-2013, 2014-2017 and 2017-2020 was 6.2, 7.1 and 7.8 months, respectively. Performance status, body mass index and first-line chemotherapy regimens were identified to be significant prognostic factors. In summary, the real-world data indicated that standard care, including chemotherapy, for metastatic pancreatic cancer was widely used in hospitals throughout Japan and verified the survival benefits of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX observed in prior clinical trials. This trial has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000050590 on April 1, 2023.

Safety and efficacy of S-IROX (S-1, irinotecan and oxaliplatin combination therapy) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter phase 1b dose-escalation and dose-expansion clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This phase 1b trial evaluated the toxicity and efficacy of S-1, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combination therapy (S-IROX) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC).

METHODS

Patients aged 20-75 years with APC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible to receive escalating doses of S-1 (60 or 80 mg m²·day) on days 1-7, fixed doses of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m²) biweekly, and escalating doses of irinotecan (150, 165, or 180 mg/m²) once every 2 weeks. In the dose-escalation cohort, a 3 + 3 design was used to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and explore the recommended dose (RD). A dose-expansion cohort was added to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination. This trial was registered at UMIN-CTR (UMIN000012054).

RESULTS

Approximately 47 patients were enrolled, of whom 45 were eligible for the analysis. The MTD was not determined, but the RD was determined to be dose level 1 based on a review of data from each level. Among the 45 patients, the ORR was 51.1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 35.8-66.3%]. The median progression-free survival and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.8 months) and 15.8 months (95% CI, 9.8-20.8 months), respectively. Common adverse events included neutropenia, elevated liver enzyme levels, diarrhoea, and nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

The S-IROX regimen showed promising efficacy with manageable toxicities in Japanese patients with APC. A randomised phase 2/3 trial comparing S-IROX, mFOLFIRINOX, and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is currently ongoing (jRCTs031190009).

The potential targeted drugs for fusion genes including NRG1 in pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains an incurable disease with few treatment options Recently, promising targets have been identified and novel therapeutic drugs are currently under development in KRAS wild-type PC. It has been reported that KRAS wild-type PC has the genomic alterations such as oncogenic derivers and kinase fusions. NRG1 fusion, which encodes the neuregulin 1 and is the main ligands for ERRB3, has been identified in approximately half of younger patients with PC with KRAS wild-type tumors by RNA sequencing. There are several promising targeted therapies for NRG1 fusion-positive tumors, such as EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, HER3, HER2 antibodies. BRAF, NTRK, and ALK fusion are also potentially actionable alterations in KRAS wild-type PC and novel therapies targeting certain aberrations have shown activity in clinical trials.

Development and Validation of Multicenter Predictive Nomograms for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer After Chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Due to common practice of hypofractionated radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer and heterogeneous chemotherapy regimens in previous studies, modified nomograms are required. Therefore, we aim to develop and validate prognostic nomograms for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and chemotherapy.

METHODS

The development cohort comprised 925 patients with LAPC receiving SBRT and gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in our center, while 297 patients from another two centers formed the validation cohort. Nomograms were created from COX models and internally validated by bootstrap. Model discriminations were evaluated by calibration plots and concordance index (C-index). A decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate clinical benefits of nomograms. Additionally, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used for stratifications of survival probability based on the total score of each patient calculated by nomograms.

RESULTS

Weight loss, tumor diameter, radiation dose, CA19-9 kinetics after treatment and surgical resection were included in the nomogram for overall survival (OS), while the five factors plus performance status formed the nomogram for progression free survival (PFS). The corrected C-indexes for estimated 1-year and 2-year OS of the development cohort were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.91) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.90). For those of the validation cohort, it was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91). Additionally, the corrected C-index for predicted 1-year PFS in the development and validation cohort was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87), respectively. The calibration plots showed good agreement of 1- and 2-year OS and 1-year PFS between the estimations and actual observations. Potential clinical benefits were demonstrated with DCA. Additionally, for 1- and 2-year OS and 1-year PFS, patients were stratified into four groups with different survival probability by RPA.

CONCLUSION

The validated nomograms provided useful predictions of OS and PFS for LAPC with chemoradiotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Nab-Paclitaxel Plus S-1 versus Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for First-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Objective

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G) has been established as a standard first-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). S-1, as an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, demonstrated effective for PDAC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (nab-P/S) versus nab-P/G in patients with advanced PDAC.

Methods

Patients with advanced PDAC receiving nab-P/S (n = 65) or nab-P/G (n = 45) as first-line chemotherapy between November 2013 and June 2019 were reviewed.

Results

The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were numerically higher with nab-P/S than with nab-P/G (38.5% vs 28.9%, P = 0.30, 73.8% vs 66.7%, P = 0.42, respectively). ORRs of the primary lesion were similar for both groups (30.8% and 22.2%, P = 0.32). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable between the two groups (5.5 vs 5.7 months, P = 0.34, 10.2 vs 11.3 months, P = 0.74, respectively). Nab-P/S was associated with a numerically lower risk of adverse events, especially hematologic adverse events.

Conclusion

Nab-P/S could be a convenient alternative with similar efficacy and a favorable safety profile compared with nab-P/G as first-line chemotherapy for advanced PDAC, as well as an option for neoadjuvant therapy.

A case of primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma treated with S-1/CDDP therapy

BACKGROUND

Primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma is extremely rare, with only five recent case reports. Almost all reported cases of ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma have been treated with TC therapy and none have reported regarding the use of S-1/CDDP therapy. We report a case of primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma treated postoperatively with S-1/CDDP therapy.

CASE PRESENTATION

We describe a 55-year-old woman diagnosed with stage IB primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma that was treated with S-1/CDDP therapy. Preoperative transvaginal ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed a solid tumor measuring 10 cm in diameter in the pelvis. The tumor marker levels were as follows: CA125, 41.6 U/mL; CA19-9, < 2.0 U/mL; and CEA, 2.2 ng/mL. Ovarian cancer was suspected, and total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and omentectomy were performed. The left ovary was enlarged to greater than fist-sized, and there was a small amount of clear yellow ascites. Histological examination of the left ovary led to the diagnosis of signet-ring cell carcinoma. Histological examination of the right ovary also showed the presence of a signet-ring cell carcinoma. After surgery, upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and positron-emission tomography-CT were performed to search for a possible primary lesion, but none was found. The patient was diagnosed with primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma with FIGO Stage IB (PT1b, NX, M0). As postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, S-1/CDDP therapy (S-1120 mg/day/body × 14 days, CDDP 50 mg/m2 day 8, q 21 days) was administered for six cycles. There was no recurrence 27 months after the initial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We considered S-1/CDDP therapy was effective for primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma. This is the first case report of primary ovarian signet-ring cell carcinoma treated with S-1/CDDP therapy in the world.

