Global, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial of gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus AGS-1C4D4 in patients with previously untreated, metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

We evaluated AGS-1C4D4, a fully human monoclonal antibody to prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA), with gemcitabine in a randomized, phase II study of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0/1 and previously untreated, metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 1:2 to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) weekly seven times, 1 week rest, weekly three times q4weeks) or gemcitabine plus AGS-1C4D4 (48 mg/kg loading dose, then 24 mg/kg q3weeks IV). The primary end point was 6-month survival rate (SR). Archived tumor samples were collected for pre-planned analyses by PSCA expression.

RESULTS

Between April 2009 and May 2010, 196 patients were randomly assigned to gemcitabine (n = 63) or gemcitabine plus AGS-1C4D4 (n = 133). The 6-month SR was 44.4% (95% CI, 31.9-57.5) in the gemcitabine arm and 60.9% (95% CI, 52.1-69.2) in the gemcitabine plus AGS-1C4D4 arm (P = 0.03), while the median survival was 5.5 versus 7.6 months and the response rate was 13.1% versus 21.6% in the two arms, respectively. The 6-month SR was 57.1% in the gemcitabine arm versus 79.5% in the gemcitabine plus AGS-1C4D4 arm among the PSCA-positive subgroup and 31.6% versus 46.2% among the PSCA-negative subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized, phase II study achieved its primary end point, demonstrating an improved 6-month SR with addition of AGS-1C4D4 to gemcitabine among patients with previously untreated, metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00902291.

DN101–004: A multicenter, open label, dose ranging study of DN-101 and docetaxel in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based chemotherapy

7685

Background: DN-101 is a high-dose oral formulation of calcitriol, the most potent natural ligand of vitamin D receptor. Calcitriol has various anti-neoplastic effects on malignant cells and increases activity of cytotoxic agents, including taxanes. DN-101 in combination with docetaxel was associated with improved survival in a phase II study in androgen-independent prostate cancer and ASCENT 2, a phase III confirmatory study is underway. The objective of the study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose, response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of DN-101 in combination with docetaxel in advanced NSCLC patients (pts). Methods: Eligible pts had Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC that progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy, ECOG = 1, and measurable disease by RECIST criteria. DN-101 was administered on day 1 in doses of 45 (n=5), 75 (n=4), 135 (n=3), or 180 μg (n=53) in the q21d group, or 180 μg on day 1, followed by 45 (n=5), 90 (n=4), or 180 μg (n=12) on days 8 and 15 in the q7d group. Docetaxel (75 mg/m2 BSA) was given on day 2 q21d for all pts. Results: A total of 86 pts were treated. No unexpected toxicities were reported with DN-101. Grade 3/4 (G3/4) toxicities and fatal adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the reported toxicity of docetaxel alone. Stomatitis (0% in q7d, 9% in q21d) and G3/4 asthenia and fatigue (5% in q7d, 14% in q21d) were less frequent on DN-101 compared to published reports on docetaxel. No pt on DN-101 q21d developed hypercalcemia while 2 pt on DN-101 q7d (180 μg cohort) developed G3/4 hypercalcemia. Three fatal AEs included 2 on DN-101 q21d (1 lung infiltration, 1 pneumonitis) and 1 on DN-101 q7d (intestinal perforation). The ORR was 5.9% (CI 0.1%, 28.7%) and 6.6% (1.8%, 15.9%), median PFS 14.1 (6.0, 20.0) and 11.6 (8.4, 17.4) weeks, median OS 8.8 (7.1, NA) and 6.9 (5.5, 9.7) months, and 1 year survival rate 40% (15.2%, 64.8%) and 31% (18.9%, 42.2%) for the q7d and q21d group, respectively. Conclusions: DN-101 in combination with docetaxel is well-tolerated in advanced NSCLC. The observation of improved PFS, OS, and 1 year survival with weekly DN-101 administration supports further investigation.

[Table: see text]

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of mitoxantrone/prednisone and clodronate versus mitoxantrone/prednisone and placebo in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and pain

PURPOSE

To compare the incidence of palliative response in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer (HRPC) treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone (MP) plus clodronate with that of patients treated with MP plus placebo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men with HRPC, bone metastases, and bone pain were randomly assigned to receive clodronate 1,500 mg administered intravenously (IV) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 IV every 3 weeks and prednisone 5 mg orally bid. Patients completed the present pain intensity (PPI) index and Prostate Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument at each treatment visit and used a diary to record analgesic use on a daily basis. The primary end point was a reduction to zero or of two points in the PPI or a decrease of 50% in analgesic intake, without increase in either.

