Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 inhibition suppresses pancreatic cancer chemoresistance and chemotherapy-driven aggressiveness.

AIMS: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is often intrinsically-resistant to standard-of-care chemotherapies such as gemcitabine. Acquired gemcitabine resistance (GemR) can arise from treatment of initially-sensitive tumors, and chemotherapy can increase tumor aggressiveness. We investigated the molecular mechanisms of chemoresistance and chemotherapy-driven tumor aggressiveness, which are understood incompletely. METHODS: Differential proteomic analysis was employed to investigate chemotherapy-driven chemoresistance drivers and responses of PDAC cells and patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) having different chemosensitivities. We also investigated the prognostic value of FGFR1 expression in the efficacy of selective pan-FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi)-gemcitabine combinations. RESULTS: Quantitative proteomic analysis of a highly-GemR cell line revealed fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) as the highest-expressed receptor tyrosine kinase. FGFR1 knockdown or FGFRi co-treatment enhanced gemcitabine efficacy and decreased GemR marker expression, implicating FGFR1 in augmentation of GemR. FGFRi treatment reduced PDX tumor progression and prolonged survival significantly, even in highly-resistant tumors in which neither single-agent showed efficacy. Gemcitabine exacerbated aggressiveness of highly-GemR tumors, based upon proliferation and metastatic markers. Combining FGFRi with gemcitabine or gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel reversed tumor aggressiveness and progression, and prolonged survival significantly. In multiple PDAC PDXs, FGFR1 expression correlated with intrinsic tumor gemcitabine sensitivity. CONCLUSION: FGFR1 drives chemoresistance and tumor aggressiveness, which FGFRi can reverse.

The role of microbiome in pancreatic cancer.

Recent studies of the human microbiome have offered new insights into how the microbiome can impact cancer development and treatment. Specifically, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the microbiota has been shown to modulate PDAC risk, contribute to tumorigenesis, impact the tumor microenvironment, and alter treatment response. These findings provide rationale for further investigations into leveraging the microbiome to develop new strategies to diagnose and treat PDAC patients. There is growing evidence that microbiome analyses have the potential to become easily performed, non-invasive diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in pancreatic cancer. More excitingly, there is now emerging interest in developing interventions based on the modulation of microbiota. Fecal microbiota transplantation, probiotics, dietary changes, and antibiotics are all potential strategies to augment the efficacy of current therapeutics and reduce toxicities. While there are still challenges to overcome, this is a rapidly growing field that holds promise for translation into clinical practice and provides a new approach to improving patient outcomes.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Switch in Borderline Resectable/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is an integral part of preoperative treatment for patients with borderline resectable/locally advanced (BR/LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The identification of a chemotherapeutic regimen that is both effective and tolerable is critical for NAC to be of oncologic benefit. After initial first-line (FL) NAC, some patients have lack of response or therapeutic toxicities precluding further treatment with the same regimen; optimal decision making regarding this patient population is unclear. Chemotherapy switch (CS) may allow for a larger proportion of patients to undergo curative-intent resection after NAC. METHODS: We reviewed our surgical database for patients undergoing combinatorial NAC for BR/LA PDAC. Variant histologic exocrine carcinomas, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm-associated PDAC, and patients without research consent were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 468 patients with BR/LA PDAC receiving FL chemotherapy were reviewed, of whom 70% (329/468) continued with FL chemotherapy followed by surgical resection. The remaining 30% (139/468) underwent CS, with 72% (100/139) of CS patients going on to curative-intent surgical resection. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the resected FL and CS cohorts (30.0 vs. 19.1 months, p = 0.13, and 41.4 vs. 36.4 months, p = 0.94, respectively) and OS was significantly worse in those undergoing CS without subsequent resection (19 months, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and pathologic treatment responses were predictors of RFS and OS. CONCLUSION: CS in patients undergoing NAC for BR/LA pancreatic cancer does not incur oncologic detriment. The incorporation of CS into NAC treatment sequencing may allow a greater proportion of patients to proceed to curative-intent surgery.

FDG-PET Predicts Neoadjuvant Therapy Response and Survival in Borderline Resectable/Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is used in borderline resectable/locally advanced (BR/LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Anatomic imaging (CT/MRI) poorly predicts response, and biochemical (CA 19-9) markers are not useful (nonsecretors/nonelevated) in many patients. Pathologic response highly predicts survival post-NAT, but is only known postoperatively. Because metabolic imaging (FDG-PET) reveals primary tumor viability, this study aimed to evaluate our experience with preoperative FDG-PET in patients with BR/LA PDAC in predicting NAT response and survival. METHODS: We reviewed all patients with resected BR/LA PDAC who underwent NAT with FDG-PET within 60 days of resection. Pre- and post-NAT metabolic (FDG-PET) and biochemical (CA 19-9) responses were dichotomized in addition to pathologic responses. We compared post-NAT metabolic and biochemical responses as preoperative predictors of pathologic responses and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: We identified 202 eligible patients. Post-NAT, 58% of patients had optimization of CA 19-9 levels. Major metabolic and pathologic responses were present in 51% and 38% of patients, respectively. Median RFS and OS times were 21 and 48.7 months, respectively. Metabolic response was superior to biochemical response in predicting pathologic response (area under the curve, 0.86 vs 0.75; P<.001). Metabolic response was the only univariate preoperative predictor of OS (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.40), and was highly correlated (P=.001) with pathologic response as opposed to biochemical response alone. After multivariate adjustment, metabolic response was the single largest independent preoperative predictor (P<.001) for pathologic response (odds ratio, 43.2; 95% CI, 16.9-153.2), RFS (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6), and OS (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.1-0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with post-NAT resected BR/LA PDAC, FDG-PET highly predicts pathologic response and survival, superior to biochemical responses alone. Given the poor ability of anatomic imaging or biochemical markers to assess NAT responses in these patients, FDG-PET is a preoperative metric of NAT efficacy, thereby allowing potential therapeutic alterations and surgical treatment decisions. We suggest that FDG-PET should be an adjunct and recommended modality during the NAT phase of care for these patients.

A phase I study of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor ceritinib in combination with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors.

In this phase I, dose-escalation study, we sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase/c-ROS oncogene 1 receptor (ALK/ROS1) inhibitor ceritinib in combination with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. Secondary objectives were characterization of the safety profile, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of these combinations, and identification of potential biomarkers of efficacy. Ceritinib was combined with gemcitabine (Arm 1), gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Arm 2) or gemcitabine/cisplatin (Arm 3). Drug concentrations in plasma were measured by tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS). We analyzed archival tumor tissue for ALK, ROS1, hepatocyte growth factor receptor (c-MET) and c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) expression by immunohistochemistry. Arm 2 closed early secondary to toxicity. Twenty-one patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). There was one DLT in Arm 1 (grade 3 ALT increase) and three DLTs in Arm 3 (grade 3 acute renal failure, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, grade 3 dyspnea). The MTD of ceritinib was determined to be 600 mg (Arm 1) and 450 mg orally daily (Arm 3). Main toxicities were hematologic, constitutional and gastrointestinal as expected by the chemotherapy backbone. The apparent clearance for ceritinib decreased substantially after repeated dosing; cisplatin did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of ceritinib. The overall response rate was 20%; the median progression-free survival was 4.8 months. Three out of five response-evaluable cholangiocarcinoma patients had clinical benefit. Increased expression of c-MET was associated with a lack of clinical benefit. Ceritinib in combination with gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin has a manageable toxicity profile. Further development of this strategy in tumors with ALK or ROS1 fusions is warranted.

Synergistic Pharmacodynamic Effects of Gemcitabine and Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors on Pancreatic Cancer Cell Cycle Kinetics and Proliferation.

Median survival of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cancer (PDAC) is 6 months, with 9% 5-year survival. Standard-of-care gemcitabine (Gem) provides only modest survival benefits, and combination therapies integrating novel targeted agents could improve outcomes. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors (FGFRs) play important roles in PDAC growth and invasion. Therefore, FGFR inhibitors (FGFRi) merit further investigation. Efficacy of Gem combined with NVP-BGJ398, a pan-FGFRi, was investigated in multiple PDAC cell lines exposed to the drugs alone and combined. Cell cycle distribution and cell numbers were quantified over time. Two pharmacodynamic models were developed to investigate Gem/BGJ398 interactions quantitatively: a drug-mediated cell proliferation/death model, and a drug-perturbed cell cycle progression model. The models captured temporal changes in cell numbers, cell cycle progression, and cell death during drug exposure. Simultaneous fitting of all data provided reasonable parameter estimates. Therapeutic efficacy was then evaluated in a PDAC mouse model. Compared with Gem alone, combined Gem + FGFRi significantly downregulated ribonucleotide-diphosphate reductase large subunit 1 (RRM1), a gemcitabine resistance (GemR) biomarker, suggesting the FGFRi inhibited GemR emergence. The cell proliferation/death pharmacodynamic model estimated the drug interaction coefficient ψ death = 0.798, suggesting synergistic effects. The mechanism-based cell cycle progression model estimated drug interaction coefficient ψ cycle = 0.647, also suggesting synergy. Thus, FGFR inhibition appears to synergize with Gem in PDAC cells and tumors by sensitizing cells to Gem-mediated inhibition of proliferation and cell cycle progression. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: An integrated approach of quantitative modeling and experimentation was employed to investigate the nature of fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor (FGFRi)/gemcitabine (Gem) interaction, and to identify mechanisms by which FGFRi exposure reverses Gem resistance in pancreatic cancer cells. The results show that FGFRi interacts synergistically with Gem to sensitize pancreatic cancer cells and tumors to Gem-mediated inhibition of proliferation and cell cycle progression. Thus, addition of FGFRi to standard-of-care Gem treatment could be a clinically deployable approach to enhance therapeutic benefit to pancreatic cancer patients.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI)-based chemotherapy after irinotecan -based chemotherapy in patients with pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment for metastatic pancreas cancer. It is unclear, however, whether patients who had received irinotecan derive benefit. METHODS: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of >4 months defined success); adverse events and quotes from the medical record on decision-making were also recorded. RESULTS: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). The median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3, 5.6 months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.1, 9.3 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.3, 4.8 months); p = 0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrate several themes, including "limited treatment options," which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. CONCLUSION: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.

Homologous Recombination Repair Defect May Predict Treatment Response to Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy for Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Lutetium-177-dotatate (177 Lu-dotatate), a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in 2018 based on the promising results of the NETTER-1 trial for grade 1-2 midgut NETs. Here, we present a patient with a grade 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and BRCA1 germline mutation who had a significant response to 177 Lu-dotatate.

Role of Surgery and Perioperative Therapy in Older Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether results from recent trials of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are generalizable to older patients, who are underrepresented. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of surgery and of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in older patients with resectable PDAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients aged ≥65 years with upfront resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained pancreatic cancer registry from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into ages 65-75 and 75+ years. Overall survival (OS) was assessed in treatment comparisons: (A) surgery (n = 636) versus nonsurgical (n = 178), (B) neoadjuvant therapy (n = 139) versus upfront surgery (n = 497), and (C) adjuvant therapy (n = 379) versus surgery alone (n = 118). We compared neoadjuvant (n = 139) versus adjuvant therapy (n = 379) in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS: Nine hundred and three patients had a median age of 73.7 (range, 65-96.6) years. Median OS was 26.6 versus 11.9 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj ], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.52; p < .001) in Comparison A groups, 30.7 versus 25.8 months (HRadj , 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; p = .03) in Comparison B groups, and 26.9 versus 17.4 months (HRadj , 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88; p = .008) in Comparison C groups, respectively. OS benefit in these treatment comparisons was present in age group 75+ with HRadj 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.36; p < .001) in Comparison A and HRadj 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27-1; p = .049) in Comparison B, but not in Comparison C with HRadj 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43-1.08; p = .1). Statistically comparable median OS of patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy stratified by age groups was observed. CONCLUSION: Older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Older patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in general are underrepresented in large clinical trials and less well studied in terms of the role of surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. This study collected data on older patients with resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained single-institutional pancreatic cancer registry of a tertiary referral center from 2007 to 2016. It was found that, with multidisciplinary evaluation, older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. These results are of substantial importance to practitioners who treat older patients, who are traditionally underrepresented in most clinical trials.

