Three-month life expectancy as inclusion criterion for clinical trials in advanced pancreatic cancer: is it really a valid tool for patient selection?

PURPOSE: To analyze the 3-month life expectancy rate in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients treated within prospective trials from the German AIO study group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted for patients with advanced PC that were treated within five phase II/III studies conducted between 1997 and 2017 (Gem/Cis, Ro96, RC57, ACCEPT, RASH). The primary goal for the current report was to identify the actual 3-month survival rate, a standard inclusion criterion in oncology trials. RESULTS: Overall, 912 patients were included, 83% had metastatic and 17% locally advanced PC; the estimated median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months. Twenty-one percent of the participants survived < 3 months, with a range from 26% in RC57 to 15% in RASH. Significant predictors for not reaching 3-month OS were > 1 previous treatment line (p < 0.001) and performance status (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the definition of a life expectancy of > 3 months as a standard inclusion criterion in clinical trials for advanced PC, a significant proportion of study patients does not survive > 3 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00440167 (AIO-PK0104), NCT01729481 (RASH), NCT01728818 (ACCEPT).

Treatment Approaches and Outcome of Patients with Neuroendocrine Neoplasia Grade 3 in German Real-World Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine neoplasia grade 3 (NEN G3) represents a rare and heterogeneous cancer type with a poor prognosis. The aim of our study was to analyze real-world data from the German NET Registry with a focus on therapeutic and prognostic aspects. METHODS: NEN G3 patients were identified within the German NET Registry. Demographic data and data on treatments and outcomes were retrieved. Univariate analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier-method. Multivariate analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Of 445 included patients, 318 (71.5%) were diagnosed at stage IV. Well-differentiated morphology (NET G3) was described in 31.7%, 60% of cases were classified as neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), and the median Ki67 value was 50%. First-line treatment comprised chemotherapy in 43.8%, with differences in the choice of regimen with regard to NET or NEC, and surgery in 41.6% of patients. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 31 months. Stage, performance status and Ki67 were significant prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The survival data of our national registry compare favorably to population-based data, probably mainly because of a relatively low median Ki67 of 50%. Nevertheless, the best first- and second-line approaches for specific subgroups remain unclear, and an international effort to fill these gaps is needed.

Prevalence and influence on outcome of HER2/neu, HER3 and NRG1 expression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Our aim was to explore the impact of the HER2/neu, HER3 receptor as well as their ligands' neuregulin (NRG1) expression on the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). NRG1, HER2/neu and HER3 expression was evaluated in 208 patients with mCRC receiving 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as the first-line treatment. Biomarker expression was correlated with the outcome of patients. NRG1 (low: 192 vs. high: 16), HER2/neu (low: 201 vs. high: 7) and HER3 (low: 69 vs. high: 139) expressions were assessed in 208 patients. High versus low NRG1 expression significantly affected progression-free survival (PFS) [4.7 vs. 8.2 months, hazard ratio (HR): 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.13; P=0.001], but not overall survival (OS) (15.5 vs. 20.7 months, HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.76-2.35; P=0.32). High versus low HER3 expression (PFS: 7.1 vs. 8.8 months, HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.50; P=0.50; OS: 19.8 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.70-1.30; P=0.75) and high compared with low HER2/neu expression (PFS: 7.7 vs. 8.0 months, HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.71-1.60; P=0.75; OS: 16.6 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.75-1.71; P=0.57) did not influence outcome. High NRG1 expression was associated with inferior PFS in the FIRE-1 trial. We did not detect a prognostic impact of HER2/neu and HER3 overexpression in mCRC. The frequency of overexpression was comparable with other studies.

