A phase II study of chemotherapy in combination with telomerase peptide vaccine (GV1001) as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Background: GV1001 is a human telomerase peptide vaccine that induces a CD4/CD8 T-cell response against cancer cells, thereby affording an immunological anti-tumor effect. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of GV1001 in combination with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had failed first-line chemotherapy. Methods: This multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm phase II study recruited recurrent or metastatic colorectal cancer patients with measurable disease who had failed first-line chemotherapy. Patients received GV1001 and chemotherapy concomitantly based on a pre-established schedule. Cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted agents (bevacizumab, cetuximab, or aflibercept) were allowed to be used at the discretion of the investigator. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate; secondary endpoints were the objective response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety outcomes. The baseline serum eotaxin level (a potential predictive biomarker of GV1001) was analyzed. To determine whether an adequate immune response had been induced, a delayed-type hypersensitivity test and a T-cell proliferation test were performed. Results: From May 13, 2015 to October 13, 2020, 56 patients with recurrent or metastatic colorectal cancer treated in seven hospitals of South Korea were enrolled. The median patient age was 64 years (range, 29-82 years); 67.9% were men. Of all patients, 66.1% had left-side colorectal cancer and the RAS mutation was present in 25%. The disease control rate and the objective response rates were 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.4-99.4%) and 34.1% (95% CI, 20.1-48.1%), respectively. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.1 months) and the median overall survival was 12.8 months (95% CI, 9.9-15.8 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were neutropenia (48.2%), nausea (26.8%), neuropathy (25.0%), stomatitis (21.4%), and diarrhea (21.4%). Immune response analysis showed that no patient had positive delayed-type hypersensitivity test results; antigen-specific T-cell proliferation was observed in only 28% of patients. The baseline eotaxin level was not associated with any efficacy outcome. Conclusion: Although no clear GV1001-specific immune response was observed, the addition of GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy was tolerable and associated with modest efficacy outcomes.

A phase II study of gemcitabine, erlotinib and S-1 in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Background: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with erlotinib and S-1 for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with pathologically-proven locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were assessed for eligibility. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8, erlotinib was administered at 100 mg/day on days 1-21, and S-1 was administered at 60 mg/m2 on days 1-14 every 21 days and continued to a maximum of 8 cycles of treatment. Dose escalation of S-1 to 80 mg/m2 was permitted from the second cycle for pre-defined tolerable patients. Results: Thirty-seven patients (median age 61.5 years) were enrolled. A total of 140 cycles of chemotherapy were administered (median of 3.8; range 1-8 cycles). Toxicities were evaluated in 36 patients, and the responses were evaluated in 32 patients. Major grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (25%), febrile neutropenia (2.8%), fatigue (22.2%), infection (8.3%), vomiting (5.6%), and mucositis (5.6%). The confirmed overall response rate was 12.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.1-28.9%] and the disease control rate was 71.9% (95% CI, 56.8-86.3%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.8-4.6 months) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 3.4-9.9 months), respectively. Conclusion: The combination of gemcitabine, erlotinib, and S-1 provided an acceptable toxicity profile and modest clinical benefits in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Comparative effectiveness of palliative chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy versus cystectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy versus cystectomy for regional node-positive bladder cancer: A retrospective analysis: KCSG GU 17-03.

The regional lymph node-positive bladder cancer was classified as stage IV in the AJCC 7th edition but was changed to stage IIIB in the 8th edition, revised in 2018. Among the various studies involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, groups that had only lymph node metastasis showed better outcomes than those with distant metastasis. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink the treatment strategy for lymph node-positive bladder cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of chemotherapy, surgery, and combination therapy in patients with lymph node-positive bladder cancer. From 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015, patients with bladder cancer presenting local lymph node metastasis at the time of diagnosis were treated with a single treatment strategy, with either radical cystectomy or chemotherapy or with a combined strategy using both. Treatment outcomes were retrospectively analyzed on the basis of clinical indices and survival time. Out of 230 patients with bladder cancer, 44 (19.1%) were treated with palliative chemotherapy, 30 (13.0%) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by cystectomy, 129 (56.1%) with cystectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, and 27 (11.7%) with cystectomy alone. Median survival among all groups was 30.4 months. For each group, median overall survival was 19.3, 49.1, 42.6, and 11.2 months, respectively. This study represents an advancement in understanding the impact of clinical treatment patterns of lymph node-positive bladder cancer through comparison of survival data of patients treated with different therapeutic strategies. Combined treatment resulted in better outcomes than did single treatments.

A dose-finding study for oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and S-1 (OIS) in patients with metastatic or recurrent gastrointestinal cancer.

