Dataset Information

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS:281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS:Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION:Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.

SUBMITTER: Heinemann V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6309814 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

Heinemann Volker V Vehling-Kaiser Ursula U Waldschmidt Dirk D Kettner Erika E Märten Angela A Winkelmann Cornelia C Klein Stefan S Kojouharoff Georgi G Gauler Thomas C TC von Weikersthal Ludwig Fischer LF Clemens Michael R MR Geissler Michael M Greten Tim F TF Hegewisch-Becker Susanna S Rubanov Oleg O Baake Gerold G Höhler Thomas T Ko Yon D YD Jung Andreas A Neugebauer Sascha S Boeck Stefan S

Gut 20120707 5

<h4>Objective</h4>AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine.<h4>Methods</h4>281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicit ...[more]

PMID: 22773551

Similar Datasets

Project description:The activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-directed monoclonal antibody cetuximab combined with oxaliplatin/leucovorin/5-fluorouracil (FUFOX) was assessed in first-line metastatic gastric and oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) cancer in a prospective phase II study showing a promising objective tumour response rate of 65% and a low mutation frequency of KRAS (3%). The aim of the correlative tumour tissue studies was to investigate the relationship between EGFR gene copy numbers, activation of the EGFR pathway, expression and mutation of E-cadherin, V600E BRAF mutation and clinical outcome of patients with gastric and OGJ cancer treated with cetuximab combined with FUFOX.Patients included in this correlative study (n = 39) were a subset of patients from the clinical phase II study. The association between EGFR gene copy number, activation of the EGFR pathway, abundance and mutation of E-cadherin which plays an important role in these disorders, BRAF mutation and clinical outcome of patients was studied. EGFR gene copy number was assessed by FISH. Expression of the phosphorylated forms of EGFR and its downstream effectors Akt and MAPK, in addition to E-cadherin was analysed by immunohistochemistry. The frequency of mutant V600E BRAF was evaluated by allele-specific PCR and the mutation profile of the E-cadherin gene CDH1 was examined by DHPLC followed by direct sequence analysis. Correlations with overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP) and overall response rate (ORR) were assessed.Our study showed a significant association between increased EGFR gene copy number (? 4.0) and OS in gastric and OGJ cancer, indicating the possibility that patients may be selected for treatment on a genetic basis. Furthermore, a significant correlation was shown between activated EGFR and shorter TTP and ORR, but not between activated EGFR and OS. No V600E BRAF mutations were identified. On the other hand, an interesting trend between high E-cadherin expression levels and better OS was observed and two CDH1 exon 9 missense mutations (A408V and D402H) were detected.Our finding that increased EGFR gene copy numbers, activated EGFR and the E-cadherin status are potentially interesting biomarkers needs to be confirmed in larger randomized clinical trials.Multicentre clinical study with the European Clinical Trials Database number 2004-004024-12.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Combination of fluoropyrimidines and a platinum derivative are currently standards for systemic chemotherapy in advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Nevertheless, individual likelihood for response to these therapeutic regimes remains uncertain. Even more, no predictive markers are available to determine which patients may benefit more from oxaliplatin versus cisplatin or vice versa. The new invasion and stem cell markers VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 have been linked prognostically with more aggressive esophagogastric cancer types. Thus, we aimed to assess correlations of VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 expression levels with clinical outcome in a randomized phase III study of patients with oxaliplatin/leucovorin/5-FU (FLO) versus cisplatin/leucovorin/5-FU (FLP). METHODS: The patients data examined in this study (n = 72) were from the collective of the FLO vs. FLP phase III AIO trial. Tumour tissues were stained via immunohistochemistry for VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 expression and results were evaluated by two independent, blinded investigators.Outcome parameter: Survival analysis was calculated for patients receiving FLO vs. FLP in relation to VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 expression. RESULTS: 54% and 36% of the examined tumour tissues showed strong positive expression of VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 respectively. No superiority of each regime was detected in terms of overall survival (OS) in the whole population. Patients with strong expression of CXCR4 on their tumour tissues profited more in terms of OS under the treatment of FLP (mOS: 28 vs 15 months, p = 0.05 respectively). Patients with negative VEGFR-3 and CXCR4 expression had a trend to live longer when FLO regime was applied (mOS: 22 vs. 9 months, p = 0.099 and 20 vs. 10 months, p = 0.073 respectively). In an exploratory analysis of patients older than 60 years at diagnosis, we observed a significant benefit in overall survival for VEGFR-3 and CXCR4-positive patients when treated with FLP (p = 0.002, p = 0.021 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CXCR4 positive patients profited in terms of OS from FLP, whereas FLO proved to be more effective in CXCR4 and VEGFR-3 negative patients. Our results suggest, despite the limited size of the study, a predictive value of these biomarkers concerning chemotherapy with FLP or FLO in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Project description:Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) (d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to comprehensively summarize the currently available evidences on the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus erlotinib for treating advanced pancreatic cancer.Methodology/principal findingsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and abstracts of recent major conferences were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Studies that were conducted in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (with or without comparison with gemcitabine alone) and reporting objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, overall survival, 1-year survival rate and/or adverse events were included. Data on objective response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate and adverse events rate, respectively, were combined mainly by using Meta-Analyst software with a random-effects model. Data on progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival were summarized descriptively. Sixteen studies containing 1,308 advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were included. The reported median progression-free survival (or time-to-progression), median overall survival, 1-year survival rates, objective response rates and disease control rates were 2-9.6 months, 5-12.5 months, 20%-51%, 0%-28.6% and 25.0%-83.3%, respectively. The weighted 1-year survival rate, objective response rate and disease control rate based on studies reporting robust results were 27.9%, 9.1% and 57.0%, respectively. According to the studies with relevant data, the incidences of total and severe adverse events were 96.3% and 62.9%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were leucopenia, rash, diarrhea, vomitting, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, stomatitis, drug-induced liver injury, fatigue and fever. Compared with gemcitabine alone, the progression-free survival and overall survival with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were significantly longer, but there were also more deaths and interstitial lung disease-like syndrome related to this treatment.Conclusions/significanceGemcitabine plus erlotinib represent a new option for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with mild but clinically meaningful additive efficacy compared with gemcitabine alone. Its safety profile is generally acceptable, although careful management is needed for some specific adverse events.

Dataset Information

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

Publications

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets