ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Palliative chemotherapy of advanced oesophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) consists of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (CF) to target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab (P); chemotherapy enhanced overall survival (OS) in advanced colorectal or squamous cell head and neck cancers. With prospective serum and tumour biomarkers, we tested if P added to CF (CFP) improved OS in advanced ESCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with confirmed ESCC that was not curatively resectable or did not qualify for definitive radiochemotherapy, were randomised 1 : 1 to receive CF [cisplatin (C) 100 mg/m2 i.v., day 1; 5-fluorouracil (F) 1000 mg/m2 i.v., days 1-4] or CF plus P (9 mg/kg, i.v., day 1, each q3-week cycle) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board after 40, 70 and 100 patients who completed at least one cycle. After 53 enrolled patients, cisplatin was reduced from 100 mg/m2 to 80 mg/m2. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early based on interim efficacy results triggered by the third safety analysis: median OS (mOS) favoured CF over CFP, regardless of cisplatin dose [hazard ratio (HR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.98; P = 0.028]. In the final analysis, mOS was 10.2 versus 9.4 months for CF versus CFP, respectively (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79-1.75; P = 0.43). One hundred (70.4%) of 142 patients in the safety population died, 51 (51.0%) with CFP. Most deaths were related to disease progression [44/49 (90%) deaths in CF versus 34/51 (67%) deaths in CFP]; objective responses [27/73 (37.0%)] were identical. The most common serious adverse events were kidney injury [3 (4.3%) versus 7 (9.7%)], general health deterioration [5 (7.1%) versus 5 (6.9%)] and dysphagia [4 (5.7%) versus 4 (5.6%)] in CF versus CFP, respectively. There were three (4.3%) and 17 (23.6%) common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) grade 5 events in CF versus CFP, respectively. Low soluble (s)EGFR levels were associated with better progression-free survival; sEGFR was induced under CFP. CONCLUSION: EGFR inhibition added to CF did not improve survival in unselected advanced ESCC patients. The results support further liquid biopsy studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01627379) and EudraCT (2010-020606-15).
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Esophageal Neoplasms , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/drug therapy , Cisplatin/adverse effects , Disease-Free Survival , ErbB Receptors/genetics , Esophageal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Fluorouracil/adverse effects , Humans , Panitumumab , Prospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 once weekly, first 7-weeks+1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks+1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Gemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P=0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P=0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P=0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRß expression correlated with longer PFS. CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.