Extended RAS analysis and correlation with overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the KRAS gene can be detected in about 70-90% of pancreatic cancer (PC) cases. Whether these mutations have a prognostic or predictive value remains elusive. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of the extended RAS (KRAS+NRAS) mutational status is unclear in PC. METHODS: We prospectively defined a PC patient population who received erlotinib-free chemotherapy regimens. A statistically significant difference between KRAS wild-type and KRAS mutated tumours in at least 160 patients in this population would support the assumption of a rather prognostic role of KRAS. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-eight tumour samples were collected from prospective clinical studies and successfully analysed for the extended RAS status: 37 tumours were KRAS wild-type (21%), whereas 141 (79%) carried a KRAS mutation; 132 of these mutations were found in KRAS exon 2 (74%), whereas only 9 mutations (5%) were detected in KRAS exon 3. Within KRAS exon 4 and NRAS exons 2-4, no mutations were apparent. There was no significant difference in overall survival for KRAS wild-type vs mutant patients (9.9 vs 8.3 months, P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Together with the results of the AIO-PK-0104-trial, the present analysis supports the notion that KRAS mutation status is rather predictive than prognostic in advanced PC.

Impact of SPARC expression on outcome in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer not receiving nab-paclitaxel: a pooled analysis from prospective clinical and translational trials.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting results on the role of secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteins (SPARC) expression have been reported in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and its prognostic and/or predictive role in advanced PDAC (aPDAC) has not been extensively investigated yet. This study was designed to evaluate SPARC expression as a biomarker in aPDAC patients (pts) not receiving nab-paclitaxel. METHODS: Using immunohistochemistry, we examined the stromal as well as the tumoral (i.e., cytoplasmic) SPARC expression in tumour tissue (primary tumours and metastases) of 134 aPDAC pts participating in completed prospective clinical and biomarker trials. The SPARC expression levels were correlated to the pts' clinicopathological parameters and survival times. RESULTS: Sixty-seven per cent of the analysed tumours showed high stromal SPARC expression, which was not associated with overall survival (OS, median 9.1 vs 7.6 months, P=0.316). A positive cytoplasmic SPARC expression was detected in 55% of the tumours and correlated significantly with inferior progression-free survival (PFS, 6.2 vs 8.6 months, P=0.004) and OS (7.8 vs 8.4 months, P=0.032). This association was strongest for pts, where primary tumour tissue was examined (PFS: 6.7 vs 10.8 months, P=0.004; OS: 7.9 vs 11.9 months, P=0.030), whereas no significant correlation was detected for pts, where only metastatic tissue was available (PFS: 5.8 vs 6.6 months, P=0.502; OS: 7.0 vs 7.8 months, P=0.452). In pts receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy cytoplasmic SPARC expression was significantly associated with an inferior PFS and OS (PFS: 6.2 vs 9.2 months, P=0.002; OS 7.3 vs 9.9 months, P=0.012), whereas no such association was detected for stromal SPARC expression or for pts receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: We identified cytoplasmic SPARC expression in the primary tumour as a biomarker associated with inferior PFS and OS in aPDAC. Cytoplasmic SPARC expression may furthermore act as a negative predictive biomarker in pts treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer depends on the primary tumor site (midgut vs. hindgut): analysis of the FIRE1-trial (FuFIRI or mIROX as first-line treatment).

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of midgut versus hindgut as the primary tumor site in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving chemotherapy with FuFIRI or mIROX. We analyzed 423 patients from a phase III trial that randomized patients in a 1 : 1 fashion to either FuFIRI or mIROX. The cohort was grouped into midgut (n=82) and hindgut (n=341) primary tumors. The primary tumor site (midgut vs. hindgut) was correlated with parameters of treatment efficacy and survival. Our cohort comprised 82 patients presenting with primary midgut tumors and 341 with primary hindgut tumors. Tumors of midgut origin compared with hindgut origin were associated with inferior outcome. Objective response rate was 37 versus 43% (P=0.34), median progression-free survival was 6.0 versus 8.2 months (P=0.024, hazard ratio: 0.75), and median overall survival was 13.6 versus 21.8 months (P=0.001, hazard ratio: 0.65). Patients with midgut mCRC showed a clear trend toward inferior outcome in both study arms. However, the effect appeared less pronounced in the mIROX arm. Further datasets from large trials with various regimens are required as confirmation.

