Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPACT): a multicentre, open-label phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer are scarce. Results from a subanalysis of the phase 3 MPACT trial in metastatic pancreatic cancer suggested potential activity of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine against locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The objective of this phase 2 trial was to evaluate safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in previously untreated locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This international, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial (LAPACT) took place at 35 sites in five countries (USA, France, Spain, Canada, and Italy). Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of up to 1 underwent six cycles of induction with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle). After induction, patients without progressive disease or unacceptable adverse events were eligible to receive continued therapy per investigator's choice: continued nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, chemoradiation, or surgery. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure; secondary endpoints were disease control rate, overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. The reported efficacy outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety outcomes were analysed in the treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02301143, and EudraCT, 2014-001408-23 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 107 patients were enrolled in the study. 106 received the study treatment; one patient enrolled but did not receive treatment. 44 (41%) of 107 enrolled patients discontinued induction; the most common reason for discontinuing induction was adverse events (22 [21%] patients). 62 (58%) of 107 enrolled patients completed induction treatment and 47 (44%) patients subsequently received continued treatment per investigator's choice: 12 (11%) continued nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, 18 (17%) received chemoradiation, and 17 (16%) underwent surgery (seven had R0 resection status, nine had R1). 15 (14%) patients completed induction treatment but did not receive continued treatment. Median time to treatment failure was 9·0 months (90% CI 7·3-10·1); median progression-free survival was 10·9 months (90% CI 9·3-11·6), and median overall survival was 18·8 months (90% CI 15·0-24·0). During induction, 83 patients achieved disease control and the disease control rate was 77·6% (90% CI 70·3-83·5). 36 patients had a best response of partial response; the overall response rate during induction was 33·6% (90% CI 26·6-41·5). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events that were grade 3 or higher in the treated population during induction were neutropenia (35 [33%] of 106 patients), anaemia (12 [11%]), and fatigue (11 [10%]). The most common treatment-emergent serious adverse events during induction were pneumonia (five [5%] patients), pyrexia (five [5%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [3%]). No deaths were caused by treatment-related adverse events during the induction phase, and global quality of life was maintained in most patients. INTERPRETATION: The data from this trial support the tolerability and activity of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and a potential to convert unresectable, locally advanced disease to surgically resectable disease. The safety profile was generally consistent with previous findings. FUNDING: Celgene.

Drug development for breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers from 1979 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the drug development pathway is critical for streamlining the development of effective cancer treatments. The objective of the current study was to delineate the drug development timeline and attrition rate of different drug classes for common cancer disease sites. METHODS: Drugs entering clinical trials for breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer were identified using a pharmaceutical business intelligence database. Data regarding drug characteristics, clinical trials, and approval dates were obtained from the database, clinical trial registries, PubMed, and regulatory Web sites. RESULTS: A total of 411 drugs met the inclusion criteria for breast cancer, 246 drugs met the inclusion criteria for colorectal cancer, and 315 drugs met the inclusion criteria for non-small cell lung cancer. Attrition rates were 83.9% for breast cancer, 87.0% for colorectal cancer, and 92.0% for non-small cell lung cancer drugs. In the case of non-small cell lung cancer, there was a trend toward higher attrition rates for targeted monoclonal antibodies compared with other agents. No tumor site-specific differences were noted with regard to cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunomodulatory, or small molecule kinase inhibitor drugs. Drugs classified as "others" in breast cancer had lower attrition rates, primarily due to the higher success of hormonal medications. Mean drug development times were 8.9 years for breast cancer, 6.7 years for colorectal cancer, and 6.6 years for non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Overall oncologic drug attrition rates remain high, and drugs are more likely to fail in later-stage clinical trials. The refinement of early-phase trial design may permit the selection of drugs that are more likely to succeed in the phase 3 setting. Cancer 2017;123:4672-4679. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

PANCREOX: A Randomized Phase III Study of Fluorouracil/Leucovorin With or Without Oxaliplatin for Second-Line Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in Patients Who Have Received Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy.

