CA 19-9 as a biomarker in advanced pancreatic cancer patients randomised to gemcitabine plus axitinib or gemcitabine alone.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wasan HS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2768104 | biostudies-other | 2009 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOlaparib (Lynparza) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in cancers with homologous recombination defects.Patients and methodsIn this phase I, dose-escalation trial, patients with advanced solid tumours received olaparib (50-200 mg capsules b.i.d.) continuously or intermittently (days 1-14, per 28-day cycle) plus gemcitabine [i.v. 600-800 mg/m(2); days 1, 8, 15, and 22 (cycle 1), days 1, 8, and 15 (subsequent cycles)] to establish the maximum tolerated dose. A separate dose-escalation phase evaluated olaparib in tablet formulation (100 mg o.d./b.i.d.; days 1-14) plus gemcitabine (600 mg/m(2)). In an expansion phase, patients with genetically unselected locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to the tolerated olaparib capsule combination dose or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg/m(2)).ResultsSixty-six patients were treated [dose-escalation phase, n = 44 (tablet cohort, n = 12); dose-expansion phase, n = 22 (olaparib plus gemcitabine, n = 15; gemcitabine alone, n = 7)]. In the dose-escalation phase, four patients (6%) experienced dose-limiting toxicities (raised alanine aminotransferase, n = 2; neutropenia, n = 1; febrile neutropenia, n = 1). Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 38/47 patients (81%) treated with olaparib capsules plus gemcitabine; most common were haematological toxicities (55%). Tolerated combinations were olaparib 100 mg b.i.d. capsule (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) and olaparib 100 mg o.d. tablet (intermittently, days 1-14) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2). There were no differences in efficacy observed during the dose-expansion phase.ConclusionsOlaparib 100 mg b.i.d. (intermittent dosing; capsules) plus gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) is tolerated in advanced solid tumour patients, with no unmanageable/unexpected toxicities. Continuous dosing of olaparib or combination with gemcitabine at doses >600 mg/m(2) was not considered to have an acceptable tolerability profile for further study.ClinicaltrialsgovNCT00515866.
| S-EPMC8890482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment options specifically for patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) are scare and chemotherapy alone delivers limited efficacy. Immunotherapy and radiotherapy are potential effective treatments for LAPC, and both of them may synergize with chemotherapy. Therefore, in this prospective cohort study, we compared the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combined with anti-programmed cell death (PD-1) immunotherapy and radiotherapy (hereafter, combination treatment) versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (chemotherapy alone) in the treatment of LAPC. In the combination group, participants received conventional fractionated radiotherapy with doses ranging from 54 to 63 Gy in 28 fractions, intravenous camrelizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks, and intravenous nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine on day 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for eight cycles until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. In the chemotherapy group, participants received intravenous nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine on day 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle for eight cycles. From April, 2020 to December, 2021, 96 participants with LAPC were prospectively enrolled with 32 received combination treatment and 64 received chemotherapy alone at a single center. The combination treatment yielded significantly longer median overall-survival (22.3 months vs. 18.6 months, P = 0.031) and progression-free survival (12.0 months vs. 10.5 months, P = 0.043) than chemotherapy alone did. And the incidence of severe adverse events was not significantly different between the combination group and chemotherapy group (P = 0.856). In conclusion, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combined with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and radiotherapy was effective and safe for LAPC patients, and it warrants further investigation in larger randomized trials.
| S-EPMC10026489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lessons learnedThe combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not provide a benefit over axitinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had previously progressed on one or more vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapies. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels.BackgroundEndoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors.MethodsTRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels.ConclusionThe combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.
