Caspase-dependent and -independent panc-1 cell death due to actinomycin D and MK 886 are additive but increase clonogenic survival.

In human panc-1 pancreatic cancer cells, actinomycin D (act D) induces a type 1 (apoptotic, extrinsic, death domain, receptor-dependent, and caspase-positive) form of programmed cell death (PCD) and MK 886, a 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor serving among other functions as a surrogate for increasing oxidative stress, a type 2 form, defined as an intrinsic, mitochondria-dependent, autophagic form of cellular suicide. Using both agents simultaneously should allow for examination of their interaction in cells able to express either form of PCD. Activation of both forms might result in synergistic, additive, null, or inhibitory effects on the reduction in proliferation, PCD, and clonogenicity of surviving cells. Co-culture of panc-1 cells with act D and MK 886, which both inhibit their proliferation, had an additive effect on increasing the development of these forms of PCD, as determined by morphology, a nucleosome assay, and flow cytometry. Initially, laddering on agarose detected with propidium iodide, present in act D, and act D plus MK 886-treated cells was partially obscured by randomly degraded DNA. With the use of the more sensitive SYBR green dye and reduced exposure of detached cells to 37 degrees C, a limited laddering of DNA from MK 886-treated cells was also detected. Caspase activity was present in act-D-cultured cells but was absent in cells cultured with MK 886. Combined culture reduced caspase activity in act D-treated cells, consistent with interference from type 2 of type 1 PCD. Removal after 48 hr of act D or MK 886 allowed regrowth of residual cells, the latter agent to a greater extent than the former. In combination, the number of clones was increased compared with act D alone. These features distinguish two forms of PCD. In therapeutic settings in which the modes of cell death have not been identified, unintentional activation of several cellular suicide pathways with "crosstalk" between them occurs. Their intentional simultaneous activation and responses, as modulated by the history of cells in or out of cycle, could reduce the intended therapeutic outcome with survival of additional clonogenic cells due to various forms of mutual interference.

Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Therapies of Pancreatic Cancer: A Review.

The survival of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is dismal. Few patients on initial presentation aresuitable for surgical resection. This has prompted clinical studies with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapydesigned either to increase the number of patients eligible for surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) or to prolong thesurvival of patients who had undergone surgery (adjuvant therapy). None of these studies may at this time beconsidered definitive. Wherever possible, patients felt eligible for neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy should beentered on clinical trials. Where this is not possible, clinicians should exercise their best judgment in offeringthis type of treatment to pancreatic cancer patients under their care.

Phase III study of combined chemohormonal therapy in metastatic prostate cancer (ECOG 3882): an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study.

This study, a phase III multicenter randomized trial opened by ECOG in April 1983 and closed in June 1986 was designed to evaluate whether a combination of doxorubicin and an intravenous formulation of diethylstilbestrol diphosphate (DES) was superior to doxorubicin alone in men with hormone refractory prostate cancer. All patients received doxorubicin at a dose of 50 mg/m2 iv every 3 wk either alone or with 1 g DES iv daily for 5 d followed by 1 g iv twice weekly for four cycles (12 wk). The 51 evaluable patients with visceral metastases displayed a significantly increased response rate (27% vs 63%) on the combined therapy arm (p = 0.04). However, the 111 evaluable patients with osseous disease exhibited no difference in response rate between either arm with a p-value of >0.99. Similarly, clinical response rates revealed no difference between the two arms. Cases of cardiac toxicity graded as severe, life threatening, or lethal in the combined therapy arm were 10 times more frequent in the combined-therapy arm than in the doxorubicin-alone group (6.75% compared to 0.7%). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0041). All of the cases of superficial and deep venous thrombosis occurred on the combined-therapy arm. There were no other significant differences in the numbers of grade 3 or 4 toxic events. The most common toxicity was hematologic. Failure-free survival duration did reach statistical significance in the combined-therapy group (p = 0.012), although the actual durations were short (2.6-3.2 mo). There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups.

Phase II study of mitomycin-C, adriamycin, cisplatin (MAP) and Bleomycin-CCNU in patients with advanced cancer of the anal canal: An eastern cooperative oncology group study E7282.

Metastatic anal cancer is a rare disease in the Western hemisphere and current treatment modalities are not effective. In this study, patients with advanced epithelial cancer of the anal canal received MAP followed by Bleomycin and CCNU upon progression of disease. Twelve out of twenty eligible patients had a partial response 60%, (95% CI {36% -81%}). No complete responses were observed. The median survival was 15 months (95% CI {6-20} months). The median time to progression or death was 8 months (95% CI {4-9 months}). Toxicities were moderate and tolerable with routine supportive care; there were 2 cases of grade 3 vomiting, 2 cases of respiratory distress (one grade 1 and one grade 3), one case each of grade 3 leg cramps and cardiac arrhythmia. Of particular note were 7 cases of grade 3 hematologic toxicity. Two patients had grade 4 leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, respectively, that resolved without sequelae. The combination therapy of MAP followed by Bleomycin and CCNU for patients with advanced anal cancer, not amenable to radiotherapy or surgery, results in a moderate objective response but with moderate toxicities. This regimen and sequence is worthy of further study especially in combination with colony stimulating factors, however, its tolerability may be most applicable for patients who have had minimal prior therapy.

