Response to GEMOX plus erlotinib in pancreatic cancer is associated with ERCC1 overexpression.

INTRODUCTION: There are no data about the efficacy of gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (GEMOX) and erlotinib for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). Thus, we performed this retrospective analysis in mPC patients to investigate the activity and safety of GEMOX plus erlotinib and correlated the benefit with ERCC1 expression, a potential biomarker for treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated mPC receiving off-protocol GEMOX plus erlotinib were included. Data collection included baseline demographic, response and toxicity data as well as PFS and OS. Additionally, immunohistochemistry was performed to stain for ERCC1 expression. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were included. The median age was 62 years and the median ECOG performance score was 1 (range, 0-1). Objective response or disease stabilization was achieved in 54% of the patients. The median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 4·4-5·4) and median OS was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·1-10·9). The 27 patients, who benefited from this regimen, had a median PFS of 6·7, a median OS of 11·2 months and an overexpression of ERCC1 (histoscore 10, P ≤ 0·05) compared to nonresponders (histoscore 7·2). Myelosuppression was the most frequent side effect. The most common severe nonhematological toxicities were diarrhoea and skin toxicity in six (12%) patients each. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the combination of GEMOX plus erlotinib is safe and active in about half of the patients. Patients, who had a higher ERCC1 staining pattern, benefited most from this therapy. Prospective biomarker studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

A phase II trial of two durations of Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant gemcitabine for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: We report the results of a phase II trial of adding the anti-ascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) bevacizumab to gemcitabine neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline and unresectable non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to one of the two treatment arms. Both groups received 1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a total of four cycles. Group 1 received 5 mg/kg bevacizumab for six weeks (three doses), every second week, starting at week 6 of gemcitabine therapy. Group 2 received 5 mg/kg bevacizumab for 12 weeks (six doses), every second week, starting at week 1 of gemcitabine therapy. The objective of the present study was to assess the rate of complete radical resection and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled: 19 patients had unresectable and 11 patients had borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer. Eleven patients (37%) underwent resection. The median overall survival of patients who underwent tumor resection was 13 months (95% confidence interval=11-15 months). CONCLUSION: In general, adding bevacizumab to neoadjuvant gemcitabine does not improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, in individual cases, surgery is consequently possible and prolonged survival may be observed.

Discrimination between circulating endothelial cells and blood cell populations with overlapping phenotype reveals distinct regulation and predictive potential in cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) have been proposed to predict patient response to antiangiogenic cancer therapy. However, contradictory reports and inconsistency in the phenotypic identification of CECs have led us to compare three cell populations with partially overlapping phenotype in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. METHODS: Patients (n = 20) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer were monitored during 16 weeks of neoadjuvant treatment with gemcitabine and bevacizumab. Detection of circulating cell populations was based on the marker combination CD45, CD31, and CD146; levels of viable and dead (7-aminoactinomycin D-positive) cells were evaluated by flow cytometry in 2-week intervals. RESULTS: We were able to discriminate and concomitantly monitor three cell populations elevated in cancer patients. Whereas CECs were defined as CD45(-) CD31(+) CD146(+), the distinct populations of CD45(-) CD31(-) CD146(+) and CD45(-) CD31(high) CD146(-) cells were partly positive for CD3 and CD41, respectively. CECs and CD45(-) CD31(-) CD146(+) cells increased during therapy; the rise in dead cells was positively correlated with patient response or survival. Conversely, CD45(-) CD31(high) CD146(-) cells decreased in neoadjuvant treatment. A highly significant correlation was established for improved patient response and a minor decrease in viable cell counts. CONCLUSIONS: Flow cytometric CEC analysis based on CD45, CD31, and CD146 requires careful discrimination between blood cell populations with overlapping phenotype showing hallmarks of activated T cells and large platelets. However, these three cell populations show distinct regulation during cancer therapy, and their concomitant analysis may offer extended prognostic and predictive information.

Platelet-stored angiogenesis factors: clinical monitoring is prone to artifacts.

BACKGROUND: The analysis of angiogenesis factors in the blood of tumor patients has given diverse results on their prognostic or predictive value. Since mediators of angiogenesis are stored in platelets, their measurement in plasma is sensitive to inadvertent platelet activation during blood processing. METHODS: Variants of blood withdrawal and plasma preparation were evaluated by ELISA for the detection of TSP-1, PF-4, VEGF and PD-ECGF. A total of 22 pancreatic cancer patients and 29 healthy volunteers were evaluated. RESULTS: Plasma preparation with the anticoagulant mix of citrate, theophylline, adenosine, dipyridamole (CTAD) and immediate blood processing at 4°C was required for reproducible measurements of TSP-1, PF-4 and VEGF. Blood collection by venflon or inadvertent hemolysis during blood withdrawal caused significantly elevated TSP-1 and PF-4 values. When optimized plasma preparation was applied, a significant increase of TSP-1 and VEGF in cancer patients was detected (P=0.006; P< 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reliable plasma analysis of circulating platelet-stored angiogenesis factors requires preparation with CTAD at 4°C and blood collection by butterfly needle. Suboptimal procedures of plasma preparation are commonly applied in clinical monitoring of angiogenesis parameters which may account for the differences in reported plasma values and may have masked their predictive or prognostic marker potential.