Phase III trial of irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid versus irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) is superior to irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin (FUFIRI) as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase III, randomised, open-label multicentre study compared standard treatment with FUFIRI (irinotecan 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 2000 mg/m(2), folinic acid 500 mg/m(2) weekly times 6) to mIROX using an identical schedule of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) applied on days 1, 15 and 29 of a 7-week cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 479 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the mIROX arm and 8.2 months in the FUFIRI arm [hazard ratio=1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.37; P=0.178]. Comparable results were also obtained for overall survival time with 19 months in the mIROX-arm and 22 months in the FUFIRI-arm (hazard ratio=1.08, P=0.276). Both regimens induced an identical objective response rate (ORR) of 41%, but disease control rate (ORR plus stable disease) was significantly greater in the FUFIRI group (81% versus 68%, P=0.001). Most frequent grades 1-4 side-effects of mIROX and FUFIRI treatment were nausea (80% versus 73%) and delayed diarrhoea (79% versus 68%). Grades 3-4 toxicities were generally below 10%, except for diarrhoea which was more frequent in the mIROX-arm compared to the FUFIRI-arm (19% versus 30%, P=0.006) CONCLUSION: mIROX failed to show superior activity compared to high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid plus irinotecan. Due to better tolerability the combination of high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid and irinotecan remains a standard of care in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Mitomycin C plus infusional 5-fluorouracil in platinum-refractory gastric adenocarcinoma: an extended multicenter phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the toxicity and activity of bolus mitomycin C (MMC) in combination with a 24-hour continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in gastric cancer patients who had received at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with MMC (10 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 22, 5-FU (2.6 g/m(2)) as a 24-hour infusion, and folinic acid 500 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with gastric cancer, 16 after failure of first-line chemotherapy and 18 after failure of at least two prior chemotherapies, were included. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 9 (26.5%) of the 34 patients had a partial response and 10 (29.4%) a disease stabilization (disease control rate 56%). The median time to progression was 3.3 months (CI95: 2.8-3.7), and the median overall survival was 7.2 months (CI95: 5.9-8.4). Grade III/IV thrombocytopenia occurred in 14.7% of patients (n = 5), while the most frequent nonhematological grade III/IV toxicities were mucositis and diarrhea, each affecting 9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: As the tested regimen was generally safe and well tolerated by the patients, MMC plus infusional 5-FU/folinic acid may be a potential second-line regimen for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

RP101 improves the efficacy of chemotherapy in pancreas carcinoma cell lines and pancreatic cancer patients.

RP101 [(E)-5-(2-bromovinyl)-2'-deoxyuridine (BVDU)], which supports apoptosis and prevents the acquisition of chemoresistance, was tested in cultured human pancreatic tumor cells. RP101 downregulated uridine phosphorylase, a marker of poor prognosis, and APEX1, which is involved in DNA repair, and repressed Stat3 and its target vascular endothelial growth factor. Furthermore, RP101 activated antitumor immunity as demonstrated by enhanced cytolytic activity of NK-92 natural killer cells. This was concomitant with an enhanced expression of lymphotoxins alpha and beta, natural killer cell transcript 4, tumor necrosis factor LIGHT/TNFSF-14, and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 in pancreas carcinoma cells. These results encouraged us to investigate the effect of RP101 in pancreas cancer patients. Here, we present data from two RP101 combination therapy schemes. In a first pilot study, 13 patients in stage III and VI of the disease were treated with gemcitabine +cisplatin+RP101. RP101 co-treatment enhanced remissions, survival and time to progression. Seventy-seven percent of the patients lived or have lived longer than 1 year, and 23% have lived more than 2 years. Median survival was 447 days, time to progression 280 days and the response rate 33%. A second study with 21 patients in similar stages of disease, treated with RP101+gemcitabine alone, confirmed the results of the pilot study. Eighty-three percent of the presently evaluable patients live or lived 0.5 years or longer and 33% 1 year or longer. Considering both studies, the tumor control was 94%. The data indicate that acquisition of chemoresistance was prevented and the antitumor efficacy of standard chemotherapy was improved. To our knowledge, RP101 co-treatment is more efficient than any other regimen published.

Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. CONCLUSION: These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.