Emergency use of uridine triacetate for the prevention and treatment of life-threatening 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Increased susceptibility to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5-FU. Life-threatening 5-FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early-onset severe or life-threatening 5-FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5-FU metabolites. METHODS: In 2 open-label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5-FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5-FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care. RESULTS: A total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate-treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5-FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5-FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345-356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Second-line therapy after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or after gemcitabine for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory analysis evaluated second-line (2L) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer in a large phase 3 trial (MPACT). METHODS: Patients who received first-line (1L) nab-paclitaxel+gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) or Gem were assessed for survival based on 2L treatment received. Multivariate analyses tested influence of treatment effect and prognostic factors on survival. RESULTS: The majority of 2L treatments (267 out of 347, 77%) contained a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). Median total survival (1L randomisation to death) for patients who received 2L treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem vs Gem alone was 12.8 vs 9.9 months (P=0.015). Median total survival for patients with a fluoropyrimidine-containing 2L therapy after nab-P+Gem vs Gem was 13.5 vs 9.5 months (P=0.012). Median 2L survival (duration from start of 2L therapy to death) was 5.3 vs 4.5 months for nab-P+Gem vs Gem, respectively (P=0.886). Factors significantly associated with longer post-1L survival by multivariate analyses included 1L nab-P+Gem, receiving 2L treatment, longer 1L progression-free survival, and Karnofsky performance status⩾70 and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio⩽5 at the end of 1L treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of 2L therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine-containing treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem is an active regimen with significant clinical effect.

Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

A first-in-human phase I study to evaluate the MEK1/2 inhibitor, cobimetinib, administered daily in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Objective Cobimetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, was administered to patients with advanced solid tumors to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and anti-tumor activity. Methods For dose-escalation, a 3 + 3 design was used. Oral cobimetinib was administered once daily on a 21-day on/7-day off (21/7) or a 14-day on/14-day off (14/14) schedule. Serial plasma samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis on Day 1 and at steady state. In expansion stages, patients with RAS or RAF mutant tumors were treated at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the 21/7 or 14/14 schedule. Results Ninety-seven patients received cobimetinib. In the 21/7 dose escalation, 36 patients enrolled in 8 cohorts (0.05 mg/kg-80 mg). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were Grade 4 hepatic encephalopathy, Grade 3 diarrhea, and Grade 3 rash. In the 14/14 dose escalation, 20 patients enrolled in 4 cohorts (60-125 mg). DLTs were Grade 3 rash and Grade 3 blurred vision associated with presence of reversible subretinal fluid. The MTD was 60 mg on 21/7 schedule and 100 mg on 14/14 schedule. Cobimetinib PK showed dose-proportional increases in exposure. The most frequent adverse events attributed to cobimetinib were diarrhea, rash, fatigue, edema, nausea, and vomiting. In patients treated at the 60-mg (21/7) or 100-mg (14/14) dose, one unconfirmed complete response and 6 confirmed partial responses were observed. All responses occurred in melanoma patients; 6 harbored the BRAF(V600E) mutation. Conclusions Cobimetinib is generally well tolerated and durable responses were observed in BRAF(V600E) mutant melanoma patients. Evaluation of cobimetinib in combination with other therapies is ongoing.

A phase I study of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor entinostat, in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Based on preclinical data demonstrating cytotoxic synergy between sorafenib and entinostat, a phase I study of this combination was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors. Enrollment followed the traditional "3 + 3" dose escalation scheme. Entinostat was given orally once every 2 weeks, starting at a dose of 4 mg and escalating to 6 and 10 mg every 2 weeks. Sorafenib was administered as a continuous oral dose, escalating from 200 to 400 mg twice daily. A treatment cycle was 28 days. A total of 31 patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled on the study. The three dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed were grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, nausea/vomiting, and fatigue. MTD was not reached. The recommended phase II dose was defined as the full dose of the respective drugs administered individually. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were muscle weakness (13 %), skin rash (10 %), fatigue (6 %), diarrhea (6 %), and hand-foot syndrome (3 %). One NSCLC patient achieved a partial response. Two patients (adenocarcinoma of GE junction and Hurthle cell carcinoma of the thyroid) were on the study for more than 9 months with stable disease. The combination of entinostat and sorafenib was well tolerated. Entinostat 10 mg orally once every 2 weeks in combination with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily, representing full single agent doses of each drug was identified as the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). These data support future clinical development of the combination of entinostat and sorafenib.