Elevated serum heparanase-1 levels in patients with pancreatic carcinoma are associated with poor survival.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that heparanase-1 (HPR1), an endoglycosidase, is up-regulated in pancreatic carcinoma. The purpose of this study was to test whether serum HPR1 levels in pancreatic carcinoma patients are elevated, and whether higher serum HPR1 levels are associated with a shortened survival. METHODS: Serum HPR1 levels in 40 healthy donors, 31 pancreatic carcinoma patients, and 11 patients treated with gemcitabine were measured by a novel enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent assay. HPR1 expression in tumors was analyzed by immunohistochemical staining. Patient overall survival time was determined according to the Kaplan-Meier method, and their difference was evaluated by the log-rank test. A P value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean serum HPR1 activity in pancreatic carcinoma patients was 439+/-14 units/mL, compared with 190+/-4 units/mL in the control serum samples from healthy donors. Serum HPR1 levels were significantly higher in patients with HPR1-positive tumors (660+/-62 units/mL) compared with those with HPR1-negative tumors (241+/-14 units/mL). The mean survival of 19 pancreatic carcinoma patients with serum HPR1 activity>300 units/mL was 7.9+/-0.2 months, whereas the mean survival of 12 patients with serum HPR1 activity<300 units/mL was 13.3+/-0.6 months. A Kaplan-Meier plot of the patient survival curve followed by log-rank test revealed that patients in the high serum HPR1 group had a significantly shorter survival compared with those in the low serum HPR1 group. Mean serum HPR1 activity decreased by 64% in 11 pancreatic carcinoma patients after 2 weeks of treatment with gemcitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Serum HPR1 activity in pancreatic carcinoma patients was found to be significantly elevated, in particular in those with HPR1-positive tumors. Increased serum HPR1 activity was associated with a shorter survival in patients with pancreatic carcinoma patients.

ASCO 2006 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in gastrointestinal cancer.

PURPOSE: To update the recommendations for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: For the 2006 update, an update committee composed of members from the full Panel was formed to complete the review and analysis of data published since 1999. Computerized literature searches of Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were performed. The Update Committee's literature review focused attention on available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published tumor marker studies. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION: For colorectal cancer, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) be ordered preoperatively, if it would assist in staging and surgical planning. Postoperative CEA levels should be performed every 3 months for stage II and III disease for at least 3 years if the patient is a potential candidate for surgery or chemotherapy of metastatic disease. CEA is the marker of choice for monitoring the response of metastatic disease to systemic therapy. Data are insufficient to recommend the routine use of p53, ras, thymidine synthase, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, thymidine phosphorylase, microsatellite instability, 18q loss of heterozygosity, or deleted in colon cancer (DCC) protein in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. For pancreatic cancer, CA 19-9 can be measured every 1 to 3 months for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease receiving active therapy. Elevations in serial CA 19-9 determinations suggest progressive disease but confirmation with other studies should be sought. New markers and new evidence to support the use of the currently reviewed markers will be evaluated in future updates of these guidelines.

Immunobiotherapy directed against mutated and aberrantly expressed gene products in pancreas cancer.

Genetic alterations are responsible for the development of cancer in ductal cells of the pancreas. These genetic changes result in abnormal molecular expression of proteins that are involved in cell proliferation, cell cycle control and adhesion. Some of the genetic mutations result in aberrant proteins that can be recognized as novel or foreign by cells of innate and adaptive immune systems. These are appropriate targets for therapeutic intervention which may involve immunobiologic approaches. These approaches may be less effective because of immune escape mechanisms developed by tumor cells within the microenvironment of the tumor mass. Immunobiotherapy intervention of pancreas cancer must circumvent these obstacles and integrate effective immunotherapy with molecularly targeted approaches to pancreas cancer intervention.