PURPOSES: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended dose (RD), and activity of combined oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and S-1 chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. METHODS: Oxaliplatin and irinotecan were administered intravenously on day 1, and S-1 was administered orally on days 1-7, every 2 weeks. This phase I study used the following dose levels for oxaliplatin/irinotecan/S-1: level 1, 85/120/60 mg/m2; level 2, 85/120/80 mg/m2; level 3, 85/120/100 mg/m2; level 4, 85/150/100 mg/m2; and level 5, 85/180/100 mg/m2. Treatment was repeated for a maximum of 12 cycles, until disease progression, or until unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled between October 2012 and February 2014 (median age 59 years). During the first cycle, one of the six patients in levels 1, 3, and 4 developed a dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 febrile neutropenia), and none of the three patients in level 5 developed a dose-limiting toxicity. As the planned maximum dose did not reach the MTD, the level 5 dose was defined as the RD. Twenty-one patients were evaluated for response, which included 2 cases of complete response and 8 cases of partial response, with an overall response rate of 47.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and S-1 provided an acceptable toxicity profile and modest clinical benefits in patients with advanced GI cancer. The RD was 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin, 180 mg/m2 of irinotecan, and 100 mg/m2 of S-1 every 2 weeks.

Second-Line Irinotecan, Leucovorin, and 5-Fluorouracil for Gastric Cancer Patients after Failed Docetaxel and S-1.

Background. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and toxicities of second-line chemotherapy with irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) patients previously treated with docetaxel and S-1 with or without oxaliplatin (DS/DOS). Patients and Methods. We reviewed the data of patients who had previously been treated with first-line DS/DOS and received biweekly irinotecan-based chemotherapy (FOLFIRI/IFL) between October 2004 and November 2011. Results. A total of 209 cycles were administered to 35 patients, with a median of 4 (range, 1-22) cycles each. The overall response rate in 29 response-assessable patients was 17.2%, including 2 complete and 3 partial responses. The median progression-free and overall survivals were 3.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82-5.80) months and 6.24 (95% CI, 1.44-11.04) months, respectively. The major grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia (8.6%). Conclusion. FOLFIRI/IFL chemotherapy showed modest antitumour activity and tolerable toxicities in DS/DOS-treated MGC patients.

Phase II study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 therapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin triplet has yielded significant improvements in time to progression, overall survival, and overall response rate, the high incidence of severe adverse events limits the use of the docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin triplet. To overcome this limitation, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with pathologically proven unresectable recurrent or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma were assessed for eligibility. Docetaxel at 52.5 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin at 105 mg/m(2) were administered intravenously on day 1, and S-1 was administered orally at 80 mg/m(2) on days 1-14 of every 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (median age 54.5 years) were enrolled. All patients had metastatic disease. A total of 340 cycles of chemotherapy were administered (median of eight cycles per patient; range 1-36 cycles). Toxicities were evaluated in 43 patients, and the responses were evaluated in 40 patients. Major toxicities included grade 3/4 neutropenia (37.2 %) and leukopenia (27.9 %). The overall response rate was 54.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 40.1-68.3 %] in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 7.6 months (95 % CI 6.2-9.0 months) and 12.0 months (95 % CI 6.9-17.2 months), respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and S-1 combination regimen is effective and relatively well tolerable, and it seems to have potential to be a reasonable therapeutic strategy in patients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer.

Phase II study of gemcitabine and S-1 combination chemotherapy in patients with metastatic biliary tract cancer.

PURPOSE: A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and S-1 combination chemotherapy in patients with metastatic biliary tract cancer (BTC). METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed, unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma that originated from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic biliary ducts or gallbladder were assessed for eligibility. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). The treatment consisted of 1,000 mg/m(2) intravenous gemcitabine administered over 30 min on days 1 and 8, and 80 mg/m(2) oral S-1 on days 1-14 of each cycle. The treatment was repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled between November 2005 and 2010. All patients had metastatic disease, and the primary sites of cancer were as follows: gallbladder in 12 (31.6%), intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts in 23 (60.5%), and the ampulla of Vater in 3 (7.9%) patients. One patient achieved a complete response, and six experienced a partial response. The ORR was 20.6% (95% CI 8.5-36.7] in the per-protocol (PP) population, and 18.4% (95%CI 6.1-30.7) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population; the median response duration was 10.8 months. Nineteen patients had stable disease, and the disease control rate was 76.5% (95%CI 60.6-87.6) in the PP population. The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95%CI 1.8-6.9), and the median overall survival was 9.0 months (95%CI 4.0-13.9) with a 1-year survival rate of 44.7% (95%CI 29.0-61.5) in the ITT population. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities, neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia were observed in 13 (37.1%), 9 (25.7%), 2 (5.7%), and 2 (5.7%) patients, respectively. One patient experienced a grade 3 febrile neutropenia without any documented infection. The grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were hepatic toxicity (11.4%), anorexia (2.9%), and renal toxicity (2.9%). CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine and S-1 combination chemotherapy showed acceptable efficacy and favorable toxicity profiles. Therefore, it might offer an alternative therapeutic strategy in patients with BTC.