Phase 1b study of the oral gemcitabine 'Pro-drug' LY2334737 in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background This Phase 1b study aimed to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose of LY2334737, an oral pro-drug of gemcitabine, in combination with capecitabine, an oral pro-drug of 5-fluorouracil, in patients with advanced solid tumors. In addition, pharmacokinetics (PK) and tumor response were evaluated. Patients and methods Patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors received 650 mg/m(2) capecitabine twice daily (BID) and escalating doses of LY2334737 once daily (QD; initial dose 10 mg/day), both for 14 days followed by 7-day drug holiday. Cycles were repeated until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Results Fifteen patients received a median of 2 (range 1-7) treatment cycles; 14 patients discontinued due to PD, 1 due to toxicity (pyrexia). LY2334737 doses up to 40 mg/day were explored. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported by 2 patients (fatigue, diarrhea, hyponatremia; all Grade 3). Seven patients achieved stable disease. Enrollment was stopped after unexpected hepatic toxicities were observed with LY2334737 QD in a study of Japanese patients. PK parameters for LY2334737 were consistent with the first-in-human study of LY2334737; PK data after 14 day combination treatment revealed no drug-drug interactions between LY2334737 and capecitabine. Conclusions No drug interactions or unexpected toxicities were observed in US patients when LY2334737 at doses up to 40 mg/day was administered QD in combination with capecitabine BID; the maximum tolerated dose was not reached.

Phase 1 trial of tivantinib in combination with sorafenib in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of tivantinib combined with sorafenib in patients with advanced solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design was used. At the RP2D, expansion cohorts in 5 tumor types could be enrolled. Pharmacogenetic and pharmacodynamic analysis were performed. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients received the study treatment. The combination had no unexpected toxicities. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) were rash (40 %), diarrhea (38 %), and anorexia (33 %). The RP2D was tivantinib 360 mg BID and sorafenib 400 mg BID for all cancer histologies, except in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients tivantinib was 240 mg BID plus sorafenib 400 mg BID. The overall response rate was 12 % in all patients, 26 % in melanoma, 15 % in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 10 % in HCC, and 0 % in other patients. Disease control rate (CR, PR and SD ≥8 weeks) was 58 % in all patients, 90 % in RCC, 65 % in HCC, 63 % in melanoma, 40 % in breast cancer, and 8 % in NSCLC patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination treatment could be administered at full standard single-agent doses in all patients except those with HCC, where tivantinib was lowered to 240 mg BID. Preliminary evidence of anticancer activity was observed in patients with RCC, HCC, and melanoma, including patients refractory to sorafenib and/or other anti-VEGF pathway therapies. The combination treatment has therapeutic potential in treating a variety of solid tumors.

Effects of low-fat and high-fat meals on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lapatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

AIM: To quantify the effect of food on the systemic exposure of lapatinib at steady state when administered 1 h before and after meals, and to observe the safety and tolerability of lapatinib under these conditions in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: This was a three-treatment, randomised, three-sequence cross-over study. Lapatinib was administered 1 h after a low- [B] or a high-fat [C] meal and systemic exposure was compared with that obtained following administration 1 h before a low-fat meal [A]. RESULTS: In total, 25 patients were included, of whom 12 were evaluable for the pharmacokinetic analysis. Both low-fat and high-fat meals affected lapatinib exposure. Lapatinib AUC0-24 increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.80-fold (90 % CI: 1.37-2.37) and after a high-fat meal by 2.61-fold (90 % CI: 1.98-3.43). Lapatinib Cmax increased following lapatinib administration 1 h after a low-fat meal by 1.90-fold (90 % CI: 1.49-2.43) and after a high-fat meal by 2.66-fold (90 % CI: 2.08-3.41). The most commonly occurring treatment-related toxicity was diarrhoea (8/25, 32 % CTCAE grade 1 and 2/25, 8 % grade 2) and one treatment-related grade ≥ 3 event occurred (fatigue grade 3, 4 %). CONCLUSIONS: Both low-fat and high-fat food consumed 1 h before lapatinib administration increased lapatinib systemic exposure compared with lapatinib administration 1 h before a low-fat meal. In order to administer lapatinib in a fasted state, it is advised to administer the drug 1 h before a meal.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma, version 2.2014: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines.

The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma discuss the diagnosis and management of adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points from the 2014 NCCN Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Panel meeting. The panel discussion focused mainly on the management of borderline resectable and locally advanced disease. In particular, the panel discussed the definition of borderline resectable disease, role of neoadjuvant therapy in borderline disease, role of chemoradiation in locally advanced disease, and potential role of newer, more active chemotherapy regimens in both settings.

Expression of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 correlates inversely with the efficacy of single-agent fibroblast growth factor receptor-specific inhibitors in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Elevated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) activity correlates with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) progression and poor prognosis. However, its potential as a therapeutic target remains largely unexplored. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The mechanisms of action and therapeutic effects of selective pan-FGFR inhibitors (pan-FGFRi) were explored using in vitro and in vivo PDAC models ranging from gemcitabine-sensitive to highly gemcitabine-resistant (GemR). Gain-/loss-of-function investigations were employed to define the role of individual FGFRs in cell proliferation, migration, and treatment response and resistance. RESULTS: The pan-FGFRi NVP-BGJ398 significantly inhibited cell proliferation, migration, and invasion, and downregulated key cell survival- and invasiveness markers in multiple PDAC cell lines. Gemcitabine is a standard-of-care for PDAC, but development of resistance to gemcitabine (GemR) compromises its efficacy. Acquired GemR was modelled experimentally by developing highly GemR cells using escalating gemcitabine exposure in vitro and in vivo. FGFRi treatment inhibited GemR cell proliferation, migration, GemR marker expression, and tumour progression. FGFR2 or FGFR3 loss-of-function by shRNA knockdown failed to decrease cell growth, whereas FGFR1 knockdown was lethal. FGFR1 overexpression promoted cell migration more than proliferation, and reduced FGFRi-mediated inhibition of proliferation and migration. Single-agent FGFRi suppressed the viability and growth of multiple patient-derived xenografts inversely with respect to FGFR1 expression, underscoring the influence of FGFR1-dependent tumour responses to FGFRi. Importantly, secondary data analysis showed that PDAC tumours expressed FGFR1 at lower levels than in normal pancreas tissue. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Single-agent FGFR inhibitors mediate selective, molecularly-targeted suppression of PDAC proliferation, and their effects are greatest in PDAC tumours expressing low-to-moderate levels of FGFR1.

Microfluidic Organoid Cultures Derived from Pancreatic Cancer Biopsies for Personalized Testing of Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy.

Patient-derived cancer organoids (PDOs) hold considerable promise for personalizing therapy selection and improving patient outcomes. However, it is challenging to generate PDOs in sufficient numbers to test therapies in standard culture platforms. This challenge is particularly acute for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) where most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage with non-resectable tumors and where patient tissue is in the form of needle biopsies. Here the development and characterization of microfluidic devices for testing therapies using a limited amount of tissue or PDOs available from PDAC biopsies is described. It is demonstrated that microfluidic PDOs are phenotypically and genotypically similar to the gold-standard Matrigel organoids with the advantages of 1) spheroid uniformity, 2) minimal cell number requirement, and 3) not relying on Matrigel. The utility of microfluidic PDOs is proven by testing PDO responses to several chemotherapies, including an inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase (GSKI). In addition, microfluidic organoid cultures are used to test effectiveness of immunotherapy comprised of NK cells in combination with a novel biologic. In summary, our microfluidic device offers considerable benefits for personalizing oncology based on cancer biopsies and may, in the future, be developed into a companion diagnostic for chemotherapy or immunotherapy treatments.