Purpose The standard of care for second-line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine-based therapy is not clearly defined. The CONKO-003 phase III study reported a survival benefit with second-line fluorouracil (FU) and oxaliplatin using the oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and FU (OFF) regimen. 1 PANCREOX was a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the benefit of FU and oxaliplatin administered as modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) versus infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) in this setting. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed advanced pancreatic cancer who were previously treated with gemcitabine therapy and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were eligible. A total of 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive biweekly mFOLFOX6 or infusional FU/LV until progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Results Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both arms. No difference was observed in PFS (median, 3.1 months v 2.9 months; P = .99). Overall survival (OS) was inferior in patients assigned to mFOLFOX6 (median, 6.1 months v 9.9 months; P = .02). Increased toxicity was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, with grade 3/4 adverse events occurring in 63% of patients who received mFOLFOX6 and 11% of those who received FU/LV. More patients in the mFOLFOX6 arm withdrew from study due to adverse events than in the FU/LV arm (20% v 2%), whereas the use of postprogression therapy was significantly higher in the FU/LV arm (25% v 7%; P = .015). No significant differences were observed in time to deterioration on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 global health scale. Conclusion No benefit was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, administered as mFOLFOX6, versus infusional FU/LV in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with first-line gemcitabine.

nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Canadian Subgroup Analysis of the Phase 3 MPACT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The phase III MPACT trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) demonstrated superior efficacy of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) compared with Gem monotherapy, including the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS; median 8.7 vs. 6.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; P < 0.001). A significant treatment difference favoring nab-P + Gem over Gem was observed for OS in patients treated in North America. The majority of patients were from the US (88%) with only 12% from Canada. Healthcare systems and treatment patterns are different between the 2 countries, and there is limited published information on outcomes of Canadian patients treated with first-line nab-P + Gem. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety outcomes in Canadian patients in the MPACT trial. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with MPC (N = 861) received either nab-P 125 mg/m(2) + Gem 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or Gem 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for the first 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle ≥2). RESULTS: The MPACT trial enrolled 63 patients in Canada. Baseline characteristics were well balanced and comparable with those of the intent-to-treat population. Both OS (median 11.9 vs. 7.1 months; HR 0.76; P = 0.373) and progression-free survival (median 7.2 vs. 5.2 months; HR 0.65; P = 0.224) were numerically longer and overall response rate (27% vs. 17%; P = 0.312) was numerically higher with nab-P + Gem vs. Gem. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with nab-P + Gem vs. Gem were neutropenia (22% vs. 10%), fatigue (34% vs. 33%), and neuropathy (25% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: This subanalysis confirmed that nab-P + Gem is an efficacious treatment option and has a manageable safety profile in patients with MPC treated in Canada. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00844649. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA.

Navigating later lines of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer - optimizing targeted biological therapies to improve outcomes.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among males and second among females worldwide. The treatment landscape for advanced CRC (aCRC) is rapidly evolving and there are now a number of randomized trials assessing treatment of aCRC beyond first-line, prompting important questions about how to optimize therapy and maximize benefit. The availability of targeted agents has increased the complexity of post-progression treatment of aCRC. Targeted biological agents with varying modes of action are now approved for use in second-line and beyond, including the VEGF-inhibitors bevacizumab and aflibercept, the VEGFR/multikinase-inhibitor regorafenib, and the EGFR-inhibitors cetuximab and panitumumab. This article provides a systematic overview of the available phase III trial data, discusses biomarkers predictive of response to treatment, addresses safety concerns associated with specific agents, and provides practical, evidence-based recommendations for the later lines of treatment for patients with unresectable aCRC.

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.).