| S-EPMC8265348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) has been a standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC); however, the current treatment status and usefulness in older adults with uPC remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the patient background and compare the efficacy and safety of GnP versus other treatments in older adults with uPC.Patients and methodsIn this prospective observational study, we enrolled 233 eligible patients aged ≥76 years with pathologically proven, clinically uPC, and no history of chemotherapy from 55 Japanese centers during September 2018-September 2019. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Geriatric assessments were performed upon registration and after 3 months. To adjust for confounders, we conducted propensity score-matched analyses.ResultsGnP, gemcitabine alone (Gem), best supportive care, and other therapies were administered to 116, 72, 16, and 29 patients, respectively. In the propensity score-matched analysis, 42 patients each were selected from the GnP and Gem groups. The median OS was longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (12.2 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.13). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (9.2 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.64). The incidence of severe adverse events was higher with GnP than with Gem; however, the difference was not significant.ConclusionGnP is more efficacious than Gem in patients aged ≥76 years with uPC despite demonstrating a higher incidence of severe adverse events.
| S-EPMC9526497 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC4881365 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3589410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) is the standard first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, as compared with gemcitabine, is non-inferior in terms of overall survival (OS) and is associated with lower hematologic toxicity. Accordingly, S-1 is a convenient oral alternative treatment for advanced PDAC. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) vs. GnP as first-line chemotherapy for advanced PDAC.MethodsPatients with advanced PDAC who received first-line GS or GnP at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital between March 2011 and November 2022 were evaluated.ResultsA total of 300 patients were assessed, of whom 84 received GS and 216 received GnP. The chemotherapy completion rate was higher with GS than GnP (50.0% vs. 30.3%, P = 0.0028). The objective response rate (ORR) was slightly higher (14.3% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.35), and the median OS was significantly longer (17.9 months vs. 13.3 months, P = 0.0078), in the GS group than the GnP group. However, the median progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between groups. Leukopenia risk was significantly lower in the GS group than the GnP group (14.9% vs. 28.1%, P = 0.049).ConclusionsAs first-line chemotherapy for advanced PDAC, the GS regimen led to a significantly longer OS than the GnP regimen. The PFS, ORR, and incidence of severe adverse events were comparable between the GS and GnP groups.
| S-EPMC10618946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAIO-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.Methods281 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionBoth treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.
| S-EPMC6309814 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10501299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-grade serous ovarian cancers show increased replication stress, rendering cells vulnerable to ATR inhibition because of near universal loss of the G1/S checkpoint (through deleterious TP53 mutations), premature S phase entry (due to CCNE1 amplification, RB1 loss, or CDKN2A mRNA downregulation), alterations of homologous recombination repair genes, and expression of oncogenic drivers (through MYC amplification and other mechanisms). We hypothesised that the combination of the selective ATR inhibitor, berzosertib, and gemcitabine could show acceptable toxicity and superior efficacy to gemcitabine alone in high-grade serous ovarian cancer.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 study, 11 different centres in the US Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent, platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (determined histologically) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, who had unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) on day 1 and day 8, or gemcitabine plus intravenous berzosertib (210 mg/m2) on day 2 and day 9 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Interactive Web Response System, stratified by platinum-free interval, and with a permuted block size of six. Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, and analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02595892, and is active but closed to enrolment.FindingsBetween Feb 14, 2017, and Sept 7, 2018, 88 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 70 were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine alone (36 patients) or gemcitabine plus berzosertib (34 patients). At the data cutoff date (Feb 21, 2020), the median follow-up was 53·2 weeks (25·6-81·8) in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group and 43·0 weeks (IQR 23·2-69·1) in the gemcitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival was 22·9 weeks (17·9-72·0) for gemcitabine plus berzosertib and 14·7 weeks (90% CI 9·7-36·7) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·33-0·98; one-sided log-rank test p=0·044). The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (14 [39%] of 36 patients in the gemcitabine alone group vs 16 [47%] of 34 patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group) and decreased platelet count (two [6%] vs eight [24%]). Serious adverse events were observed in ten (28%) patients in the gemcitabine alone group and nine (26%) patients in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group. There was one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine alone group due to sepsis and one treatment-related death in the gemcitabine plus berzosertib group due to pneumonitis.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this is the first randomised study of an ATR inhibitor in any tumour type. This study shows a benefit of adding berzosertib to gemcitabine in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer. This combination warrants further investigation in this setting.FundingUS National Cancer Institute.
| S-EPMC8023719 | biostudies-literature