Effect of S-1 on survival outcomes in 838 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: A 7-year multicenter observational cohort study in Taiwan

Objective

Studies have rarely explored the efficacy of S‐1 in treating advanced pancreatic cancer outside Japan. This study compared the survival outcomes of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with S‐1 with the survival outcomes of those without S‐1 treatment before and after S‐1 reimbursement was introduced in Taiwan in June of 2014.

Method

We retrospectively analyzed 838 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who underwent palliative chemotherapy from 2010 to 2016 at 4 institutes in Taiwan. For survival analysis, patients were categorized into two groups according to whether they received S‐1 treatment as palliative chemotherapy after diagnosis: (a) S‐1‐treated (n = 335) and (b) non‐S‐1‐treated (n = 503) groups.

Results

The median overall survival was longer in the S‐1‐treated group than in the non‐S‐1‐treated group (10.7 vs 6.0 mo, P < 0.001). Subgroup survival analyses showed that the S‐1‐treated group had more favorable outcomes than the non‐S‐1‐treated group in terms of stage III (19.6 vs 10.1 mo, P < 0.001) and stage IV (8.5 vs 5.3 mo, P < 0.001) disease. The disease control rates were 43.6% and 32.8% (P < 0.001) in patients treated with and without S‐1 in the first‐line setting, respectively. In multivariate analysis, exposure to S‐1 treatment was an independent prognosticator for survival.

Conclusion

Our results support the clinical use of S‐1 as the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, particularly in resource‐limited situations.

Evolution of the chemotherapeutic landscape and survival outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a four-institute cohort study in Taiwan, 2010-2016

Background

Only 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, and gemcitabine have been reimbursed for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treatment in Taiwan since 2003. It is uncertain whether the reimbursement of S-1 in June 2014 might change the treatment pattern and improve the survival of mPC patients in Taiwan.

Patients and methods

A total of 645 patients with newly diagnosed mPC who received palliative chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 in Taiwan were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were stratified according to year at diagnosis of mPC for analysis of chemotherapeutic treatment pattern and survival.

Results

Overall, the most common chemotherapeutic agents used for the treatment of mPC were gemcitabine (94.8%), followed by cisplatin (52.4%), S-1 (38.1%), and 5-FU (29.7%). The percentage of patients treated with S-1 between 2010 and 2016 increased from 2.6% to 74.0% (P<0.001), while the percentage of patients treated with 5-FU decreased from 31.6% to 21.2% (P<0.001). The percentage of patients treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, etc. remained consistent. An increase in the number of lines of treatment was observed throughout the study period, with 27.6% of patients receiving two or more lines of treatment in 2010, compared with 50.0% of patients in 2016 (P=0.013). The 12-month survival rate increased from 11.8% in 2010 to 41.4% in 2016, corresponding to an adjusted average annual percent change of 13.6% (0.3-28.7, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Based on this multi-institute cohort study in Taiwan, the reimbursement of S-1 changed the clinical practice and is associated with an improvement in survival outcome of mPC patients.

Health-related quality of life for gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel plus radiotherapy versus gemcitabine and S-1 plus radiotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

Purpose

To compare the effects of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GT) plus stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or gemcitabine and S-1 (GS) plus SBRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Patients with biopsy-proven and radiographically metastatic pancreatic cancer were included. HRQOL was assessed using the Chinese version of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and 5-level European quality of life 5-dimensions (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analyzed with Spearman’s rank correlation, ordinal regression, and propensity score-matched analysis.

Results

A total of 75 and 89 patients received GT and GS, respectively. The median biological effective dose of GT group and GS group was 59.5 Gy (range 48–85.5 Gy) and 64.4 Gy (range 52.48–85.5 Gy) in 5–8 fractions, respectively. More patients in the GS group had improvement in BPI and EQ-5D-5L compared with those in the GT group (n=38 vs n=15, P<0.001; n=42 vs n=20, P<0.001). No differences of BPI scores were found between pre- and post-treatment in each group, while only the post-treatment EQ-5D-5L score was higher than that at baseline in GS the group (P<0.001). Compared with GS group, it was unlikely for patients receiving GT to have better BPI and EQ-5D-5L. After propensity-matched analysis, more patients in GS group had improvement in BPI and EQ-5D-5L (n=24 vs n=12, P=0.002; n=28 vs n=16, P=0.002). Furthermore, patients with GS had a superior overall survival than those with GT (11.1 months [95% CI: 10.6–11.6 months] vs 9.9 months [95% CI: 8.8–11.0 months]; P=0.005). Both incidences of grade 3 hematological (P=0.024) and gastrointestinal (P=0.049) toxicities were higher in the GT group.

Conclusion

GS may achieve better HRQOL than GT. Therefore, GS may be an alternative of GT for metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially for Asians.

Prospective analysis of different combined regimens of stereotactic body radiation therapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

To identify impacts of different combined regimens of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and chemotherapy on survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and factors correlated with determinations of different combinations. Four hundred and nineteen patients with radiographically and biopsy-proven LAPC were prospectively enrolled. Factors associated with different strategies were analyzed with Chi-square test and contingency coefficients. Cox regression was used to identify factors predictive of survival. Prognostic values of different multimodality were further analyzed by propensity score-matched analysis. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of all patients was 13.2 and 8.2 months, respectively. Baseline ECOG correlated with induction chemotherapy, while tumor stage, lymph node invasion, and toxicity after SBRT associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with induction chemotherapy alone (12.2 months), adjuvant chemotherapy alone (13.6 months), and induction and adjuvant chemotherapy (13.3 months) had longer OS than those without chemotherapy (11.2 months; P < .001), while adjuvant chemotherapy alone and induction and adjuvant chemotherapy increased PFS. An adjusted overall survival benefit was gained with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with induction and adjuvant chemotherapy (OS: 14.7 months [95% CI: 14.2-15.2 months] vs 13.1 months [95% CI: 12.3-13.9 months]; P < .001) (PFS: 8.8 months [95% CI: 8.4-9.2 months] vs 8.1 months [95% CI: 7.4-8.8 months]; P = .053). Induction and adjuvant chemotherapy, especially adjuvant chemotherapy, plus SBRT may improve OS and PFS. Baseline performance status, tumor stage, lymph node involvement, and toxicity after SBRT influenced determinations of upfront multimodality.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy plus induction or adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage but medically inoperable pancreatic cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis of a prospectively collected database

Background

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plus induction chemotherapy and SBRT plus adjuvant therapy.

Methods

Patients with radiographically resectable, biopsy-proven pancreatic cancer were enrolled. Data were prospectively collected from 2012 to 2016. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify factors predictive of survival. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of SBRT combined with different timing of chemotherapy.

Results

One hundred patients were enrolled with 48 receiving induction chemotherapy and 52 undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 17.5 months (95% CI: 15.8–19.2 months) and 13.7 months (95% CI: 12.3–15.1 months), respectively. Patients with adjuvant chemotherapy (P <0.001), CA19-9 response (P <0.001) and BED₁₀ (biological effective dose, α/β = 10) ≥ 60 Gy (P = 0.024) had a longer OS, while the former two correlated with PFS. Patients with more positive factors had a superior OS and PFS. After propensity score matching analysis, there were 23 patients from each group included in the analysis. Longer OS (23.1 months versus 15.6, P <0.001) and PFS (18.0 months versus 11.6 months, P <0.001) were found in patients with adjuvant chemotherapy compared with those with induction chemotherapy.

Conclusion

SBRT was safe and effective in early stage pancreatic cancer. Combined with adjuvant chemotherapy, SBRT could be an alternative for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but not eligible for surgical resection.

Advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of clinical trials over thirty years

Background

In contrast to other cancers, survival rates for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients have improved but minimally over the past thirty years. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of clinical trials published since 1986 to determine trends in median overall survival in primarily metastatic PDAC.

Materials and methods

All Phase 2-4 clinical trials published during or after 1986 investigating first-line systemic chemotherapy in metastatic PDAC were included in the meta-analysis. Publications obtained through PubMed and www.ClinicalTrials.gov were cross-referenced to identify additional trials. Trials enrolling fewer than 50% of study participants with metastatic disease were excluded.

Results

Of 19,488 patients enrolled in 151 clinical trials, 84% had metastatic disease and 16% had locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In clinical trials published from 1986 to 2016, the weighted median overall survival (wMOS) increased by 3.0 months. The median wMOS was higher in combination therapy (7.31 months, IQR 5.4 to 8.5) compared to non-gemcitabine, single-agent therapy (4.76 months, IQR 3.5 to 6.0), gemcitabine monotherapy (6.48 months, IQR 5.9 to 7.2), and gemcitabine plus single-agent therapy (7.09 months, IQR 6.3 to 8.2). Of all regimens used in more than one study arm, FOLFIRINOX had the highest wMOS (10.9 months).

Conclusions

Regardless of treatment regimen, survival rates in PDAC have minimally improved over time. Of drugs used in two or more study arms, only FOLFIRINOX has a wMOS greater than ten months. Emphasis should, therefore, be placed on identification of novel targets that promote early diagnosis and intervention.

Funding

The authors on this manuscript are in parts, supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (EDRN U01 CA200466, SPORE P50 CA127297, R01 CA183459, R21 AA026428 and R01 CA 195586).

Pre-treatment DWI as a predictor of overall survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with Cyberknife radiotherapy and sequential S-1 therapy

Background

To identify the value of the pre-treatment apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in predicting the overall survival (OS) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with Cyberknife followed by sequential S-1 chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients with UICC-T4 LAPC who underwent DWI scan (3.0 Tesla) using two b-values (0, 600 s/mm²) in our center between 2015 and 2017 were enrolled. Mean ADCs of the region of interest (ROI) drawn manually on DWI imaging were measured by two independent radiologists at an interval of 1 month. The association between prognostic factors and patient survival was determined using univariate and multivariate analyses. Cox proportional hazard model was used for identification of independent prognostic factors of OS.

Results

A total of 41 patients (28 males and 13 females) were included, with a median age of 64 years, with 5 patients (3 males and 2 females) lost. The median OS was 11.7 months (range 2.8–23.3) among all 41 patients. The 1-year OS was 46% (95% CI 30%–62%). Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that pre-treatment ADC value (HR 10.652, P = 0.0093), age (HR 0.952, P = 0.015), CA19–9 (HR 1.001, P = 0.0022) and administration of S-1 (HR 0.128, P = 0.0002) were independent predicting factors of OS.

Conclusion

The mean ADC value of the primary tumor on pre-treatment DWI imaging was an independent predictor of OS in patients with LAPC receiving Cyberknife followed by sequential S-1.

Combination of Pre-Treatment DWI-Signal Intensity and S-1 Treatment: A Predictor of Survival in Patients with Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Sequential S-1

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether the combination of pre-treatment radiological and clinical factors can predict the overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with stereotactic body radiation and sequential S-1 (a prodrug of 5-FU combined with two modulators) therapy with improved accuracy compared with that of established clinical and radiologic risk models. METHODS: Patients admitted with LAPC underwent diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) scan at 3.0-T (b = 600 s/mm²). The mean signal intensity (SI_b = 600) of region-of-interest (ROI) was measured. The Log-rank test was done for tumor location, biliary stent, S-1, and other treatments and the Cox regression analysis was done to identify independent prognostic factors for OS. Prediction error curves (PEC) were used to assess potential errors in prediction of survival. The accuracy of prediction was evaluated by Integrated Brier Score (IBS) and C index. RESULTS: 41 patients were included in this study. The median OS was 11.7 months (2.8-23.23 months). The 1-year OS was 46%. Multivariate analysis showed that pre-treatment SI_b = 600 value and administration of S-1 were independent predictors for OS. The performance of pre-treatment SI_b = 600 and S-1 treatment in combination was better than that of SI_b = 600 or S-1 treatment alone. CONCLUSION: The combination of pre-treatment SI_b = 600 and S-1 treatment could predict the OS in patients with LAPC undergoing SBRT and sequential S-1 therapy with improved accuracy compared with that of established clinical and radiologic risk models.

Optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with resected pancreatic cancer but the optimal regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare all possible adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of overall survival and toxic effects. Pubmed, Trial registries and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials were searched until November 2016. Thirteen trials were included for network analysis and the hazard ratios (HRs) for survival and odds ratios for toxic effects were assessed via Aggregate Data Drug Information System software. Only S-1 chemotherapy improved 1-year, 3-year and 5-year survival compared with observation (HR (95% CI): 3.94 (1.18–12.34); 4.08 (1.58–8.24) and 5.09 (1.16–29.83) respectively). Although not significant, gemcitabine plus uracil/tegafur was associated with poorer 1-year and 3-year survival compared with observation (HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.16–4.03) and 0.86 (0.23–2.95)). Adding radiation to chemotherapy has no significant improvement in survival. S-1 and gemcitabine plus capecitabine are currently the most effective adjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer. While S1 has only been validated in Asian people, higher toxicity is an issue for gemcitabine plus capecitabine.

Dendritic Cell/Cytokine-Induced Killer Cell Immunotherapy Combined with S-1 in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Prospective Study

Purpose: Advanced pancreatic cancer has remained challenging to treat effectively. This study aimed to investigate the clinical effects and safety of immunotherapy with dendritic cells and cytokine-induced killer cells (DC-CIK) administered with the chemotherapy (CT) S-1 in this malignancy.Experimental Design: Consecutive patients (n = 47) with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with either DC-CIK + S-1, DC-CIK alone, S-1 alone, or best supportive care.Results: DC-CIK plus S-1 produced significantly longer median OS and PFS (212 and 136 days) compared with DC-CIK (128 and 85 days), CT (141 and 92 days), or supportive care only (52 and 43 days; P < 0.001). After adjusting for competing risk factors, DC-CIK combined with S-1 and receipt of 2 or more cycles of DC-CIK treatment remained independent predictors of disease-free and overall survival (P < 0.05). Phenotypic analysis of PBMCs demonstrated that the CD3⁺, CD3⁺/CD4⁺, and CD8⁺/CD28⁺ T-cell subsets were elevated (P < 0.05), while the CD3⁺/CD8⁺, CD3⁺/CD16⁺/CD56⁺ and CD4⁺/CD25⁺ cell subsets were significantly decreased after DC-CIK cell therapy (P < 0.05). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. In addition, the mutational frequency in cell-free tumor DNA (cfDNA) declined in 4 of 14 patients who received DC-CIK, and was associated with a more favorable survival.Conclusions: Treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer with combined DC-CIK infusions and S-1 was safe, resulted in favorable PFS and OS, and modulated the peripheral blood immune repertoire. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5066-73. ©2017 AACR.

Evaluation of Suppressive Effects of Tranilast on the Invasion/Metastasis Mechanism in a Murine Pancreatic Cancer Cell Line

OBJECTIVES

Numerous studies have investigated the mechanism of the antitumor effect of tranilast, well known as an antiallergic drug. Herein, we investigated the mechanism of the antitumor effects of tranilast using murine PAN 02 cell line.

METHODS

In an allograft mouse model, the number of metastatic sites in the liver was counted. Wound healing and chemoinvasion assay were performed to evaluate migration and invasive ability of PAN 02, respectively. Activities of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) were evaluated by gelatin zymography. The expression of cofactors in the activation of MMP-2 was assessed by immunohistochemical staining at the front of metastasis.

RESULTS

The number of metastatic sites was reduced in tranilast-treated groups. Migration ability and tumor invasiveness were significantly inhibited by tranilast in a dose-dependent manner. Gelatin zymography revealed inhibition of MMP-2 activity. Immunohistochemical staining showed remarkable attenuation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP-) 2 expression in tranilast-treated groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 is necessary for MMP-2 activation with interaction between membrane type 1-MMP and proMMP-2. These results suggested that tranilast may inhibit MMP-2 activation through attenuating TIMP-2 expression, resulting in inhibition of tumor invasion and metastasis. Our results showed possibility of tranilast in clinical application for novel cancer therapy.

A phase I study of S-1 in combination with nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

In Japan, S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, plus cisplatin is a standard regimen for advanced gastric cancer, whereas nab-paclitaxel is a treatment option. We aimed to evaluate the tolerance, pharmacokinetics, safety, and clinical efficacy of S-1 combined with nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer in a phase 1 study.

METHODS

The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) of S-1 plus nab-paclitaxel. The study was designed in accordance with a standard 3 + 3 method. Patients received 3-week cycles of treatment. S-1 was administered orally at 80 mg/m² twice daily for 14 days, and nab-paclitaxel was administered as an intravenous infusion at 180, 220, or 260 mg/m² on day 1 or 8.

RESULTS

Among the 16 patients enrolled, dose-limiting toxicity was observed in one patient at level 2a (S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily plus nab-paclitaxel 220 mg/m² on day 1). The MTD was not obtained, but the RD was established as level 3a (S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily plus nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m² on day 1). The most common grade 3-4 toxicity was neutropenia (62.5 %). The overall response rate was 54.5 %. The pharmacokinetic profiles of coadministered S-1 and paclitaxel were comparable to those of nab-paclitaxel or S-1 alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present results, the RD was determined as level 3a (S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily plus nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m² on day 1). This combination therapy was well tolerated and showed antitumor efficacy in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Updated therapeutic outcome for patients with periampullary and pancreatic cancer related to recent translational research

Chemotherapy with improved effect in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer has recently been established, launching a new era for patients with this very aggressive disease. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are different regimens, both capable of stabilizing the disease, thus increasing the number of patients who can reach second line and even third line of treatment. Concurrently, new windows of opportunity open for nutritional support and other therapeutic interventions, improving quality of life. Also pancreatic surgery has changed significantly during the latest years. Extended operations, including vascular/multivisceral resections are frequently performed in specialized centers, pushing borders of resectability. Potentially curative treatment including neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is offered new patient groups. Translational research is the basis for the essential understanding of the ongoing development. Even thou biomarkers for clinical management of patients with periampullary tumors have almost been lacking, biomarker driven trials are now in progress. New insight is constantly made available for clinicians; one recent example is selection of patients for gemcitabine treatment based on the expression level of the human equilibrium nucleoside transporter 1. An example of new diagnostic tools is identification of early pancreatic cancer patients by a three-biomarker panel in urine: The proteins lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1, regenerating gene 1 alpha and translation elongation factor 1 alpha. Requirement of treatment guideline revisions is intensifying, as combined chemotherapy regimens result in unexpected advantages. The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 trial outcome is an illustration: Addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting improved overall survival more than expected from the effect in advanced disease. Rapid implementation of new treatment options is mandatory when progress finally extends to patients with this serious disease.

Safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy combined with S-1 simultaneously followed by sequential S-1 as an initial treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SILAPANC) trial: study design and rationale of a phase II clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Upfront surgeries are not beneficial to most patients with pancreatic cancer. Therefore, more emphasis has been placed chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer recently. Gemcitabine-based regimens or FOLFIRINOX (a chemotherapy regimen including leucovorin, 5-FU, irinotecan, oxaliplatin) has been proven as a standard chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. However, severe toxicities may prevent the completion of chemotherapy. S-1 has showed better objective response rates, similar overall survival rates and progression-free survival rates compared with gemcitabine, revealing that S-1 may be a potential candidate in treating pancreatic cancer, especially for patients refractory to gemcitabine. Additionally, stereotactic body radiation therapy with Cyberknife could provide better efficacy than conventional radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Therefore, Cyberknife with S-1 simultaneously followed by sequential S-1 as an initial treatment may bring about favourable outcomes but needs further studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The S-1 as an initial treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SILAPANC) trial is a prospective, single-centre, one armed ongoing study. 190 eligible patients are required to initially receive Cyberknife with 1 cycle of S-1 simultaneously. After the concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 2 or 3 cycles of S-1 are sequentially given. Doses and fractions depend on the locations and volumes of tumours and the adjacent organs at risk. S-1 is taken orally, 2 times a day, at a dose of 80 mg/m² for 28 days, followed by a 14-day interval. The primary objectives are overall survival and 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 4-year and 5-year overall survival rates. The secondary objectives are cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, local control rates, clinical benefit rates, radiation-induced acute and late toxicities, adverse effects of chemotherapy and quality of life of patients. Besides, variables most predictive of prognosis would be identified via multivariate methods.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approvals have been granted by the Changhai Hospital Ethics Committee (CHEC-2016-032-01). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02704143; Pre-results.

Phase I Clinical Study of Irinotecan Plus S-1 in Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Cervical Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose and acute dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of intravenous irinotecan plus oral S-1 in patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cervical cancer.

METHODS

Irinotecan was administered intravenously over the course of 90 minutes on day 1, and S-1 was given orally in 2 divided doses from days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle. The dose of S-1 was escalated in a stepwise fashion from 40 (level 1) to 60 mg/m (level 2) and then 80 mg/m (level 3), whereas the dosage of irinotecan remained the same (150 mg/m). The primary end point for the escalation study was acute DLT that occurred within 2 cycles of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were enrolled and treated over 3 dose levels. Their median age was 47 years (range, 28-48 years). At level 1, one episode of grade 3 anemia and a grade 3 fatigue were observed, but no DLT developed. At level 2, the first patient experienced febrile neutropenia, which was considered to be a DLT. To evaluate the toxicity of this dose level, 5 more patients were evaluated. However, no DLT developed in these patients. At level 3, although grade 1 to 2 hematological and nonhematological toxicities developed, no DLT occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, S-1 plus irinotecan in a triweekly setting is a reasonable treatment regimen with an acceptable toxicity profile. The recommended doses of S-1 and irinotecan for this regimen are 80 and 150 mg/m, respectively.

Adjuvant chemotherapy of S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01)

BACKGROUND

Although adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine is standard care for resected pancreatic cancer, S-1 has shown non-inferiority to gemcitabine for advanced disease. We aimed to investigate the non-inferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer in terms of overall survival.

METHODS

We did a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority phase 3 trial undertaken at 33 hospitals in Japan. Patients who had histologically proven invasive ductal carcinoma of the pancreas, pathologically documented stage I-III, and no local residual or microscopic residual tumour, and were aged 20 years or older were eligible. Patients with resected pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), intravenously administered on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks [one cycle], for up to six cycles) or S-1 (40 mg, 50 mg, or 60 mg according to body-surface area, orally administered twice a day for 28 days followed by a 14 day rest, every 6 weeks [one cycle], for up to four cycles) at the data centre by a modified minimisation method, balancing residual tumour status, nodal status, and institutions. The primary outcome was overall survival in the two treatment groups, assessed in the per-protocol population, excluding ineligible patients and those not receiving the allocated treatment. The protocol prespecified that the superiority of S-1 with respect to overall survival was also to be assessed in the per-protocol population by a log-rank test, if the non-inferiority of S-1 was verified. We estimated overall and relapse-free survival using the Kaplan-Meier methods, and assessed non-inferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine using the Cox proportional hazard model. The expected hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 0.87 with a non-inferiority margin of 1.25 (power 80%; one-sided type I error 2.5%). This trial is registered at UMIN CTR (UMIN000000655).

FINDINGS

385 patients were randomly assigned to treatment between April 11, 2007, and June 29, 2010 (193 to the gemcitabine group and 192 to the S-1 group). Of these, three were exlcuded because of ineligibility and five did not receive chemotherapy. The per-protocol population therefore consisted of 190 patients in the gemcitabine group and 187 patients in the S-1 group. On Sept 15, 2012, following the recommendation from the independent data and safety monitoring committee, this study was discontinued because the prespecified criteria for early discontinuation were met at the interim analysis for efficacy, when all the protocol treatments had been finished. Analysis with the follow-up data on Jan 15, 2016, showed HR of mortality was 0.57 (95% CI 0.44-0.72, pnon-inferiority<0.0001, p<0.0001 for superiority), associated with 5-year overall survival of 24.4% (18.6-30.8) in the gemcitabine group and 44.1% (36.9-51.1) in the S-1 group. Grade 3 or 4 leucopenia, neutropenia, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were observed more frequently in the gemcitabine group, whereas stomatitis and diarrhoea were more frequently experienced in the S-1 group.

INTERPRETATION

Adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 can be a new standard care for resected pancreatic cancer in Japanese patients. These results should be assessed in non-Asian patients.

FUNDING

Pharma Valley Center, Shizuoka Industrial Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical.

Gemcitabine plus S-1: a hopeful frontline treatment for Asian patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is widely used for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer which contains locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. We performed meta-analysis to examine whether gemcitabine plus S-1 could improve treatment efficacy as first-line chemotherapy for those patients when compared with gemcitabine alone.

METHODS

STATA was used to estimate the summary hazard ratios or odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among trials was examined by Cochran's χ(2) test. Publication bias was evaluated by Begg's and Egger's tests. Subgroup analysis based on the extent of disease was performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials including 878 Asian patients were analyzed. In total meta-analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1 significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.015), progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.74; P < 0.001), overall response rate (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-4.41; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.39; P < 0.001), and was associated with more but manageable hematologic (leukocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, rash) adverse events. In subgroup analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1, comparing with gemcitabine, significantly improved overall survival in locally advanced patients (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.99; P = 0.022) but not in metastatic patients (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.23; P = 0.256).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed the survival benefits of gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer at least in Asia, while good Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status was warranted. Importantly, we highlighted the significant overall survival benefit of gemcitabine plus S-1 in locally advanced patients but not in metastatic patients.

Increased tumour ADC value during chemotherapy predicts improved survival in unresectable pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether changes to the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of primary tumour in the early period after starting chemotherapy can predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Subjects comprised 43 patients with histologically confirmed unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy. Minimum ADC values in primary tumour were measured using the selected area ADC (sADC), which excluded cystic and necrotic areas and vessels, and the whole tumour ADC (wADC), which included whole tumour components. Relative changes in ADC were calculated from baseline to 4 weeks after initiation of chemotherapy. Relationships between ADC and both PFS and OS were modelled by Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Median PFS and OS were 6.1 and 11.0 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, sADC change was the strongest predictor of PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 4.5; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.7-11.9; p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression analysis for OS revealed sADC change and CRP as independent predictive markers, with sADC change as the strongest predictive biomarker (HR, 6.7; 95 % CI, 2.7-16.6; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Relative changes in sADC could provide a useful imaging biomarker to predict PFS and OS with chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

KEY POINTS

• Relative change in ADC value can predict survival in unresectable pancreatic cancer. • ADC change could determine a chemosensitivity of pancreatic cancer. • ADC values should be measured by excluding cystic, necrotic areas and vessels.

Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine and S-1 Combination Therapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of GS versus GEM.Summary data from randomized trials and retrospective studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on the chemotherapy cycles were performed to explore the efficacy and toxicity for therapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing specific studies to assess the effects of study quality.Between January 2004 and August 2012, 4 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies including a total of 1025 cases were identified. The overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P < 0.001) for the GS arm were significantly longer than the GEM arm. The differences in objective response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (DCR) were also better in the GS arm (RR: 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Grades 3 to 4 toxicities in both the groups were similar except neutropenia and diarrhea, which were more frequent in the GS arm (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the cycle for chemotherapy every 4 weeks has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity than regimens every 3 weeks in the GS arm.The current meta-analysis suggested that GEM significantly prolonged OS and PFS when added to S-1 combination in patients with unresectable PC. GS therapy also offers better ORR and DCR than GEM monotherapy and no unexpected toxicity was evident.

Biweekly gemcitabine plus S-1 for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: a preliminary feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer should not only prolong survival but maintain quality of life, considering its limited life expectancy. To achieve these goals, biweekly gemcitabine plus S-1 was assessed in the clinical practice setting.

METHODS

Fifty-two patients with either locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who received biweekly gemcitabine plus S-1 as a first-line anti-cancer treatment were included in this study. Treatment delivery, toxicity, response, and survival were reviewed to assess the feasibility and efficacy.

RESULTS

The completion rate of treatment delivery was 95.1%, with relative dose intensity of 97.1% for gemcitabine and 97.3% for S-1. Overall, grade 3 or worse adverse events were rare, with hematologic toxicities occurring in 5.8%. The objective response rate was 30.8%, and more than a 50% reduction of CA19-9 was observed in 77.1%. Surgical conversion was completed with a margin-negative resection in four patients whose tumor had shrunk for at least 6 months. The median progression-free and overall survivals were 10.4 and 18.2 months, respectively. Reduction of CA19-9 was associated with longer survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Biweekly gemcitabine plus S-1 may be a good alternative to current standard chemotherapies for unresectable pancreatic cancer with less toxicity and less treatment burden without losing efficacy.

Phase I/II study of S-1 in combination with sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The potential of S-1 for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has been shown in two phase II studies. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerance, pharmacokinetics and clinical activity of S-1 combined with sorafenib in patients with mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II study of S-1 plus sorafenib, we recruited patients with clear-cell or papillary renal cell carcinoma who had received a maximum of one prior cytokine-based regimen. The phase I primary end points were the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD). S-1 was administered orally at 60, 80, 100 or 120 mg/day on days 1-28 of a 42-day cycle in combination with sorafenib (400 or 800 mg/day), given daily with dose adjustment. In phase II, the primary end point was to assess the overall response rate (ORR) at the RD.

RESULTS

Nine patients were enrolled into phase I and 21 (including 6 patients who received the RD in the phase I portion) were enrolled into phase II. In the phase I portion, the MTD could not be determined, and the RD was defined as S-1 80 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-28 + sorafenib 800 mg/day on days 1-42. In the phase II portion, 21 patients were fully assessable for efficacy and safety. The confirmed ORR was 52% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.8-74.3], including one complete response (5%) and 10 partial responses (48%). The median progression-free survival was 9.9 (95% CI 6.5-17.1) months. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event for all grades was hand-foot skin reaction (100%). The major reasons for dose reduction were hand-foot skin reaction (38%) and rash (14%).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with S-1 plus sorafenib is effective and tolerable for patients with mRCC. However, skin events management is important in S-1 plus sorafenib combination therapy.

Combination therapy with S-1 and interferon-α in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with lung metastasis

Managing extrahepatic recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is crucial for improving prognosis. The present study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of using combination therapy with S-1 and interferon (IFN)- α in HCC patients with lung metastasis. Of the 646 patients who underwent radical surgery for HCC at our institute, 62 developed their first distant metastasis in the lung. Among these patients, 11 received S-1 combination therapy, while the remaining 51 patients received other conventional therapy, such as 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin or best supportive care. We retrospectively evaluated the toxicity and efficiency of combination therapy with S-1 and IFN- α. Hematological toxicity was observed in 5 patients and was grade 1 or 2 in all cases, except 1 patient (9.1%) who developed grade 3 leukopenia. Non-hematological toxicity was observed in 6 patients and was grade 1 in all cases, except 1 patient who exhibited a grade 2 increase of serum bilirubin levels. No patient required discontinuation of the S-1 combination therapy and no treatment-related mortality was reported during this study. Patients who received S-1 treatment exhibited significantly better survival after distant recurrence (SADR) compared to those without S-1 treatment (3-year survival rate, 81.8 vs. 43.1%, respectively; P=0.014). The multivariate analysis revealed that the S-1 treatment was prognostically significant for SADR (P=0.0091; hazard ratio = 0.343). In conclusion, combination therapy with S-1 and IFN- α may be efficient for HCC patients with lung metastasis.

Tumor vessel depiction with contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography predicts efficacy of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography (CE-EUS) is a new imaging modality for pancreatic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate if CE-EUS is useful for predicting treatment efficacy before pancreatic cancer chemotherapy by assessing intratumoral vessel flow.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer underwent CE-EUS before chemotherapy. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the intratumoral vessel flow observed with CE-EUS: vessel sign-positive and vessel sign-negative groups. Patient prognosis was investigated according to presence or absence of the vessel sign.

RESULTS

Two patients were excluded due to poor visualization of CE-EUS images; therefore, 37 patients were analyzed. Contrast-enhanced EUS revealed positive vessel sign in 20 patients, whereas it revealed negative vessel sign in 17 patients. Both progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly longer in the positive- versus negative vessel sign groups (P = 0.037 and P = 0.027, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the positive vessel sign was an independent factor associated with longer overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of intratumoral vessel flow by CE-EUS could be useful for predicting efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. Contrast-enhanced EUS could be used before chemotherapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer.

Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study

PURPOSE

The present phase III study was designed to investigate the noninferiority of S-1 alone and superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 compared with gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive only gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), only S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle), or gemcitabine plus S-1 (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle).

RESULTS

In the total of 834 enrolled patients, median overall survival was 8.8 months in the gemcitabine group, 9.7 months in the S-1 group, and 10.1 months in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group. The noninferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine was demonstrated (hazard ratio, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.78 to 1.18; P < .001 for noninferiority), whereas the superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 was not (hazard ratio, 0.88; 97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.08; P = .15). All treatments were generally well tolerated, although hematologic and GI toxicities were more severe in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy with S-1 demonstrated noninferiority to gemcitabine in overall survival with good tolerability and presents a convenient oral alternative for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

S-1 for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer

INTRODUCTION

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens are used worldwide as the standard treatment in chemotherapy for gastric cancer. S-1 , a fourth-generation oral fluoropyrimidine that combines tegafur and two biochemical modulators: gimeracil and oteracil potassium, is now attracting considerable interest.

AREAS COVERED

This review addresses the clinical evidence of S-1 in gastrointestinal malignancies, such as gastric, colorectal, pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. S-1 has demonstrated advantages over standard therapies, in both advanced and postoperative settings, in large Phase III studies. S-1 alone or S-1 plus cisplatin is recommended in the 2010 Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines, by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Results from Phase III studies have demonstrated that S-1 in combination with chemotherapies, such as cisplatin in gastric cancer, and irinotecan and oxaliplatin in colorectal cancers, is non-inferior to conventional 5-FU-based standard regimens, with the benefit of convenience and reduced toxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

The excellent design of S-1 aimed to reduce toxicity by avoiding certain routes of degradation, and to enhance activity by reducing catabolism. This has provided not only a suitable alternative to 5-FU, but also higher efficacy.

Effects of S-1 as a second-line chemotherapy for patients with relapsed pancreatic cancer

Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine is the standard treatment in Japan for patients who have undergone resection of pancreatic cancer. However, few reports have described suitable regimens for patients who present cancer relapse following adjuvant chemotherapy. In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, as a second-line chemotherapy for patients who had suffered relapse of pancreatic cancer following adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine. A total of 51 patients with pancreatic cancer suffered relapse after curative resection and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine at our institution. A group of 26 of these patients were administered S-1 orally twice daily after meals at a dose of 80 mg/m(2) for body surface areas for 14 consecutive days, followed by a 7-day rest (S-1 group). The remaining 25 patients received no additional anticancer drugs other than continuation of gemcitabine (GEM/BSC group). During a median follow-up period of 35 months, a significant difference was observed in overall survival (OAS) between the S-1 group and the control group (median OAS, 20.9 vs. 13.7 months; p=0.0157, log-rank test). Furthermore, there was a significant inter-group difference in survival after relapse (SAR) (median SAR, 11.4 vs. 6.20 months; p=0.0025, log-rank test). No increase in grade 3/4 hematological and non-hematological toxicity was observed in the S-1 group. In conclusion, second-line chemotherapy using a combination of S-1 and adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine may be an efficient and beneficial strategy for patients with relapsed pancreatic cancer.

A case of pancreatic cancer after heart transplantation

Malignancy is not uncommon with immunosuppressive therapy, but pancreatic cancer is infrequently complicated in recipients of heart transplantation. Here we report a transplant case diagnosed with pancreatic cancer 4 years and 8 months after the heart transplantation. We changed the immunosuppressive regimen after the malignancy was detected, and administered everolimus along with chemotherapy using S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine prodrug. The patient lived for 8 months after the diagnosis, and received metallic stenting for the biliary and duodenal obstruction. Also, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first report about chemotherapy and endoscopic intervention for pancreatic cancer in a heart transplantation patient.

A phase II study of oral S-1 with concurrent radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy with S-1 alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

S-1 is a new oral fluoropyrimidine anticancer agent shown to be effective for pancreatic cancer. In a previous phase I trial, we evaluated the safety of S-1 combined with radiotherapy to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The recommended dose of S-1 for phase II trials of chemoradiotherapy was determined as 80 mg/m(2)/day given on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. This phase II study was conducted to further evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of radiotherapy combined with S-1 (UMIN000004794).

METHODS

Eligible patients had locally advanced and unresectable pancreatic cancer without distant metastases, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, adequate organ and marrow functions, and no prior anticancer therapy. Patients initially received 4 weeks of chemoradiotherapy. S-1 was given orally at a dose of 80 mg/m(2)/day twice daily on days 1-21. Radiotherapy was delivered in fractions of 1.25 Gy twice daily, 5 days per week for 4 weeks (total dose: 50 Gy in 40 fractions). One month after the completion of chemoradiotherapy, S-1 was administered for 14 days followed by a 14-day rest period. This cycle was repeated as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled in this phase II study. Median follow-up was 14.6 months (range 5.4-58.9 months). Forty-three patients (86%) completed the scheduled course of chemoradiotherapy. There was no treatment-related death or grade 4 toxicity. The major toxic effects were leukopenia and nausea. The objective tumor response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours criteria was partial response in 15 patients (30%) (95% confidence interval (CI), 18-45%), stable disease in 23 (46%), and progressive disease in 12 (24%). Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.7-11.2 months) and 14.3 months (95% CI, 10.8-20.8 months), respectively. Survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 62 and 27%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with S-1 and radiation in patients with locally advanced and unresectable pancreatic cancer is considered a promising, well-tolerated regimen that can be recommended as an effective treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II study of palliative S-1 in combination with cisplatin as second-line chemotherapy for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients

In this study, we examined the efficacy and toxicity of S-1 with cisplatin as a second-line palliative chemotherapy for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients. Patients who had been previously treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy as palliative first-line chemotherapy received S-1/cisplatin [body surface area (BSA) <1.25 m(2), S-1 40 mg/day; BSA ≤1.25 to <1.5 m(2), 50 mg/day; BSA ≥1.5 m(2) 60 mg/day, orally, bid, daily on days 1-14 followed by a 7-day washout and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2)/day intravenously on day 1] every three weeks. The enrollment of 32 patients was planned, but the study was terminated early, prior to the first stage, following the enrollment of 11 patients. The median age of the patients was 56 (range, 42-74) years. Nine patients had a performance status (PS) of one. In total, there were 21 chemotherapy cycles and the median treatment duration was 21 (range, 7-96) days. Of the 11 patients, five could not be evaluated due to discontinuation prior to the response evaluation. One of the six evaluable patients achieved stable disease (9.1% in intention to treat analysis and 16.7% in per-protocol analysis), while five had progressive disease. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicities were anemia in one, neutropenia in one and thrombocytopenia in one cycle. Grade 3-4 nonhematological toxicities were fatigue in three, nausea in four, anorexia in two, diarrhea in one and peripheral neuropathy in two cycles. With a median follow-up period of 8.9 (range, 3.2-11.3) months, the median time to progression was 44 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.4-62.6] and the median overall survival was 81 days (95% CI 9.3-152.7). Combination chemotherapy with S-1 and cisplatin as applied in this study did not result in promising antitumor activity, a high degree of toxicity and poor compliance.

A multicentre randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine alone vs gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: GEMSAP study

Background:

This randomised phase II trial compared gemcitabine alone vs gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Methods:

Patients were randomly assigned to 4-week treatment with gemcitabine alone (1000, mg m⁻² gemcitabine by 30-min infusion on days 1, 8, and 15) or gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy (1000, mg m⁻² gemcitabine by 30-min infusion on days 1 and 15 and 40 mg m⁻² S-1 orally twice daily on days 1–15). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

Between July 2006 and February 2009, 106 patients were enrolled. The PFS in gemcitabine and S-1 combination arm was significantly longer than in gemcitabine arm (5.4 vs 3.6 months), with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (P=0.036). Overall survival (OS) for gemcitabine and S-1 combination was longer than that for gemcitabine monotherapy (13.5 vs 8.8 months), with a hazard ratio of 0.72 (P=0.104). Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar in both arms.

Conclusion:

Gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy demonstrated longer PFS in advanced pancreatic cancer. Improved OS duration of 4.7 months was found for gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy, though this was not statistically significant.

Combinational therapy: new hope for pancreatic cancer?

Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with a low overall survival rate. Chemotherapy is the most common treatment for patients presenting with advanced pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine achieves a modest improvement in overall survival and is the gold standard for advanced pancreatic cancer treatment. Capecitabine and S-1, derivatives of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), offers minimal clinical benefits. Folfirinox represents a new and aggressive regimen that might benefit patients of metastatic pancreatic cancer with good performance status. Other chemotherapy drugs such as platinums and irinotecan do not provide significant improvement in overall survival, but have been used as part of combinational therapies. Comparing to systemically delivered chemotherapy, regional intra-arterial chemotherapy achieves higher local drug concentration in tumors with lower systemic drug toxicity, and may serve as a better treatment regimen. Although there have been progress made in chemotherapeutic strategies against pancreatic cancer, the overall survival is not significantly improved in the last decade. Recently, development of chemotherapy in combination with molecular targeted therapies holds great promise in pancreatic cancer treatment, especially in patients with metastatic disease. Growing bodies of preclinical and clinical evidences indicate that the combination of conventional modalities with specific molecular targeted therapy increase the efficacy of the monotherapy without an increase in toxicity. In this review, we summarized the current regimens of chemotherapy and molecular targeted therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and highlighted the novel combinational treatments tested in recent clinical trials.

Phase I/II study of gemcitabine as a fixed dose rate infusion and S-1 combination therapy (FGS) in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer patients

PURPOSE

There is no standard regimen for gemcitabine (Gem)-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. In a previous phase II trial, S-1 was found to exhibit marginal efficacy. Gem administration by fixed dose rate infusion of 10 mg/m(2)/min (FDR-Gem) should maximize the rate of intracellular accumulation of gemcitabine triphosphate and might improve clinical efficacy. We conducted the phase I/II of FDR-Gem and S-1 (FGS) in patients with Gem-refractory PC.

METHODS

The patients received FDR-Gem on day 1 and S-1 orally twice daily on days 1-7. Cycles were repeated every 14 days. Patients were scheduled to receive Gem (mg/m(2)/week) and S-1 (mg/m(2)/day) at four dose levels in the phase I: 800/80 (level 1), 1,000/80 (level 2), 1,200/80 (level 3) and 1,200/100 (level 4). Forty patients were enrolled in the phase II study at recommended dose.

RESULTS

The recommended dose was the level 3. In the phase II, a partial response has been confirmed in seven patients (18%). The median overall survival time and median progression-free survival time are 7.0 and 2.8 months, respectively. The common adverse reactions were anorexia, leukocytopenia and neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

This combination regimen of FGS is active and well tolerated in patients with Gem-refractory PC.

Multicenter phase II study of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy (GS Therapy) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this multicenter Phase II study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically or cytologically proven metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were eligible for this study. Gemcitabine was administered at a dose of 1000 mg/m(2) over 30 min on days 1 and 8, and oral S-1 at a dose of 40 mg/m(2) twice daily from days 1 to 14, repeated every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included and the efficacy and toxicity were analyzed in 54 patients who received at least one dose of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy. Although no complete response was seen, a partial response was achieved in 24 patients, resulting in an overall response rate of 44.4% (95% confidence interval: 30.9-58.6%). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval: 4.1-6.9 months) and the median overall survival was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval: 8.5-10.8 months) with a 1-year survival rate of 33.0%. The major Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (80%), leucopenia (59%), thrombocytopenia (22%), anorexia (17%) and rash (7%). Hematological toxicity was mostly transient and there was only one episode of febrile neutropenia ≥Grade 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy produced a high response rate with good survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. A randomized Phase III study to confirm the efficacy of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy is ongoing.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for patients with refractory pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy on refractory pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to gemcitabine and S-1 were treated with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² over 30 min and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² over 120 min on days 1 and 15. Treatment was repeated every 4 weeks and tumor response was assessed every two cycles by RECIST version 1.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with pathologically confirmed pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The treatment was administered as a second-line chemotherapy in eighteen patients (82%) and as a third-line chemotherapy in four patients (18%). Tumor response did not occur in any of the cases. Thirteen patients demonstrated stable diseases, and the disease control rate was 59%. Median overall survival and time to progression were 6.8 months (95% CI, 2.8-11.5) and 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.5-3.8), respectively. Median overall survival from the first-line chemotherapy was 22.7 months (95% CI, 14.8-24.4). The major grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (14%), anorexia (23%), and peripheral neuropathy (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy was tolerable but had limited activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in a refractory setting.