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) fulfills the World Health Organization criteria for mass screening, but screening uptake is low in most countries. CRC screening is resource intensive, and it is unclear if an optimal strategy exists. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of CRC screening in average risk North American individuals considering all relevant screening modalities and current CRC treatment costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using a Markov model was performed comparing guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) annually, fecal DNA every 3 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy or computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years. All strategies were also compared to a no screening natural history arm. Given that different FIT assays and collection methods have been previously tested, three distinct FIT testing strategies were considered, on the basis of studies that have reported "low," "mid," and "high" test performance characteristics for detecting adenomas and CRC. Adenoma and CRC prevalence rates were based on a recent systematic review whereas screening adherence, test performance, and CRC treatment costs were based on publicly available data. The outcome measures included lifetime costs, number of cancers, cancer-related deaths, quality-adjusted life-years gained, and incremental cost-utility ratios. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Annual FIT, assuming mid-range testing characteristics, was more effective and less costly compared to all strategies (including no screening) except FIT-high. Among the lifetimes of 100,000 average-risk patients, the number of cancers could be reduced from 4,857 to 1,393 [corrected] and the number of CRC deaths from 1,782 [corrected] to 457, while saving CAN$68 per person. Although screening patients with FIT became more expensive than a strategy of no screening when the test performance of FIT was reduced, or the cost of managing CRC was lowered (e.g., for jurisdictions that do not fund expensive biologic chemotherapeutic regimens), CRC screening with FIT remained economically attractive. CONCLUSIONS: CRC screening with FIT reduces the risk of CRC and CRC-related deaths, and lowers health care costs in comparison to no screening and to other existing screening strategies. Health policy decision makers should consider prioritizing funding for CRC screening using FIT.

Development of quality indicators of care for patients undergoing hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer using a Delphi process.

BACKGROUND: Very few quality indicators of care exist for surgical procedures. These may be used to both score the quality of care received, and as a method of improving the quality of care delivered (quality improvement initiatives). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The goal of this study was to develop a set of evidence-based quality indicators by expert consensus for patients undergoing hepatic resection of colorectal metastases to the liver. A Delphi approach was used to develop a set of evidence-based quality indicators for patients undergoing hepatic resection of colorectal metastases to liver. A panel of experts was formed through nomination by members of the Canadian Hepatopancreaticobiliary Society (CHPBS). The Delphi process consisted of three iterations of questionnaires. During each round, the panel members were asked to score the potential indicators and suggest any new indicators. RESULTS: A list of 70 potential indicators was generated from the literature, of which 27 achieved consensus for inclusion in the final list of quality indicators. After consolidating similar or redundant indicators, the final list had 18 quality indicators. All of the indicators in the final list were from our original literature search. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi process has used the best available evidence, along with a consensus methodology employing the opinion of experts in the field, to identify 18 quality indicators for patients undergoing hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. These indicators will provide a means for benchmarking quality of care among surgeons, institutions, and health regions.

A phase II experience with neoadjuvant irinotecan (CPT-11), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy may improve survival in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may help identify patients with occult extrahepatic disease (averting unnecessary metastasectomy), and it provides in vivo chemosensitivity data. METHODS: A phase II trial was initiated in which patients with resectable CLM received CPT-11, 5-FU and LV for 12 weeks. Metastasectomy was performed unless extrahepatic disease appeared. Postoperatively, patients with stable or responsive disease received the same regimen for 12 weeks. Patients with progressive disease received either second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: 35 patients were accrued. During preoperative chemotherapy, 16 patients (46%) had grade 3/4 toxicities. Resection was not possible in 5 patients. One patient died of arrhythmia following surgery, and 1 patient had transient liver failure. During the postoperative treatment phase, 12 patients (55%) had grade 3/4 toxicities. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) occurred in 11 patients (34%) at various times during treatment. Of those who underwent resection, median DFS was 23.0 mo. and median OS has not been reached. The overall survival from time of diagnosis of liver metastases was 51.6 mo for the entire cohort. CONCLUSION: A short course of chemotherapy prior to hepatic metastasectomy may serve to select candidates best suited for resection and it may also direct postoperative systemic treatment. Given the significant incidence of DVT, alternative systemic neoadjuvant regimens should be investigated, particularly those that avoid the use of a central venous line. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00168155.

Population-based review of the outcomes following hepatic resection in a Canadian health region.

