Combining capecitabine and gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a phase I/II trial

Rational Design of an Orally Active Anticancer Fluoropyrimidine, Pencitabine, a Hybrid of Capecitabine and Gemcitabine

The structure of the anticancer drug capecitabine was redesigned to prevent metabolic conversion to 5-fluorouracil and its associated potentially fatal toxicities. The resulting cytidine analogue, pencitabine, is a hybrid of capecitabine and gemcitabine, another anticancer drug in clinical use. Preliminary biological evaluation revealed that pencitabine is cytotoxic in vitro in cell culture and orally active in vivo in a human xenograft test system. Pencitabine may mimic the known therapeutically advantageous combination of its parent drugs. Pencitabine is postulated to interfere with DNA synthesis and function by inhibiting multiple nucleotide-metabolizing enzymes and by misincorporation into DNA. Based on detailed mechanistic analyses and literature precedents, the hypothesis is put forward that the significant DNA damage caused by pencitabine may be accounted for by two additional effects not shown by the parent drugs: inhibition of DNA glycosylases involved in base excision repair and of DNA (cytosine-5)-methyltransferase involved in epigenetic regulation of cellular metabolism.

Hepatic Artery Infusion of Floxuridine in Combination With Systemic Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis in Two Centers

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of hepatic artery infusion (HAI) of floxuridine (FUDR) in combination with systemic chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer liver metastases (PCLM).

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively collected clinical data of 347 patients with PCLM who underwent first-line chemotherapy at two Chinese centers between 2012 and 2019. Propensity score matching between patients with and without HAI was performed to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. Objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) between groups were compared. HAI pump functionality was recorded.

Results

Data of 258 patients (62 patients with HAI and 196 patients without HAI) were used for matching. After 1:1 ratio matching, 62 patients per group were included. The intrahepatic ORR was 66.1% in the HAI group and 22.6% in the non-HAI group (P < 0.001), and the extrahepatic ORR was 25.0 versus 28.9% (P = 0.679). The median OS was significantly longer in HAI group (14.0 versus 10.8 months, P = 0.001). Multivariance COX regression showed HAI led to a decrease in hazard ratio for death by 61.8% (HR = 0.382; 95% CI: 0.252–0.578; P< 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients without EHM, with higher intrahepatic tumor burden and with synchronous liver metastasis benefited more from HAI. Dysfunction of HAI pump occurred in 5.7% of patients during the period of follow-up.

Conclusions

In patients with PCLM, first-line treatment with HAI FUDR plus SCT resulted in higher intrahepatic response and better OS.

Evaluation of Phase II Trial Design in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated how well phase II trials in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer (LAMPC) meet current recommendations for trial design.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase II first-line treatment trial for LAMPC. We assessed baseline characteristics, type of comparison, and primary end point to examine adherence to the National Cancer Institute recommendations for trial design.

RESULTS

We identified 148 studies (180 treatment arms, 7505 participants). Forty-seven (32%) studies adhered to none of the 5 evaluated National Cancer Institute recommendations, 62 (42%) followed 1, 31 (21%) followed 2, and 8 (5%) followed 3 recommendations. Studies varied with respect to the proportion of patients with good performance status (range, 0%-80%) and locally advanced disease (range, 14%-100%). Eighty-two (55%) studies concluded that investigational agents should progress to phase III testing; of these, 24 (16%) had documented phase III trials. Three (8%) phase III trials demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements for investigational agents. One of 38 phase II trials that investigated biological investigational agents was enriched for a biomarker.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase II trials do not conform well to current recommendations for trial design in LAMPC.

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.

Preclinical Rationale for the Phase III Trials in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Is Wishful Thinking Clouding Successful Drug Development for Pancreatic Cancer?

Prior phase III trials in advanced pancreatic cancer have been predominantly unsuccessful. In this review, we attempt to understand how past preclinical data were translated into phase III clinical trials in metastatic pancreatic cancer as described in the article. A systematic literature review conducted through the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, from January 1997 to June 2015 using key words-phase III clinical trials, metastatic/advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma or pancreatic cancer identified 30 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met criteria. The trials were limited to RCTs in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The success rate of first-line phase III studies in advanced pancreatic cancer was only 13%. In 60% of the RCTs, no preclinical experiments were referenced in biologically cognate pancreatic models. Nine (30%) of the RCTs were designed based on preclinical evidence from in vitro cell lines alone without additional in vivo validation in xenograft models. It remains uncertain how strongly the preclinical data influence the development of clinical regimens but so far the studies developed based on more solid preclinical evidence have been successful.

Phase I trial of vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine and capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in pancreatic and biliary cancers

BACKGROUND

Vandetanib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that affects vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and rearranged during transfection (RET) mediated receptors which are important for growth and invasion of biliary and pancreatic cancers. This phase I study evaluated the safety profile of vandetanib in combination with standard doses of gemcitabine and capecitabine in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

METHODS

In this single center phase I trial, patients received gemcitabine intravenously (i.v.) at 1000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 in a 28 day cycle, capecitabine orally at 850 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, and escalating doses of vandetanib (200 or 300 mg orally daily). Once the MTD was defined, an expansion cohort of patients with advanced biliary cancers and locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer was enrolled. Blood samples were also collected at predetermined time points for biomarker analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were enrolled: 9 in the dose escalation and 14 in the dose expansion cohort. One dose limiting toxicity (DLT), of grade 4 neutropenia, occurred in the 200 mg vandetanib cohort. The most common adverse effects were diarrhea (39 %), nausea and vomiting (34%), and rash (33%). There were 3 partial responses and stable disease of >2 months (range 2-45, median 5) was observed in 15/23 patients. There was no association between changes in biomarker analytes and disease response.

CONCLUSION

The combination of gemcitabine, capecitabine and vandetanib is well tolerated at the recommended phase II dose of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly for three consecutive weeks, capecitabine 850 mg/m2 BID days 1-21, and vandetanib 300 mg daily, every 28 days. This combination demonstrated promising activity in pancreaticobiliary cancers and further evaluation is warranted in these diseases. NCT00551096.

Capecitabine and Gemcitabine (CapGem, CG, GemCap) for Advanced Pancreatic and Biliary Tract Cancer

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases.

Metformin and survival in pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to determine the effect of metformin exposure on survival in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using The Health Improvement Network, a primary care electronic medical record database from the United Kingdom (2003-2010). The study cohort included all subjects with a diagnostic code for incident PAC and a preexisting diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Subjects were classified as exposed if they were prescribed metformin around the time of PAC diagnosis (between 6 months prior and 1 month after). A secondary analysis was performed only on exposed subjects without prior (ie, 6 months before PAC diagnosis) exposure to metformin. The primary outcome was overall survival. The analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The study included 516 subjects with preexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus and PAC, 247 of which were exposed to metformin. In univariate and multivariable analysis, there was no difference in survival between those exposed and those unexposed to metformin in the primary analysis (hazards ratio, 1.11 [0.89-1.38], P = 0.367) or the secondary analysis (hazards ratio, 1.09 [0.80-1.47], P = 0.585).

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin use is not associated with improved survival in subjects with advanced PAC.

Heart Rate Variability and Baroreflex Sensitivity during Fosinopril, Irbesartan and Atenolol Therapy in Hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of long-term therapy with fosinopril, irbesartan and atenolol on the autonomic control of the cardiovascular system in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We enrolled 58 patients (mean age 38 +/- 10 years) with never-treated mild hypertension with no evidence of target organ damage. The study was single blind. Patients were assigned to receive fosinopril 10-20 mg/day, irbesartan 150-300 mg/day or atenolol 50-100 mg/day for 14 weeks. Dosage was titrated to reach an average office blood pressure (BP) of <140/90mm Hg. Before therapy all patients underwent a 24-hour Holter ECG to evaluate heart rate variability (HRV) through nonlinear methods, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), and measurement of baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) using a Portaprés device; all measurements were repeated after therapy.

RESULTS

All three therapies significantly and equally decreased BP, both office (systolic/diastolic blood pressure 152 +/- 11/97 +/- 7mm Hg vs 129 +/- 7/85 +/- 4mm Hg after fosinopril, 151 +/- 11/97 +/- 6mm Hg vs 133 +/- 9/87 +/- 8mm Hg after irbesartan, 149 +/- 13/96 +/- 9mm Hg vs 132 +/- 9/87 +/- 7mm Hg after atenolol; p < 0.001) and ABPM values. HRV calculated with nonlinear methods and BRS were significantly increased after atenolol whereas no significant change was found in the fosinopril and irbesartan treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All three therapies significantly and similarly reduced BP without modifying heart rate, except for atenolol, which significantly decreased it. Although angiotensin directly increases sympathetic tone, neither fosinopril nor irbesartan modified cardiovascular autonomic function; this is likely to be connected to the fairly good basal autonomic function of the population evaluated. Atenolol is associated with a significant increase in HRV and BRS probably through an improvement of parasympathetic tone.

Evaluation of a gene-directed enzyme-product therapy (GDEPT) in human pancreatic tumor cells and their use as in vivo models for pancreatic cancer

Background

Gene-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (GDEPT) is a two-step treatment protocol for solid tumors that involves the transfer of a gene encoding a prodrug-activating enzyme followed by administration of the inactive prodrug that is subsequently activated by the enzyme to its tumor toxic form. However, the establishment of such novel treatment regimes to combat pancreatic cancer requires defined and robust animal model systems.

Methods

Here, we comprehensively compared six human pancreatic cancer cell lines (PaCa-44, PANC-1, MIA PaCa-2, Hs-766T, Capan-2, and BxPc-3) in subcutaneous and orthotopical mouse models as well as in their susceptibility to different GDEPTs.

Results

Tumor uptake was 83% to 100% in the subcutaneous model and 60% to 100% in the orthotopical mouse model, except for Hs-766T cells, which did not grow orthotopically. Pathohistological analyses of the orthotopical models revealed an infiltrative growth of almost all tumors into the pancreas; however, the different cell lines gave rise to tumors with different morphological characteristics. All of the resultant tumors were positive for MUC-1 staining indicating their origin from glandular or ductal epithelium, but revealed scattered pan-cytokeratin staining. Transfer of the cytochrome P450 and cytosine deaminase suicide gene, respectively, into the pancreatic cancer cell lines using retroviral vector technology revealed high level infectibility of these cell lines and allowed the analysis of the sensitivity of these cells to the chemotherapeutic drugs ifosfamide and 5-fluorocytosine, respectively.

Conclusion

These data qualify the cell lines as part of valuable in vitro and in vivo models for the use in defined preclinical studies for pancreas tumor therapy.

A Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine plus Capecitabine for Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of treatment using gemcitabine and capecitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria included no prior systemic chemotherapy or radiation therapy, at least one radiographically documented and measurable tumor lesion, and adequate patient organ functions. The patients received 1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15, and 830 mg/m(2) of oral capecitabine twice a day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with a median age of 53 years (range, 39 to 76 years) were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up was 10.0 months. The objective response rate of the 50 patients was 48.0% (95% CI, 22.5 to 57.1%). The median time to progression and overall survival were 6.5 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 8.7 months) and 10.0 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 16.7 months), respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with chemotherapy included neutropenia (22%), anemia (8%), thrombocytopenia (6%), and hand-foot syndrome (10%).

CONCLUSION

Combination chemotherapy using gemcitabine and capecitabine was well tolerated and demonstrated promising efficacy in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of the efficacy and the toxicity between gemcitabine with capecitabine (GC) and gemcitabine with erlotinib (GE) in unresectable pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively compared the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine combination with capecitabine or erlotinib in unresectable pancreatic cancer to know whether the combination with cytotoxic and target agent has more benefit comparing to combination of cytotoxic agents.

METHODS

Fifty-three patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, treated with gemcitabine and capecitabine (GC) or gemcitabine and erlotinib (GE) as first line between October 2006 and July 2010, were reviewed. In GC group, patients were treated with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and capecitabine 1,300 mg/m(2) bid was administered on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days. In GE group, gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m(2) I.V for 30 min on days 1,8,15, and erlotinib was taken orally at 100 mg through days 1-28, repeated every 28 days.

RESULTS

Response rate was similar, 23.5 % in GE and 21.1 % in GC, but GC had better disease control rate with 73.7 % than GE with 52.9 %. GC also showed longer PFS and OS (5.37 and 14.43 months) than GE (2.63 and 6.23 months) (p = 0.032 for PFS and 0.002 for OS). In toxicity profiles, GC had more hematologic toxicities and GE had more non-hematologic toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination with cytotoxic agents seems to have better efficacy and clinical outcome than combination with cytotoxic agent and target agent. The new combination should be developed for the treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Developments in metastatic pancreatic cancer: is gemcitabine still the standard?

In the past 15 years, we have seen few therapeutic advances for patients with pancreatic cancer, which is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Currently, only about 6% of patients with advanced disease respond to standard gemcitabine therapy, and median survival is only about 6 mo. Moreover, phase III trials have shown that adding various cytotoxic and targeted chemotherapeutic agents to gemcitabine has failed to improve overall survival, except in cases in which gemcitabine combined with erlotinib show minimal survival benefit. Several meta-analyses have shown that the combination of gemcitabine with either a platinum analog or capecitabine may lead to clinically relevant survival prolongation, especially for patients with good performance status. Meanwhile, many studies have focused on the pharmacokinetic modulation of gemcitabine by fixed-dose administration, and metabolic or transport enzymes related to the response and toxicity of gemcitabine. Strikingly, a phase III trial in 2010 showed that, in comparison to gemcitabine alone, the FOLFIRINOX regimen in patients with advanced disease and good performance status, produced better median overall survival, median progression-free survival, and objective response rates. This regimen also resulted in greater, albeit manageable toxicity.

Chemotherapy-induced palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome: etiology and emerging therapies

Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome (HFS), is emerging as a common, dose-dependent toxicity of many newer chemotherapy drugs. Frequently, HFS is a dose-limiting toxicity requiring discontinuation of treatment, chemotherapy dose reductions, or delays. The spectrum of symptoms of HFS can be mild, with erythema of the distal extremities, or it can be severe enough to interfere with activities of daily living. Although the exact mechanism is unknown, there are several approaches to ameliorating the symptoms of this complication. These include antiinflammatory agents, vitamin products, and peripheral vasoconstricting agents.

Genetic effects and modifiers of radiotherapy and chemotherapy on survival in pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Germ-line genetic variation may affect clinical outcomes of cancer patients. We applied a candidate-gene approach to evaluate the effect of putative markers on survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. We also examined gene-radiotherapy and gene-chemotherapy interactions, aiming to explain interindividual differences in treatment outcomes.

METHODS

In total, 211 patients with pancreatic cancer were recruited in a population-based study. Sixty-four candidate genes associated with cancer survival or treatment response were selected from existing publications. Genotype information was obtained from a previous genome-wide association study data set. The main effects of genetic variation and gene-specific treatment interactions on overall survival were examined by proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

Fourteen genes showed evidence of association with pancreatic cancer survival. Among these, rs1760217, located at the DPYD gene; rs17091162 at SERPINA3; and rs2231164 at ABCG2 had the lowest P of 10(-4.60), 0.0013, and 0.0023, respectively. We also observed that 2 genes, RRM1 and IQGAP2, had significant interactions with radiotherapy in association with survival, and 2 others, TYMS and MET, showed evidence of interaction with 5-fluorouracil and erlotinib, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested significant associations between germ-line genetic polymorphisms and overall survival in pancreatic cancer, as well as survival interactions between various genes and radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Improvement of capecitabine antitumoral activity by melatonin in pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of the addition of melatonin and capecitabine on experimental pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Fifty Syrian hamsters were randomized in 5 groups: group 1: no tumor induction (control group); group 2: tumor induction with BOP [N-nitrosobis(2-oxopropyl) amine]; group 3: tumor induction with BOP and melatonin administration; group 4: tumor induction with BOP and capecitabine administration; and group 5: tumor induction with BOP and administration of combined capecitabine and melatonin therapy. The evaluation of pathological tumor evolution and oxidative stress markers in pancreatic tissue was carried out.

RESULTS

All animals under BOP exposure presented poorly or moderately differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma associated with increased lipoperoxide levels and decreased antioxidant activity in pancreatic tissue. Pancreatic cancer was shown in only 66% of the capecitabine-treated group and 33% of melatonin-treated group (P < 0.05), most of them moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. When capecitabine and melatonin were combined, a well-differentiated pancreatic adenocarcinoma was observed in 10% of animals. The beneficial effect was associated with a decrease in lipoperoxide levels and increased antioxidant activity in pancreatic tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined administration of capecitabine and melatonin provided an improvement in antioxidant status as well as a synergistic antitumoral effect in experimental pancreatic cancer.

Effects of capecitabine and celecoxib in experimental pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is a major health problem because of its aggressiveness and the lack of effective systemic therapies. The aim of the study was the identification of beneficial properties of combined celecoxib and capecitabine treatment during an experimental pancreatic cancer model.

METHODS

N-nitrosobis (2-oxopropyl)amine (BOP) was used as a tumoral agent for 12 weeks. Celecoxib and capecitabine were administered either as monotherapy or combined 12 weeks after cancer induction for a period of 24 weeks. The presence of well-developed or moderate adenocarcinoma was evaluated in the pancreas. Several markers of stress, such as lipoperoxides, reduced glutathione (GSH), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GHS-Px) were determined.

RESULTS

BOP induced the presence of pancreatic tumors associated with a rise in lipoperoxides and the reduction of the antioxidant status in the pancreas. The administration of celecoxib and capecitabine reduced the number of animals with tumors (33 and 66%, respectively). This antitumoral effect was associated with a recovery of GSH, SOD and CAT activity in the pancreas of BOP-treated animals. The combined treatment exerted a synergic antitumoral effect and reduced pancreatic oxidative stress.

CONCLUSION

The combined administration of celecoxib and capecitabine exerted a synergistic antitumoral effect and increased the antioxidant status restoration in pancreatic cancer.

Evolution of systemic therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

The prognosis for advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor and successful drug development in this disease continues to be a major challenge. In the last decade the approach to drug development in pancreatic cancer has included a focus on combinations of cytotoxic agents. While some promising results were seen in Phase II studies, none of the Phase III trials of cytotoxic combinations were able to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival over that seen with the single-agent gemcitabine. Newer studies have assessed the efficacy of 'targeted' agents that inhibit pathways thought to be important in the development, growth, invasion and metastasis of pancreatic cancer. Although some agents had promising activity in preclinical studies, none has made a major impact in the clinic. There has been some success with the addition of the EGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib to gemcitabine, which was the first combination to achieve an overall survival benefit compared with gemcitabine alone in a Phase III trial. Future directions for drug development in pancreatic cancer will mainly involve testing new targeted agents, although some cytotoxic combinations are currently in Phase III testing. There is a need to better understand the biology of the disease and incorporate this into trials in an attempt to search for predictive and prognostic markers that will aid in drug development. Control of pancreatic cancer will require combinations of targeted agents, probably individualized based on tumor genetics. We are just beginning to explore the efficacy of combining targeted agents in the clinic.

Combining gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (GEMOXEL) for patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC): a phase I/II trial

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine remains the mainstay of palliative treatment of advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC). Adding capecitabine or a platinum derivative each significantly prolonged survival in recent meta-analyses. The purpose of this study was to determine dose, safety and preliminary efficacy of a first-line regimen combining all three classes of active cytotoxic drugs in APC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic, histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with a 21-day regimen of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m² day (d) 1, d8], escalating doses of oxaliplatin (80-130 mg/m² d1) and capecitabine (650-800 mg/m² b.i.d. d1-d14). The recommended dose (RD), determined in the phase I part of the study by interpatient dose escalation in cohorts of three to six patients, was further studied in a two-stage phase II part with the primary end point of response rate by RECIST criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were treated with a total of 203 treatment cycles. Thrombocytopenia and diarrhea were the toxic effects limiting the dose to an RD of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² d1, d8; oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² d1 and capecitabine 650 mg/m² b.i.d. d1-14. Central independent radiological review showed partial remissions in 41% [95% confidence interval (CI) 26% to 56%] of patients and disease stabilization in 37% (95% CI 22% to 52%) of patients.

CONCLUSION

This triple combination is feasible and, by far, met the predefined efficacy criteria warranting further investigations.

Recent developments in palliative chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer

In spite of advances made in the management of the other more common cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, significant progress in the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains elusive. Nearly as many deaths occur from pancreatic cancer as are diagnosed each year reflecting the poor prognosis typically associated with this disease. Until recently, the only treatment with an impact on survival was surgery. In the palliative setting, gemcitabine (Gem) has been a standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer since it was shown a decade ago to result in a superior clinical benefit response and survival compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil. Since then, clinical trials have explored the pharmacokinetic modulation of Gem by fixed dose administration and the combination of Gem with other cytotoxic or the biologically "targeted" agents. However, promising trial results in small phase II trials have not translated into survival improvements in larger phase III randomized trials in the advanced disease setting. Two trials have recently reported modest survival improvements with the use of combination treatment with Gem and capecitabine (United Kingdom National Cancer Research GEMCAP trial) or erlotinib (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group PA.3 trial). This review will focus on the use of systemic therapy for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer, summarizing the results of several recent clinical trials and discuss their implications for clinical practice. We will also discuss briefly the second-line chemotherapy options for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine in previously anthracycline-treated metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter phase II study (SOLTI 0301 trial)

BACKGROUND

On the basis of clinical activity of capecitabine and gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer, we carried out a multicenter phase II clinical trial on the combination of these two agents in advanced anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients. Main objectives were to assess its efficacy and safety profile.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-six anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients were evaluated and were stratified according to previous treatment of advanced disease (group-1: not previously treated and group-2: previously treated). Study treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), i.v., as 30 min-infusion, days 1 and 8 every 21 days, plus oral capecitabine 830 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-14 every 21 days.

RESULTS

Overall response rate was 61% for group-1, 48.5% for group-2 and 55.2% for the whole population. Clinical benefit rate was 73% for group-1, 80% for patients in group-2 and 76% for all patients. Median time to progression was 13.0 months for group-1, 8.2 months for group-2 and 11.1 months for the whole population. Most frequent grade 3-4 observed toxic effects per patient were neutropenia (60%), asymptomatic liver toxicity (13.5%), asthenia (14%) and hand-foot syndrome (16%). Only one patient presented febrile neutropenia. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine is an active and safe regimen in anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients.

Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status <or= 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted.

RESULTS

Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Dose-escalation study of fixed-dose rate gemcitabine combined with capecitabine in advanced solid malignancies

PURPOSE

To define dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine with fixed-dose rate (FDR) gemcitabine.