Myelosuppression of thrombocytes and monocytes is associated with a lack of synergy between chemotherapy and anti-VEGF treatment.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapeutic agents that have shown improved patient outcome when combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy were recently identified to induce the mobilization of proangiogenic Tie-2-expressing monocytes (TEMs) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) by platelet release of stromal cell-derived factor 1α (SDF-1α). VEGF blockade was found to counteract cell mobilization. We aimed to determine why agents like gemcitabine do not elicit TEM and EPC recruitment and may therefore lack synergy with anti-VEGF therapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients (n = 20) were monitored during 16 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy. Treatment was based on gemcitabine with or without the addition of bevacizumab. Blood levels of proangiogenic cell populations and angiogenesis factors were determined in 2-week intervals. RESULTS: The lack of EPC mobilization during gemcitabine therapy was associated with severe thrombocytopenia and reduced SDF-1α blood concentrations. Furthermore, myelosuppression by gemcitabine correlated significantly with loss of TEMs. With respect to angiogenic factors stored and released by platelets, plasma levels of the angiogenesis inhibitor thrombospondin 1 (TSP-1) were selectively decreased and correlated significantly with thrombocytopenia in response to gemcitabine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A thorough literature screen identified thrombocytopenia as a common feature of chemotherapeutic agents that lack synergy with anti-VEGF treatment. Our results on gemcitabine therapy indicate that myelosuppression (in particular, with respect to thrombocytes and monocytes) interferes with the mobilization of proangiogenic cell types targeted by bevacizumab and may further counteract antiangiogenic therapy by substantially reducing the angiogenesis inhibitor TSP-1.

NeoGemTax: gemcitabine and docetaxel as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: About 30% of patients with pancreatic cancer suffer from locally advanced nonmetastatic carcinoma at the time of diagnosis. We conducted a prospective phase II clinical trial using neoadjuvant chemotherapy, consisting of gemcitabine and docetaxel, to assess the rate of complete radical resection and overall survival. METHODS: Gemcitabine (900 mg/m2) and docetaxel (35 mg/m2) were given on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Two cycles were administered for a preoperative treatment duration of 8 weeks. Patients experiencing tumor regression or stable disease and improved performance status subsequently underwent surgical exploration and pancreatic resection, if feasible. All patients were followed postoperatively to assess long-term survival. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were eligible and included in the intent-to-treat and evaluable population. Thirteen patients had unresectable disease at inclusion and 12 patients had borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Finally, 8 of 25 (32%) patients underwent resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 7 (87%) of these patients had R0 resection. The median overall survival of patients who underwent resection was 16 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8-24 months) compared to 12 months (95% CI, 8-16 months) for those without resection (p=0.276). The median recurrence-free survival rate after resection was 12 months (95% CI, 2-21 months). CONCLUSIONS: NeoGemTax was safe and resection was feasible in a number of patients after systemic neoadjuvant treatment. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to identify novel multimodal regimens that would be able to increase the percentage of patients undergoing curative pancreatic cancer surgery despite advanced tumor stage at the time of diagnosis.

NeoGemOx: Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced, nonmetastasized pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can facilitate pancreatic resection in patients with initially unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We report the results of a phase II trial of gemcitabine-oxaliplatin neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced, nonmetastatic PC. METHODS: A prospective, phase II clinical trial using neoadjuvant chemotherapy, consisting of gemcitabine (900 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (60 mg/m(2)) given as intravenous infusion once a week at day 1 of each treatment cycle (NeoGemOx protocol). Patients received 6-9 cycles of chemotherapy. Those patients with sufficient tumor regression subsequently underwent pancreatic resection and were followed postoperatively to assess long-term survival. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were eligible and were included in the intent-to-treat and evaluable population. On centralized review of the imaging studies, 18 patients had unresectable disease at inclusion, and 15 patients had borderline resectable PC. Eventually, 13 patients (39%) had a curative resection after neoadjuvant therapy. The R0 resection rate was 69%. Median overall survival of patients who underwent tumor resection was 22 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14-30) compared with 12 months (95% CI, 9-15) for those without resection (P = .046). The median recurrence-free survival rate after resection was 10 months (95% CI, 4-17). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin is well tolerated and safe. Substantive tumor regression occurs in some patients with locally advanced PC treated with this neoadjuvant protocol, offering the potential for curative resection and improvement in overall survival. Additional studies involving the NeoGemOx protocol should be considered to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of this combination.

Multimodal treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastases to the liver is the leading cause of death in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: The authors review the data on diagnosis and management of this clinical problem, and they discuss management options that can be considered. RESULTS: Complete surgical resection of metastases from colorectal cancer that are localized to the liver results in 5-year survival rates ranging from 26% to 40%. CONCLUSIONS: By adding modalities such as targeted systemic therapy and other "local" treatments for liver metastases, further gains in survival are anticipated.

Straight and colonic J-pouch reconstruction after low anterior resection.

PURPOSE: A complication after restorative rectal surgery with a straight anastomosis is low-anterior resection syndrome with a postoperatively deteriorated anorectal function. The colonic J-reservoir is sometimes used with the purpose of reducing these symptoms. An alternative method is to use a simple side-to-end anastomosis or a coloplasty. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three-hundred fiftyseven patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME). Three-hundred (84.0%) received a low anterior resection with primary anastomosis and colo-rectal n = 194 (64.6%) or colo-anal anastomosis n = 106 (35.3%). A colonic pouch using the descending colon was created in 24 patients and in 75 patients respectively. Surgical results and complications were recorded. Patients were followed with a functional evaluation at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Patient characteristics in both groups were very similar regarding gender, age, tumor level, and Dukes' stages. A large proportion of the patients received short-term preoperative radiotherapy (72%). There was no significant difference in surgical outcome between the 2 techniques with respect to anastomotic height, perioperative blood loss, postoperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay or pelvic sepsis rates except the anastomotic stricture rate in the colonic J-Pouch group after coloanal anastomosis (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that either a colonic J-pouch or a straight anastomosis performed on the descending colon in low-anterior resection with TME are methods that can be used with similar expected surgical and functional results.