Dataset Information

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of adding oral leucovorin (LV) to S-1 when compared with S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC).

Patients and methods

Gemcitabine-refractory PC patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 at 40, 50, or 60 mg according to body surface area plus LV 25 mg, both given orally twice daily for 1 week, repeated every 2 weeks (SL group), or S-1 monotherapy at the same dose as the SL group for 4 weeks, repeated every 6 weeks (S-1 group). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Among 142 patients enrolled, 140 were eligible for efficacy assessment (SL: n = 69 and S-1: n = 71). PFS was significantly longer in the SL group than in the S-1 group [median PFS, 3.8 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.85; P = 0.003]). The disease control rate was significantly higher in the SL group than in the S-1 group (91% versus 72%; P = 0.004). Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups (median OS, 6.3 versus 6.1 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; P = 0.463). After adjusting for patient background factors in a multivariate analysis, OS tended to be better in the SL group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.07; P = 0.099). Both treatments were well tolerated, although gastrointestinal toxicities were slightly more severe in the SL group.

Conclusion

The addition of LV to S-1 significantly improved PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced PC, and a phase III trial has been initiated in a similar setting.

Clinical trials number

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center: JapicCTI-111554.

SUBMITTER: Ueno M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4769993 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

Ueno M M Okusaka T T Omuro Y Y Isayama H H Fukutomi A A Ikeda M M Mizuno N N Fukuzawa K K Furukawa M M Iguchi H H Sugimori K K Furuse J J Shimada K K Ioka T T Nakamori S S Baba H H Komatsu Y Y Takeuchi M M Hyodo I I Boku N N

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20151217 3

<h4>Background</h4>We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of adding oral leucovorin (LV) to S-1 when compared with S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC).<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Gemcitabine-refractory PC patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 at 40, 50, or 60 mg according to body surface area plus LV 25 mg, both given orally twice daily for 1 week, repeated every 2 weeks (SL group), or S-1 monotherapy at the same dose as the SL ...[more]

PMID: 26681680

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and methodsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m(2) (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m(2) (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety.ResultsTwo hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (-5,398 v -549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302-related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation.ConclusionPFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).

Project description:BackgroundBinding of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1) to its receptor (IGF-1R) initiates downstream signals that activate PI3K/Akt/mTOR and MEK/Erk pathways, which stimulate cancer cell proliferation and induce drug resistance. Cross talk between IGF-1R and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediates resistance to anti-EGFR agents. We studied safety, tolerability, and outcomes of MK-0646, IGF-1 monoclonal antibody, in combination with gemcitabine (G) ± erlotinib (E) in metastatic pancreatic cancer.MethodsOur study included a phase I dose escalation and phase II randomization and expansion cohorts. A 3 + 3 dose escalation protocol was used to determine MK-0646 maximum tolerable dose (MTD) in combination with G ± E standard doses. For phase II, patients were randomized to arm A (G + MK), arm B (G + MK + E), or arm C (G + E). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate, toxicity, and correlation between OS and IGF-1 in patients treated with MK-0646.ResultsMK-0646 MTD was 10 mg/kg in combination with G and 5 mg/kg in combination with G + E. In randomization cohort, 15 patients were treated in each arm. Disease control rates were 50, 60, and 40% respectively. PFS was not different between the three arms. OS was significantly different between arm A (10.4 months) and C (5.7 months) (P = 0.02). However, addition of erlotinib in arm B yielded no OS benefit compared to arm A (P = 0.6). Plasma and tissue IGF-1 levels did not correlate with OS (P = 0.64, 0.87). Grade 3-4 toxicity during phase II cohorts were neutropenia (10/arm A, 14/arm B, 5/arm C), leukopenia (5/A, 5/B, 7/C), thrombocytopenia (8/A, 9/B, 2/C), hyponatremia (1/A, 3/B), and hyperglycemia (8/A, 1/B).ConclusionsMK-0646 was tolerable in combination with G and associated with improvement in OS but not PFS as compared with G + E. Tissue and serum IGF-1 did not correlate with clinical outcome.Trial registrationThis trial is registered in ClinicalTrial.gov under the Identifier NCT00769483 and registration date was October 9, 2008.

Project description:Objectives Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens have been investigated as the second line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to gemcitabine. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in such patients. Methods The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ASCO Abstracts and ESMO Abstracts were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and serious toxicities. Statistical analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5.3. Egger’s test was performed to assess the statistical evidence of publication bias by using stata 12.0. Results A total of 1183 patients from six randomized controlled trials were included for this analysis. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy increased ORR [RR 2.82 (1.83–4.33), p<0.00001] and PFS [HR 0.71 (0.62–0.82), p<0.00001], without significant heterogeneity. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy improved OS [HR 0.82 (0.71–0.94), p = 0.006], with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 76%, p = 0.0009). The significant heterogeneity might have been caused by the different administration regimens and baseline characteristics. Peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were more common in the regimens containing oxaliplatin and irinotecan, respectively. No publication bias was detected by Egger’s tests. Conclusions Compared with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, fluoropyrimidine combination therapy had a higher response rate and longer PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy could be recommended in the second line setting. However, due to concerns about toxicities, the dose intensities of chemotherapy drugs should be carefully considered in patients with weakness.

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is mostly diagnosed in an advanced stage and treated with systemic therapy with palliative intent. Nowadays, the doublet chemotherapy of Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is one of the most frequently used regimens worldwide, but is not ubiquitarily available or reimbursed. Therefore, we compared the clinical efficacy of Gem-Nab to a historical control of patients treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Gem-Ox) at our tertiary cancer center, which was the standard treatment prior to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX.MethodsThis single-center retrospective real world study includes 121 patients diagnosed with locally advanced or primary metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemotherapy doublet, with either Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox in palliative first-line. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were made with log-rank tests. Gem-Ox was considered as standard first line therapy at our institution for patients who were deemed fit for doublet chemotherapy between the years 2006 to 2012. These patients were compared to a cohort of patients treated with the new standard first-line therapy of Gem-Nab between 2013 and 2020.ResultsA total of 554 patients with pancreatic cancer of all stages were screened, and 73 patients treated with Gem-Nab and 48 patients treated with Gem-Ox in the palliative first-line setting were identified and included in this analysis. Patients receiving Gem-Ox had a statistically significantly better performance score (ECOG PS) when compared to the Gem-Nab group (Odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, p = 0.005), more often suffered from locally advanced than metastatic disease (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.27-7.91, p = 0.019) and were younger in age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, p = 0.013). Median overall survival (OS) of the whole study cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5-11.6). No statistically significant difference in OS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median OS: 8.9 months (95% CI 6.4-13.5) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 9.5-13.87, p = 0.794, HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.91)). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in the entire cohort (95% CI 4.9-8.4). No statistically significant difference in PFS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median PFS: 5.8 months (95% CI 4.3-8.2) versus 7.9 months (95% CI 5.4-9.5) p = 0.536, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.67). Zero-truncated negative binomial regressions on OS and PFS adjusting for gender, age, performance status (ECOG PS), and CA19-9 levels yielded no significant difference between Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox.ConclusionFrom our analysis, we could evidence no difference in outcome parameters in this retrospective analysis despite the worse prognostic pattern for GemOX. Therefore, we suggest Gem-Ox as potential first line treatment option for inoperable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially if Gem-Nab is not available.

Dataset Information

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical trials number

Publications

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets