Gemcitabine Combined with Capecitabine Compared to Gemcitabine with or without Erlotinib as First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Clinical efficacy and safety of erlotinib combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Advanced pancreatic cancer is resistant to chemotherapeutic drugs, resulting in limited treatment efficacy and poor prognosis. Combined administration of the chemotherapeutic gemcitabine and erlotinib is considered a potential first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, their comparative benefits and potential risks remain unclear.

AIM

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of erlotinib combined with other chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Literature on the clinical efficacy and safety of erlotinib combined with chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer was retrieved through an online search. The retrieved literature was subjected to a methodological qualitative assessment and was analyzed using the RevMan 5.3 software. Ten randomized controlled trials involving 2444 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapeutic treatment, erlotinib combined with chemotherapy significantly prolonged the progression-free survival time of pancreatic cancer patients [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.66-0.92, P = 0.003]. Meanwhile, the overall survival (HR= 0.99, 95%CI: 0.72-1.37, and P = 0.95) and disease control rate (OR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.45-0.91, P = 0.84) were not significantly favorable. In terms of safety, the erlotinib and chemotherapy combination was associated with a significantly higher risk of diarrhea (OR = 3.59, 95%CI: 1.63-7.90, P < 0.05) and rash (OR = 3.63, 95%CI: 1.64-8.01, P < 0.05) compared with single-agent chemotherapy. Moreover, the risk of vomiting (OR = 1.27, 95%CI: 0.62-2.59, P = 0.51), regurgitation/anorexia (OR = 1.61, 95%CI: 0.25-10.31, P = 0.62), and infection (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.28-1.87, P = 0.50) were not significant in either group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with a single chemotherapeutic modality, erlotinib combined with gemcitabine can prolong progression-free survival in pancreatic cancer, but does not improve survival benefit or disease control rate, and can increase the risk of diarrhea and rash.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Erlotinib for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus erlotinib as first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

On the basis of the Gemcitabine With/Out Erlotinib in Unresectable Locally Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (PA.3) trial, the Markov model was constructed to simulate the development of advanced pancreatic cancer. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to determine the economic level of the treatments, according to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The sensitivity analysis was conducted for cost-effectiveness and other indexes.

FINDINGS

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the cost-effectiveness ratios for the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer were ¥60,492.78 (US$8892.44/€7568.88) per 6.34 quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) for gemcitabine and ¥99,595.39 (US$14,640.52/€12,461.42) per 7.02 QALMs for gemcitabine plus erlotinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the 2 regimens was ¥57,503.84 ($8453.06/€7194.90) per QALM, which was higher than the WTP set in this study (¥16,161 [$2375.66/€2022.07] per QALM). The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the analysis results were stable. Gemcitabine was more cost-effective than gemcitabine plus erlotinib.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with gemcitabine, gemcitabine plus erlotinib was not cost-effective at the level of the WTP. Gemcitabine plus erlotinib therapy has no economic significance as a first-line medical treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Are ENT1/ENT1, NOTCH3, and miR-21 Reliable Prognostic Biomarkers in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treated with Adjuvant Gemcitabine Monotherapy?

Evidence on equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT1) and microRNA-21 (miR‑21) is not yet sufficiently convincing to consider them as prognostic biomarkers for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Here, we investigated the prognostic value of ENT1/ENT1, miR-21, and neurogenic locus homolog protein 3 gene (NOTCH3) in a well-defined cohort of resected patients treated with adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy (n = 69). Using a combination of gene expression quantification in microdissected tissue, immunohistochemistry, and univariate/multivariate statistical analyses we did not confirm association of ENT1/ENT1 and NOTCH3 with improved disease-specific survival (DSS). Low miR-21 was associated with longer DSS in patients with negative regional lymph nodes or primary tumor at stage 1 and 2. In addition, downregulation of ENT1 was observed in PDAC of patients with high ENT1 expression in normal pancreas, whereas NOTCH3 was upregulated in PDAC of patients with low NOTCH3 levels in normal pancreas. Tumor miR‑21 was upregulated irrespective of its expression in normal pancreas. Our data confirmed that patient stratification based on expression of ENT1/ENT1 or miR‑21 is not ready to be implemented into clinical decision-making processes. We also conclude that occurrence of ENT1 and NOTCH3 deregulation in PDAC is dependent on their expression in normal pancreas.

Gemcitabine-erlotinib versus gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a phase IIb randomised study from the Spanish TTD Collaborative Group

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine and erlotinib have shown a survival benefit in the first-line setting in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). The aim of this study was to assess whether combining capecitabine (C) with gemcitabine + erlotinib (GE) was safe and effective versus GE in patients with mPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Previously untreated mPC patients were randomised to receive G (1000 mg/m², days 1, 8, 15) + E (100 mg/day, days 1-28) + C (1660 mg/m², days 1-21) or GE, q4 weeks, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point: progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points: overall survival (OS), response rate, relationship of rash with PFS/OS and safety.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomised, median age 63 years, ECOG status 0/1/2 33%/58%/8%; median follow-up 16.5 months. Median PFS in the gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine (GEC) and GE arms was 4.3 and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.31; p = 0.52). Median OS in the GEC and GE arms was 6.8 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.72-1.63; p = 0.69). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (GEC 43% versus GE 15%; p = 0.0008) and mucositis (GEC 9% versus GE 0%; p = 0.03) were the only statistically significant differences in grade 3/4 adverse events. PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients with rash (grade ≥1) versus no rash (grade = 0): PFS 5.5 versus 2.0 months (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.26-0.6; p < 0.0001) and OS: 9.5 versus 4.0 months (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; p = 0.0014).

CONCLUSION

PFS with GEC was not significantly different to that with GE in patients with mPC. Skin rash strongly predicted erlotinib efficacy. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01303029.

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus erlotinib for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is considered as a chemoresistant neoplasm with extremely dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine is recommended as the standard agent for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. A series of trials have been conducted to improve the outcome of advanced pancreatic cancer with other anticancer drugs in combination with gemcitabine. Unfortunately, the designers of the clinical trials failed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Erlotinib was the first additional drug that improved the overall survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of the combination of gemcitabine with erlotinib (GemErlo) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer using the currently available evidence.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and relevant abstracts of major conferences were comprehensively searched. Data results on objective response rate, disease control rate, and 1-year survival were pooled by using MetaAnalyst with a random-effects model. Results on progression-free survival and overall survival were only summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 1,742 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with GemErlo were included. Combined objective response rate was 14.4% (95% CI: 11.6%-17.7%), disease control rate was 55.0% (95% CI: 51.5%-58.5%), and 1-year survival rate was 28.5% (95% CI: 24.0%-33.4%). Progression-free survival ranged from 2.63 to 9.6 months, and overall survival varied from 6 to 10 months. As for the toxicity profile, the most common adverse events (AEs) were hematologic reactions, skin rash, and gastrointestinal reactions. Other severe AEs, which had low incidence, included treatment-induced death and interstitial lung disease.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that GemErlo is associated with reasonable activity in treating patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Most of the AEs were tolerable, while some severe AEs needed careful detection.

Phase II trial of capecitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Combination chemotherapy regimens including fluoropyrimidines as well as albumin-bound paclitaxel have shown promising results in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC). Based on the recently described excellent therapeutic index of capecitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer, the present phase II trial was initiated.

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated mPC were treated with capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) orally bid on days 1-15) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks. In patients without clinically relevant adverse reactions after the 1st treatment course (≤ grade 2 toxicities according to NCI-CTC vs. 4.0, exuding alopecia and fatigue of any degree) and adequate bone marrow function, the nab-paclitaxel dose was escalated to 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle; this intra-individual dose escalation was maintained during subsequent treatment courses if tolerated. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST criteria, assessed by an independent radiological review committee with evaluation performed every 2 months.

RESULTS

Between 12/2013 and 01/2015, 30 patients were entered in this monocentric academic phase II trial. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 0-1, 80% had liver metastases and 23% had biliary stents in place at time of study initiation. Median CA19-9 was 1,004 U/mL (0.9-100.000 U/mL). In all patients except 2, a dose escalation of nab-paclitaxel after the 1st treatment course could be accomplished. The most common grade 3 adverse events (AEs) included transient sensory neuropathy (23%), (afebrile) neutropenia (17%), hand-foot-syndrome (13%) and phototoxic skin reaction (10%). Among 29 RECIST-response assessable patients, the ORR was 41.4% and stable disease (SD) was noted in 34.5%, resulting in a disease control rate (DCR) of 76%. After a median follow-up duration of 10.3 months (range, 1.9-19.0 months), 13/30 patients (43.3%) are presently being alive.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of capecitabine + nab-paclitaxel at these doses and scheduling was well tolerated and showed substantial antitumor efficacy.

New targeted therapies in pancreatic cancer

Patients with pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis with a median survival of 4-6 mo and a 5-year survival of less than 5%. Despite therapy with gemcitabine, patient survival does not exceed 6 mo, likely due to natural resistance to gemcitabine. Therefore, it is hoped that more favorable results can be obtained by using guided immunotherapy against molecular targets. This review summarizes the new leading targeted therapies in pancreatic cancers, focusing on passive and specific immunotherapies. Passive immunotherapy may have a role for treatment in combination with radiochemotherapy, which otherwise destroys the immune system along with tumor cells. It includes mainly therapies targeting against kinases, including epidermal growth factor receptor, Ras/Raf/mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, insulin growth factor-1 receptor, phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt/mTOR and hepatocyte growth factor receptor. Therapies against DNA repair genes, histone deacetylases, microRNA, and pancreatic tumor tissue stromal elements (stromal extracellular matric and stromal pathways) are also discussed. Specific immunotherapies, such as vaccines (whole cell recombinant, peptide, and dendritic cell vaccines), adoptive cell therapy and immunotherapy targeting tumor stem cells, have the role of activating antitumor immune responses. In the future, treatments will likely include personalized medicine, tailored for numerous molecular therapeutic targets of multiple pathogenetic pathways.