BACKGROUND: Higher hospital and surgeon volumes have been associated with improved outcomes following hepatic resection; however, there appear to be additional factors that also play a role. The objective of our study was to examine the outcomes following hepatic resection over the past 13 years in a large urban Canadian health region. METHODS: We used administrative procedure codes to identify all patients from 1991/92 to 2003/04 who underwent a hepatic resection in the Calgary health region, which has a referral base of about 1.5 million people. The primary outcome was operative mortality, defined as death before discharge. RESULTS: There were 424 hepatic resections performed in the stated time period. Annual volume was stable until 2000, when it increased substantially. This corresponded to the formation of a multidisciplinary group that provided care to these patients. There were 25 deaths over the study period for a mean mortality of 5.9%. The mean length of stay in hospital was 14.6 (median 10) days. Over time, however, mortality steadily decreased. This corresponded to a concomitant increase in the volume of hepatic resections performed. CONCLUSION: Over the past 13 years, the number of hepatic resections performed has increased; there has been a corresponding improvement in mortality rates. The improved rates are likely the result of multiple factors.

Colorectal liver metastases contract centripetally with a response to chemotherapy: a histomorphologic study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been considerable interest in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. However, there is little information that defines how much liver should be removed after a favorable response. METHODS: Liver metastases from 2 groups of patients were analyzed: 25 metastases were evaluated from a group that did not receive chemotherapy and 26 lesions were studied from patients who had received systemic chemotherapy before resection. All patients except for 1 had 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin (LV), and irinotecan (CPT-11); 1 had 5-FU and LV alone. The average duration of chemotherapy was 2.9+/-0.7 months. Separate assessments of the histopathologic features of the central and peripheral portions of each tumor were made. The pathologist was blinded to all clinical information. RESULTS: All of the untreated metastases had well-circumscribed borders. Irregular borders were seen in 6 of the postchemotherapy lesions (26%), which was particularly prominent in lesions that had significantly contracted. After chemotherapy, discrete islands of viable tumor cells outside of the main tumor mass were seen in 4 patients, but all were close to the peripheral margin of the tumor mass. Viable tumor cells were more frequent in the periphery of metastases, regardless of chemotherapy exposure. Central necrosis was prominent in untreated metastases, but disappeared after chemotherapy. In lesions treated with chemotherapy, central fibrosis was greater compared with untreated lesions. CONCLUSIONS: After a partial response to chemotherapy, liver metastases shrank in a generally concentric fashion. These findings support the practice of removing less liver after downsizing with chemotherapy.

Phase II study of neoadjuvant 5-FU + leucovorin + CPT-11 in patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Following resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer, 5-year survivals are reportedly 30 - 39%. It can be assumed that this clinical situation represents systemic disease. Therefore, it is postulated that systemic chemotherapy would improve outcomes, particularly in those whose disease is sensitive to the agents administered. One potential advantage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy is that it provides in vivo chemosensitivity data. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy could therefore guide adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. METHODS AND DESIGN: This is a prospective Phase II evaluation of outcomes in patients with potentially resectable liver metastases. Patients will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and will undergo resection. Postoperative chemotherapy will be directed by the degree of response to preoperative chemotherapy. All patients with Stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma isolated to the liver that have disease that is amenable to complete ablation by resection, radiofrequency ablation, and/or cryoablation will be candidates for the trial. Patients will receive CPT-11 180 mg/m2 IV (over 90 minutes) on day 1 with 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and 600 mg/m2 by 22 hour infusion and calcium folinate 200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks. Altogether, six cycles of chemotherapy will be administered. Patients will then undergo resection and/or radiofrequency ablation. Patients who had stable disease or a clinical response with preoperative chemotherapy will receive an additional 12 cycles of CPT-11 180 mg/m2 IV (over 90 minutes) on day 1 with 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and 600 mg/m2 by 22 hour infusion and calcium folinate 200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 (given every 2 weeks). Patients with resectable disease who had progressive disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy will receive best supportive care or an alternative agent, at the discretion of the treating physician. Those patients who are not rendered free of disease following the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery will receive best supportive care or an alternative agent, at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of the study is disease-free survival. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety and feasibility, response to chemotherapy, and quality of life.