METHODS

Eligible adults (advanced solid tumor; performance status

RESULTS

Thirty patients (median age 59 years) were enrolled. The predominant grade >or=3 toxicity was myelosuppression, particularly neutropenia. At dose level 4 (1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), two out of five evaluable patients had a DLT (grade 4 neutropenia >or=7 days). At dose level 3 (800 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), one patient had a DLT (grade 3 neutropenia >or=7 days) among six evaluable patients. Therefore, the MTD and recommended phase II dose was designated as capecitabine 500 mg/m(2) PO BID days 1-14 with 800 mg/m(2) FDR gemcitabine days 1 and 8 infused at 10 mg/m(2) per min on a 21-day cycle. Partial responses occurred in pretreated patients with esophageal, renal cell and bladder carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS

This regimen was well tolerated and may deserve evaluation in advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary carcinomas.

Collapse

Key Words

• capecitabine
• gemcitabine
• phase i
• fixed-dose rate

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Aged
• Aged, 80 and over
• Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage
• Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects
• Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use
• Capecitabine
• Cohort Studies
• Deoxycytidine/administration & dosage
• Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives
• Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
• Female
• Fluorouracil/administration & dosage
• Fluorouracil/analogs & derivatives
• Humans
• Male
• Maximum Tolerated Dose
• Middle Aged
• Neoplasms/drug therapy
• Neutropenia/chemically induced
• Treatment Outcome
• Gemcitabine

Collapse

Grants

• T32 CA009614 NCI NIH HHS
• T32 CA009614-17 NCI NIH HHS
• T32 CA009614-18 NCI NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Steven Attia University of Wisconsin Paul P Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center Madison, Madison, WI 53792, USA.
Sherry Morgan-Meadows
Kyle D Holen
Howard H Bailey
Jens C Eickhoff
William R Schelman
Anne M Traynor
Daniel L Mulkerin
Toby C Campbell
Thomas A McFarland
Michael S Huie
James F Cleary
Amye J Tevaarwerk
Dona B Alberti
George Wilding
Glenn Liu

Collapse

A prospective, non-randomized phase II trial of Trastuzumab and Capecitabine in patients with HER2 expressing metastasized pancreatic cancer

Background

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer related death in Western countries. Advantages in surgical techniques, radiation and chemotherapy had almost no impact on the long term survival of affected patients. Therefore, the need for better treatment strategies is urgent. HER2, a receptor tyrosine kinase of the EGFR family, involved in signal transduction pathways leading to cell growth and differentiation is overexpressed in a number of cancers, including breast and pancreatic cancer. While in breast cancer HER2 has already been successfully used as a treatment target, there are only limited data evaluating the effects of inhibiting HER2 tyrosine kinases in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Here we report the design of a prospective, non-randomized multi-centered Phase II clinical study evaluating the effects of the Fluoropyrimidine-carbamate Capecitabine (Xeloda ^®) and the monoclonal anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab (Herceptin^®) in patients with non-resectable, HER2 overexpressing pancreatic cancer. Patients eligible for the study will receive Trastuzumab infusions on day 1, 8 and 15 concomitant to the oral intake of Capecitabine from day 1 to day 14 of each three week cylce. Cycles will be repeated until tumor progression. A total of 37 patients will be enrolled with an interim analysis after 23 patients.

Discussion

Primary end point of the study is to determine the progression free survival after 12 weeks of bimodal treatment with the chemotherapeutic agent Capecitabine and the anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab. Secondary end points include patient's survival, toxicity analysis, quality of life, the correlation of HER2 overexpression and clinical response to Trastuzumab treatment and, finally, the correlation of CA19-9 plasma levels and progression free intervals.

Efficacy of the oral fluorouracil pro-drug capecitabine in cancer treatment: a review

Capecitabine (Xeloda) was developed as a pro-drug of fluorouracil (FU), with the aim of improving tolerability and intratumor drug concentrations through its tumorspecific conversion to the active drug. The purpose of this paper is to review the available information on capecitabine, focusing on its clinical effectiveness against various carcinomas. Identification of all eligible English trails was made by searching the PubMed and Cochrane databases from 1980 to 2007. Search terms included capecitabine, Xeloda and cancer treatment. Nowadays, FDA has approved the use of capecitabine as a first line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when single-agent fluoropyrimidine is preferred. The drug is also approved for use as a single agent in metastatic breast cancer patients who are resistant to both anthracycline and paclitaxel-based regimens or when further anthracycline treatment is contraindicated. It is also approved in combination with docetaxel after failure of prior anthracycline-based chemotherapy. In patients with prostate, pancreatic, renal cell and ovarian carcinomas, capecitabine as a single-agent or in combination with other drugs has also shown benefits. Improved tolerability and comparable efficacy, compared with the intravenous FU/LV combination, in addition to its oral administration, make capecitabine an attractive option for the treatment of several types of carcinomas.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Short time to progression under first-line chemotherapy is a negative prognostic factor for time to progression and residual survival under second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES

Second-line chemotherapy is widely used in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, only few data exist concerning the question who might benefit from second-line therapy. We intended to identify prognostic factors for time to second progression (TTP2) and residual survival following second-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study on 78 patients who started palliative chemotherapy at our department from January 2004 to June 2006 due to advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. 46 patients who progressed following first-line therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

In multivariate analyses, time to first progression (TTP1) <6 months and elevated LDH at the time of diagnosis were shown to be strong and highly significant independent prognostic factors for TTP2 and residual survival. For patients with TTP1 <6 months, prognosis was poor with a median residual survival of 4.4 versus 7.5 months for those with TTP1 > or =6 months.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with second-line chemotherapy, TTP1 <6 months is a strong negative prognostic factor for TTP2 and residual survival.

Gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer

Gemcitabine (2 ,2 -difluorodeoxycytidine) is a deoxycytidine-analog antimetabolite with broad activity against a variety of solid tumors and lymphoid malignancies. It was approved as standard of care in patients with pancreatic cancer one decade ago, based primarily on improvement in clinical benefit response such as pain reduction, improvement in Karnofsky performance status and increase in body weight. This article gives an overview of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gemcitabine, highlights the clinical activity of gemcitabine and summarizes the treatment options in metastatic pancreatic cancer with focus on gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. The emerging role of combinations of gemcitabine with novel targeted agents, including small-molecule inhibitors and other investigational drugs, is also discussed.

A phase II study of capecitabine plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

This open-label, multicenter phase II study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus gemcitabine combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 63 patients who received capecitabine 830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-21 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) as a 30-min infusion on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks for up to six cycles.

RESULTS

A total of 14 patients had partial responses giving an overall response rate of 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13-34%) in the intent-to-treat population. The median time to progression and overall survival were 3.9 months (95% CI 3.5-5.7) and 7.5 months (95% CI 5.0-10.0), respectively, and 1-year survival rate was 27.1% in the intent-to-treat population. Capecitabine plus gemcitabine was well tolerated. Grade 3 hematological adverse events were neutropenia (21%) and thrombocytopenia (2%); the only grade 4 hematological events were anemia (2%) and neutropenia (6%). Non-hematological adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal events and hand-foot syndrome, which affected 16% of patients. Grade 3/4 non-hematological events were infrequent.

CONCLUSION

The combination of capecitabine plus gemcitabine appears to be active and well tolerated as first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Capecitabine plus erlotinib in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

The addition of either capecitabine or erlotinib to gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with modest improvements in overall survival. We evaluated an oral regimen of capecitabine and erlotinib in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had experienced treatment failure with standard first-line therapy with gemcitabine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer were treated with capecitabine, administered at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week break. All patients also received erlotinib 150 mg daily. Patients were observed for evidence of response, toxicity, and survival. EGFR mutational status was assessed in available tumor blocks.

RESULTS

Treatment with capecitabine and erlotinib in gemcitabine-refractory patients was associated with an overall objective radiologic response rate of 10% and a median survival duration of 6.5 months. In addition, 17% of the treated patients experienced decreases in tumor marker (CA 19-9) levels of more than 50% from baseline. Common toxicities included diarrhea, skin rash, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome. EGFR mutations were detected in two of five available tumors; no association between treatment response and EGFR mutational status was evident.

CONCLUSION

The combination of capecitabine and erlotinib is active in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer. This regimen may represent an acceptable treatment option in patients who experience treatment failure with standard first-line therapy with gemcitabine or for whom gemcitabine may not be an appropriate first-line treatment option.

A phase II study of gemcitabine and capecitabine in advanced cholangiocarcinoma and carcinoma of the gallbladder: a single-institution prospective study

AIM

To determine the clinical benefit response (CBR), time to tumor progression (TTP), overall survival, and effect on quality of life (QOL) of gemcitabine and capecitabine in patients with advanced biliary cancer.

METHODS

Gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 i.v. over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8) and capecitabine (650 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days) were administered and repeated every 21 days. All patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and Pancreatic Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-C30-PAN 26) questionnaire on day 1 of each cycle. Cumulative QOL scores were calculated. The two-stage design required 17 patients to evaluate the confirmed response at nine weeks.

RESULTS

Twelve patients with a median age of 54 years were enrolled. A median of eight cycles per patient were completed. With a median follow-up of 18.2 months, the CBR (two partial response and five stable disease) was 58% [95% confidence interval (CI) 28-85%]. Four out of seven patients with CBR had no decline in QOL with chemotherapy. The probability of survival at one year was 0.58. Median TTP and overall survival were 9.0 and 14.0 months, respectively. Nine patients had grade 3 or 4 toxicities. There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine and capecitabine at this dose and schedule are well tolerated and effective and may offer clinical benefit and maintain QOL in patients with advanced biliary cancer. This regimen merits further investigation in the neoadjuvant setting.

Erlotinib: success of a molecularly targeted agent for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed by several solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer, and has become an important target for novel anticancer pharmacotherapy. Erlotinib (Tarceva, OSI-774) is an orally available small-molecule inhibitor of the EGFR tyrosine kinase. The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine has been shown to prolong survival of patients treated for advanced pancreatic cancer in the National Cancer Institute of Canada PA.3 trial. This survival advantage is small yet noteworthy, in that numerous gemcitabine-containing combinations have failed to show a statistically significant survival advantage over gemcitabine alone. The most frequent toxicities associated with the addition of erlotinib are diarrhea and rash. Erlotinib-induced rash appears to be predictive of outcome. Further clinical studies of erlotinib in the treatment of pancreatic cancer are ongoing.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE

This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent.

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms.

CONCLUSION

GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

The gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine (GTX) regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

We developed a laboratory based regimen called GTX which induces synergistic apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells. This retrospective review summarizes our clinical experience with GTX in an initial group of 35 patients; 66% untreated and 34% failed prior therapies.

METHODS

All patients treated with GTX for metastatic pancreatic cancer, prior to initiation of a prospective phase II trial of GTX were assessed and followed until death. GTX consisted of capecitabine (X), 750 mg/m(2) p.o. BID on days 1-14, gemcitabine (G) (750 mg/m(2)) over 75 min and docetaxel (T) (30 mg/m(2)) on days 4 and 11. Thus one cycle of GTX was 14 days with 7 days off for a 21 day cycle. Tumor assessments were repeated every 3 cycles.