RESULTS

The study accrued 209 eligible patients over 44 months. One hundred sixty patients (77%) had mild PPI scores (1 or 2), and 49 (24%) had moderate PPI scores (3 or 4). The primary end point of palliative response was achieved in 46 (46%) of 104 patients on the clodronate arm and in 41 (39%) of 105 patients on the placebo arm (P =.54). The median duration of response, symptomatic disease progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall quality of life were similar between the arms. Subgroup analysis suggested possible benefit in patients with more severe pain.

CONCLUSION

MP provides useful palliation in symptomatic men with HRPC. Clodronate does not increase the rate of palliative response or overall quality of life. Clodronate may be beneficial to patients who have moderate pain, but this requires further confirmation.

Phase II trial of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine.HCl and doxorubicin chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: A National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study

PURPOSE

This multicenter phase II trial investigated the efficacy and toxicity of a combination of the novel intracellular histamine antagonist, N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine.HCl (DPPE), and doxorubicin in patients with anthracycline-naïve metastatic breast cancer. Preclinical models and early single institutional studies suggested DPPE could potentiate the cytotoxicity of doxorubicin.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two women, 32 to 77 years old (median, 59 years), with anthracycline-naïve metastatic breast cancer were treated. Patients may have had one previous regimen of nonanthracycline chemotherapy, either in the adjuvant or metastatic disease treatment setting. DPPE (6 mg/kg) was administered as an 80 minute intravenous infusion with doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) given intravenously over the last 20 minutes of the DPPE infusion. Patients were premedicated with an antiemetic and sedating regimen. The DPPE/doxorubicin treatment was given every 21 days for a maximum of seven cycles.

RESULTS

All 42 patients were assessable. Overall, toxicity was comparable to that expected with doxorubicin alone, with the exception of DPPE-related motion sickness, mild hallucinations, and cerebellar signs at the time of the infusion. These CNS side effects were manageable in an ambulatory care setting, improved with subsequent cycles of treatment, and did not usually require hospitalization. Four patients developed febrile neutropenia. Thirty-five patients received four or more cycles of chemotherapy. The overall response rate was 52.5% (95% confidence interval, 36% to 68%), with 9.5% complete responses (n = 4), 43% partial responses (n = 18), and 38% of patients with stable disease (n = 16).

CONCLUSION

The antitumour effects of DPPE/doxorubicin the 52.5% response rate seems encouraging, particularly in consideration of the fact that a recently reported randomized National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group trial using single-agent doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) in one of the treatment arms achieved a 31% response rate. Thus, a randomized phase III trial of doxorubicin versus doxorubicin plus DPPE is being conducted in this clinical setting.

Health care professionals' familiarity with non-pharmacological strategies for managing cancer pain

Many studies have confirmed unnecessary suffering among cancer patients, due to the inadequate use of analgesic medication and other effective interventions. While pharmacological treatments are appropriately the central component of cancer pain management, the under-utilization of effective nonpharmacological strategies (NPS) may contribute to the problem of pain and suffering among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to determine health care professionals' familiarity with, and perceptions regarding, NPS for managing cancer pain, and to assess their interest in learning more about NPS as adjuncts to pharmacological analgesics. Two-hundred and fourteen health care professionals were surveyed at two cancer treatment centres in Ontario, Canada. The self-report questionnaire included questions regarding 11 psychological strategies (e.g. imagery) and eight other NPS (e.g. acupuncture). The response rate was 67% (141/214). Subjects were found to be the least familiar with autogenic training, operant conditioning, and cognitive therapy. Other than radiation and surgery, subjects most commonly reported recommending support groups (67%), imagery (54%), music or art therapy (49%) and meditation (43%) for managing cancer pain. Participants were most interested in learning more about acupuncture, massage therapy, therapeutic touch, hypnosis, and biofeedback. Participants were somewhat familiar with most of the 19 NPS presented; however, they use or recommend few NPS for managing cancer pain. Health professionals' interest in NPS has important implications for the supportive care of cancer patients.