Usefulness of combined PET/CT to assess regional lymph node involvement in gastric cancer.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for preoperative staging of gastric cancer and to compare the diagnostic performance of PET/CT with that of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 74 gastric cancer patients who underwent preoperative PET/CT and CECT, and subsequent curative surgical resection between April 2007 and July 2011. Preoperative PET/CT and CECT images for primary tumors of the stomach and lymph node metastases were reviewed retrospectively. The final diagnoses of primary tumors and LN metastases were based on histopathological specimens in all patients. RESULTS: Advanced gastric cancer was present in 65% of patients (n = 48), and the remaining patients had early gastric cancer (n = 26). Sixteen patients (22%) showed signet-ring-cell histology. For the detection of the primary tumor, the sensitivity of PET/CT was significantly higher than that of CECT (67% vs 55%, respectively; P = 0.049). For the evaluation of regional lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/CT and CECT were 34% and 51% (P = 0.065), 88% and 79% (P = 0.687), and 58% and 64% (P = 0.332), respectively. Neither PET/CT nor CECT detected regional lymph node metastases in early gastric cancer patients. Signet-ring-cell histology showed trends of non-FDG-avid lymph node metastases (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.17-1.37, P = 0.093). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of PET/CT is low and it is not a useful tool in the staging of gastric cancer overall in early gastric cancer and in signet-ring-cell carcinoma. Furthermore, the sensitivity of PET/CT could be inferior to that of CECT in the diagnosis of regional lymph node metastasis.

Phase II trial of gemcitabine and S-1 for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined gemcitabine and S-1 as first-line chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This study included patients who had been diagnosed with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma arising from the pancreas, which was histologically or cytologically confirmed and involved at least 1 unidimensionally measurable lesion. The regimen consisted of intravenous 1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on day 1 and 8 combined with oral S-1 on days 1-14 every 21 days. The dosage of S-1 was based on the body surface area (BSA) as follows: 40 mg bid (total 80 mg/day) for a BSA of <1.25, 50 mg bid (total 100 mg/day) for a BSA of ≥1.25 but <1.5, and 60 mg bid (total 120 mg/day) for a BSA of ≥1.5. Treatment consisted of at least 2 courses unless rapid disease progression was noted. The primary end points were the response and disease control rates, and the secondary end points were toxicity and survival. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled between August 2005 and December 2010. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 4 (range 1-28 cycles). Response to treatment could be evaluated in 31 patients. None of the patients showed complete response, but 5 achieved partial response. The response rate was thus 13.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.7-24.3 %] in the intent-to-treat population. Sixteen patients (43.2 %; 95 % CI 27-59.5 %) showed stable disease, and the overall disease control rate was 56.8 % (95 % CI 40.6-72.9 %). For all 37 patients, the median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95 % CI 1.8-7.6 month), and the median overall survival was 9.4 month (95 % CI 5.8-12.6 month). Chemotherapy-related grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia (36.1 %), leucopenia (22.2 %), and anemia (13.9 %). The non-hematological toxicities were generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 was effective, convenient, and safe in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II study of gefitinib adaptive dose escalation to skin toxicity in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib has activity in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and skin toxicity has been postulated to be a predictor of response and improved outcome. METHODS: This open-label, multi-institution, phase II study evaluated the activity of gefitinib at individually escalated doses up to 750 mg to achieve the skin toxicity grade ≥2. RESULTS: Forty four patients were enrolled. Only twenty-three (52%) experienced skin rash grade ≥2. Of 44 patients, partial responses were noted in 3 (7%), stable disease in 8 (18%) and progressive disease in 33 patients. Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months (95% CI 1.6-2.2) and median overall survival was 5.1 months (95% CI 2.4-7.8). Grade of skin rash was not associated with response rate (p=0.169) nor tumor control rate (p=0.284); however, higher gefitinib trough levels were associated with disease control. Of the 11 tissue samples analyzed for EGFR gene copy by FISH, 7 were EGFR FISH positive, but this was not associated with improved tumor control or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib has clinical activity as monotherapy in SCCHN. Dose escalation of gefitinib is feasible and may increase skin toxicity, but our data do not support increased activity.