RESULTS

All 35 patients had metastatic pancreatic cancer (94% liver, 6% lung sites). Grade 3-4 hematological toxicities were: leukopenia and thrombocytopenia-both 14%, and anemia 9%, respectively. The overall response rate of all 35 patients treated with GTX (from 0.5 cycles onward) was 29% (CR/PR) by WHO criteria, and 31% had a minor response or stable disease (MR, SD). At the metastatic sites for the 35 patients, there were 9% complete (CR) and 31% partial (PR) responses (total 40%). For the 31 patients who had their primary tumor (4 patients had a prior Whipple resection), there were 13% CR and 19% PR for a response rate of 32% at the primary tumor site. Overall median progression free survival of responders was 6.3 months (95% C.I. 4.4-10.4 months) and median survival was 11.2 months (95% C.I. 8.1-15.1 months). Survival after initiation of GTX at 12, 18, 24 and 30 months was 43, 29, 20, and 11%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our retrospective review suggests that GTX has potential as a regimen for untreated and treated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

A phase II trial of gemcitabine plus capecitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

While gemcitabine (GEM) is widely accepted for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, capecitabine (CAP) has shown single agent activity and promising efficacy in combination with GEM. This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of GEM combined with dose escalated 14-day CAP as first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, we also analyzed the correlation between CA19-9 response and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients had advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior systemic chemotherapy other than that given concurrently with radiation therapy, at lease one measurable disease, and adequate organ functions. The patients were treated with GEM 1,000 mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8 and CAP 1,000 mg/m2 twice a day PO on days 1-14, in 21-day cycles.

RESULTS

The objective RR among 45 patients was 40.0% (95% CI; 25.1-54.9), including 1CR (2.2%). The median TTP and OS were 5.4 months (95% CI; 1.8-9.0) and 10.4 months (95% CI; 6.2-14.5), respectively. Patients with >or=25% decline of serum CA19-9 had significantly better outcomes in terms of TTP and OS than those who did not (P < 0.03). The most frequent, grade 3-4, non-hematologic toxicity was hand-foot syndrome (6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of GEM with dose escalated 14-day CAP is well tolerated and offers encouraging activity in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. In addition, CA19-9 response correlates well with clinical outcomes in this population.

Tezacitabine enhances the DNA-directed effects of fluoropyrimidines in human colon cancer cells and tumor xenografts

Tezacitabine is a nucleoside analogue characterized by a dual mechanism of action. Following intracellular phosphorylation, the tezacitabine diphosphate irreversibly inhibits ribonucleotide reductase, while the tezacitabine triphosphate can be incorporated into DNA during replication or repair, resulting in DNA chain termination. In the present study we have investigated the effect of the combination of tezacitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5-fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine (FUdR) on HCT 116 human colon carcinoma cells and xenografts. We used response surface analysis (RSA) and clonogenic assay to evaluate combination effects of tezacitabine and 5-FU. Tezacitabine is antagonistic when combined with 5-FU in the RSA assay and does not effect the clonogenicity of HCT 116 cells when compared with cells treated with 5-FU alone. However, when combined sequentially with FUdR, tezacitabine leads to potentiation of cell killing in the clonogenic assay, additivity in the RSA assay, and increased apoptosis when compared to FUdR alone, suggesting that cytotoxicity of fluoropyrimidines such as FUdR that have more DNA-directed effects can be potentiated by tezacitabine. We also report that oral administration of the fluoropyrimidine capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, in combination with tezacitabine shows statistically significant additivity in the HCT 116 xenograft model. This interaction may be explained by the finding that tezacitabine elevates activity of thymidine phosphorylase (TP), the enzyme required for activation of the capecitabine prodrug in tumors. Our results provide evidence that tezacitabine enhances the DNA-directed effects of fluoropyrimidines in human colon cancer cells and may modulate the antitumor activity of fluoropyrimidines.

A multicenter phase III trial comparing irinotecan-gemcitabine (IG) with gemcitabine (G) monotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer

Our purpose was to determine the response rate and median and overall survival of gemcitabine as monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma who were chemotherapy and radiotherapy naive were enrolled. Patients were centrally randomised at a one-to-one ratio to receive either gemcitabine monotherapy (900 mg m(-2) on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks (arm G), or gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) plus irinotecan (300 mg m(-2) on day 8) (arm IG), repeated every 3 weeks. The total number of cycles administered was 255 in the IG arm and 245 in the G arm; the median number of cycles was 3. In all, 145 patients (71 in arm IG and 74 in arm G) were enrolled; 60 and 70 patients from arms IG and G, respectively, were evaluable. A complete clinical response was achieved in three (4.3%) arm G patients; nine (15%) patients in arm IG and four (5.7%) in arm G achieved a partial response. The overall response rate was: arm IG 15% and arm G 10% (95% CI 5.96-24.04 and 95% CI 2.97-17.03, respectively; P=0.387). The median time to tumour progression was 2.8 months and 2.9 months and median survival time was 6.4 and 6.5 months for the IG and G arms, respectively. One-year survival was 24.3% for the IG arm and 21.8% for the G arm. No statistically significant difference was observed comparing gemcitabine monotherapy versus gemcitabine plus irinotecan in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with respect to overall and 1-year survival.

Capecitabine in carcinoma of the pancreas

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, which is converted to 5-fluorouracil by three sequential enzymatic reactions. The final requisite enzyme, thymidine phosphorylase, is present at consistently higher levels in tumours compared with normal tissues, thereby suggesting that 5-fluorouracil that is delivered in this way may benefit from an element of tumour targeting and thus enhanced selectivity and better tolerability. Capecitabine has been shown to have single-agent activity in advanced carcinoma of the pancreas and to improve response rates and survival when administered in combination with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone. This paper reviews the pharmacology and clinical data that are relevant to the use of capecitabine in pancreatic cancer.

Phase II trial of oral S-1 combined with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer

We conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine with S-1, oral fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug tegafur combined with two modulators, 5-chloro-2, 4-dihydroxypyridine and potassium oxonate, to evaluate the activity and toxicity of such a combination in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) patients. Patients who had pathologically proven pancreatic cancer with metastatic lesions were eligible candidates for entry into the study. S-1 was given orally (30 mg m⁻²) b.i.d. for 14 consecutive days and gemcitabine (1000 mg m⁻²) was given on days 8 and 15. The cycle was repeated every 21 days. We enrolled 33 MPC patients. The median number of cycles was eight (range 1–20). Grade 3–4 toxicities were leucopenia (33%), neutropenia (55%), anaemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (15%), anorexia (6%), fever (9%), and interstitial pneumonia (6%). Objective responses were obtained in 16 patients (one complete response and 15 partial responses; response rate, 48%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 33–65). Median survival and 1-year survival rate were 12.5 months (95% CI, 5.9–19.1) and 54% (95% CI, 36–72), respectively. Combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 was well tolerated and yielded a significantly high response rate.

A phase I/II multicentric trial of gemcitabine and epirubicin in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma

Potential synergistic interaction between gemcitabine (GEM) and epirubicin (EPI) in pancreatic cancer have been described previously. The maximum-tolerated dose in this trial was GEM 1000 mg m⁻² and EPI 45 mg m⁻². Median time to progression was 5.1 months and median survival time 7.4 months. This combination appears well tolerated and shows promising clinical activity.

Capecitabine: effective oral fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy

Fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy, principally with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), has been a standard of care for a range of solid tumours for many years. Capecitabine, a precursor of 5-FU, is an oral fluoropyrimidine cytotoxic agent developed with the aim of providing a more effective, less toxic alternative to 5-FU, with the added advantage of oral administration. In clinical trials, capecitabine has proven to be an effective substitute for 5-FU in colorectal and breast cancer, and has become an accepted standard treatment in these tumours, both as a single agent and as a component of combination chemotherapy. It is also effective in a number of other solid tumours and as a radiosensitising agent. Capecitabine has significantly less serious toxicity than 5-FU when used alone or in combination with other cytotoxic agents. It has been shown to be resource saving in comparison with accepted standard comparator regimens in breast and colorectal cancer. Ongoing and future clinical trials will continue to examine, and are likely to expand, the role of capecitabine in the treatment of breast and colorectal cancer, as well as a number of other malignancies, both in the advanced palliative and adjuvant curative settings. This will involve the use of capecitabine as a single agent and increasingly in combination with other new anticancer agents.

A Pilot Trial of Gemcitabine and Vinorelbine Plus Capecitabine in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a pilot study of gemcitabine, vinorelbine and capecitabine combination to evaluate its toxicity and efficacy in chemo-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after a short phase IB trial.

METHODS

Eligible chemo-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC received outpatient administration of gemcitabine 900 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks, concurrently with capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 given orally twice a day on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 (dose level I), or days 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 (dose level II).

RESULTS

Between November 2002 and December 2003, 19 patients participated in the study at either dose level I (7 patients) or dose level II (12 patients). The maximum tolerated dose, defined as the dose at which no more than 1 of 6 patients in a cohort experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in the first cycle, was not established. However, 1 of 7 patients at dose level I, and 2 of 12 at dose level II experienced DLTs (ie, grade 3 hepatotoxicity in 2 patients, and grade 3 febrile neutropenia in 1 patient). In addition, 2 patients experienced treatment-related pneumonitis requiring mechanical ventilator support after the second course of therapy. Objective tumor response was observed in 5 (26.3%) of 19 patients. Further patient accrual was stopped according to the study design.

CONCLUSIONS

This 3-drug combination showed disappointing antitumor activity against NSCLC with unexpected life-threatening pulmonary toxicity. No further investigation of this regimen is recommended for patients with NSCLC.

Chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

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

A phase I study of combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and oral S-1 for advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of combination therapy with gemcitabine and S-1 in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically or cytologically proven unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients received gemcitabine intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 and S-1 orally twice daily from days 1 to 14. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression. Patients were scheduled to receive gemcitabine (mg/m(2)/week) and S-1 (mg/m(2)/day) at four dose levels: 800/60 (level 1), 1,000/60 (level 2), 1,000/70 (level 3) and 1,000/80 (level 4).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were enrolled in this study. The maximum-tolerated dose was not reached even at the highest dose level (level 4) because only 2 of the 6 patients at this level experienced DLT. The DLTs were neutropenia and rash. Six (33%) of the 18 patients achieved a partial response and median overall survival time was 7.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 was well tolerated and showed good antitumor activity in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. We recommend a gemcitabine dose of 1,000 mg/m(2)/week and an S-1 dose of 80 mg/m(2)/day in further studies with this schedule.

Gemcitabine/capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine and capecitabine are 2 anticancer drugs with a mechanism of action involving metabolism of pyrimidine nucleotides. Both are among the few agents active in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) progressing after therapy with anthracyclines and taxanes. We have conducted a phase II trial of gemcitabine/capecitabine in patients with disease progression after treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment included gemcitabine 2000 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks and capecitabine 2500 mg/m2 daily (divided into 2 doses) on days 1-14 every 3 weeks; treatment was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was documented. All patients received concomitant oral pyridoxine 300 mg twice daily to prevent hand-foot syndrome (HFS). Of 39 patients treated, 33 had received previous treatment with anthracyclines, 6 had medical contraindication to anthracyclines, 35 had previously received taxanes, and 23 had received vinorelbine. Fourteen patients had previous high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue and 5 had previously received trastuzumab. Patients were 31-79 years of age (median, 55 years) and, altogether, were given 386 courses of therapy (range, 1-36 courses per patient; median, 6 courses).

RESULTS

Grade 3/4 toxicities included HFS (11 courses, 6 patients), stomatitis (6 courses, 2 patients), diarrhea (5 courses, 4 patients), anemia (5 courses, 2 patients), thrombocytopenia (5 courses, 2 patients), and neutropenia (1 course, 1 patient). Response rate (all 39 patients were evaluable) was 48.7% (partial response, n = 19; stable disease, n = 7; progressive disease, n = 13). Thirty-six patients died because of disease progression, and 3 are alive with progressive disease. Median follow-up was 26 months or until death. Median duration of response was 15 months (range, 3-26 months). Median time to disease progression was 5 months (range, 1-26 months). Median overall survival duration was 10 months (range, 1-37 months).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients heavily pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes, the response rate to gemcitabine/capecitabine is encouraging, although response duration is limited.