Effect of gemcitabine on immune cells in subjects with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Effects of gemcitabine (Gemzar) on immune cells were examined in pancreas cancer patients to determine whether it was immunosuppressive, or potentially could be combined with vaccines or other immunotherapy to enhance patient's responses to their tumors. Blood was obtained at five time-points, before therapy, 3-4 days after initial gemcitabine infusion and immediately preceding three additional weekly infusions. Effects on T-cell subsets, B-cells, myeloid dendritic cell precursors, antigen presenting cells (APC), activated/memory, and naive cells were examined. Functional activity was measured by intracellular staining for cytokines before and after T-cell activation, and by interferon gamma production in EliSpot responses to tumor presentation. Although absolute lymphocyte counts decreased with the initial treatment with gemcitabine infusion, the counts stabilized during subsequent treatments, then returned within normal ranges seven days after the fourth treatment so that the absolute lymphocyte count no longer differed significantly from that prior to treatment. These effects on absolute lymphocyte counts were mirrored by statistically significant decreases in absolute numbers of CD3 and CD20 lymphocytes during these time periods. The proportions of T and B-cells, however did not change significantly with therapy, although significance changes were observed in some specialized subsets. A decrease in the proportions of the major BDCA-1+, CD1b myeloid dendritic cell subset and a reciprocal increase in the minor BDCA-3+ dendritic cell subsets resulted at 3-4 days, then their levels returned to normal. No significant changes in percentages of CD86 and CD80 APCs or CD4+, CD25+ T-cells were documented. Increased percentages of CD3+, CD45RO+ memory lymphocytes reached significance at day 7, then declined to statistically significant decrease at days 14 and 21 after the second and third infusions, respectively. Immune T-cells were functional in pancreas cancer patients treated with gemcitabine. The data suggest that gemcitabine therapy may decrease memory T-cells and promote naive T-cell activation. We conclude that gemcitabine therapy (1) is not immunosuppressive and (2) may enhance responses to specific vaccines or immunotherapy administered to activate or support immune responses directed toward driving effector immunity to cancer cells.

Phase II trial of oral rubitecan in previously treated pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Additional systemic treatments for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer are needed, as current treatment options produce only modest survival benefits. Rubitecan (Orathecin; Supergen Inc., Dublin, CA, http://www.supergen.com) is an orally active camptothecin derivative with demonstrated responses in patients with pancreatic cancer in early clinical trials. This phase II, open-label trial was developed to assess the safety and efficacy of rubitecan in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer refractory to conventional chemotherapy. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with failed or relapsed advanced pancreatic cancer after receiving at least one prior chemotherapy regimen were enrolled to receive eight consecutive weeks of treatment with rubitecan at a dose of 1.5 mg/m2 orally on five consecutive days per week, followed by 2 days off therapy, repeatedly. The primary end point was response rate. Time to progression, overall survival, changes in CA19-9 levels, and the composite measure of clinical benefit response were evaluated as secondary end points. RESULTS: Among 43 patients with measurable disease, 7% (3/43) achieved partial responses and 16% (7/43) had disease stabilization for an overall response and disease stabilization rate of 23%. All responses were confirmed by independent radiology review. Median survival was longer in responding patients than in the overall study cohort (10 months versus 3 months). Gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities were the most commonly reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Oral rubitecan produced responses and was well tolerated by heavily pretreated patients with refractory pancreatic cancer. The overall risk-benefit profile of oral rubitecan appears promising, supporting further evaluation in phase III trials in patients with refractory and chemotherapy-naive pancreatic cancer.

Phase II study of gemcitabine in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (E1298). A trial of the eastern cooperative oncology group.

BACKGROUND: Responses have been observed in several studies of docetaxel as treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. This trial was designed to determine if the addition of docetaxel to gemcitabine therapy produced responses in >/=25% of patients with chemonaive advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial involved patients with biopsy-proven, advanced carcinoma of the pancreas not amenable to surgical resection. Patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h followed by gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) biweekly until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint of the trial was to determine the objective response rate with secondary endpoints of progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Out of the 32 eligible patients, 2 patients had a complete response and 2 patients had a partial response for an observed objective response rate of 12.5% (90% CI: 4.4, 26.4%). Median survival was 4.7 months. Most toxicities were hematologic, with 48% of patients experiencing grade 4 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The confirmed complete response rate of 6% and partial response rate of 6% is encouraging, but the toxicity of this regimen appears significant. Based upon these results, this combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel is not worthy of further study. Different schedules and dosages may be more promising.

Phase II study of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) and mitomycin C, vincristine, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (MVPF) in patients with metastatic large bowel cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study (EST 1285).

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and the toxicity of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) and mitomycin C, vincristine, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (MVPF) in patients with metastatic large bowel cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 94 patients with no prior chemotherapy and measurable metastatic large bowel cancer were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment regimens. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) criteria were used to evaluate response and toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized to PF and 44 to MVPF. Toxicity was evaluable in all patients except one; response was evaluable in 40 and 31, with response rate of 13 and 42%, respectively. Intent-to-treat analysis showed a response rate of 12 and 32%, respectively (p = 0.076), where it was assumed that none of the ineligible or unevaluable patients responded. Median survival for all patients was 9 months, with no difference between PF and MVPF. ECOG Performance Status (0 vs. 1), weight loss (< or =10 vs. >10%) and site of metastatic lesion had statistically significant impact on survival. MVPF was definitely more toxic than PF (p < 0.000005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment regimens showed clinical activity. The MVPF regimen resulted in more responses than PF, no improvement in survival, and more toxicity.