Hepatocytes direct the formation of a pro-metastatic niche in the liver.

The liver is the most common site of metastatic disease1. Although this metastatic tropism may reflect the mechanical trapping of circulating tumour cells, liver metastasis is also dependent, at least in part, on the formation of a 'pro-metastatic' niche that supports the spread of tumour cells to the liver2,3. The mechanisms that direct the formation of this niche are poorly understood. Here we show that hepatocytes coordinate myeloid cell accumulation and fibrosis within the liver and, in doing so, increase the susceptibility of the liver to metastatic seeding and outgrowth. During early pancreatic tumorigenesis in mice, hepatocytes show activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) signalling and increased production of serum amyloid A1 and A2 (referred to collectively as SAA). Overexpression of SAA by hepatocytes also occurs in patients with pancreatic and colorectal cancers that have metastasized to the liver, and many patients with locally advanced and metastatic disease show increases in circulating SAA. Activation of STAT3 in hepatocytes and the subsequent production of SAA depend on the release of interleukin 6 (IL-6) into the circulation by non-malignant cells. Genetic ablation or blockade of components of IL-6-STAT3-SAA signalling prevents the establishment of a pro-metastatic niche and inhibits liver metastasis. Our data identify an intercellular network underpinned by hepatocytes that forms the basis of a pro-metastatic niche in the liver, and identify new therapeutic targets.

Phase 2 study of vismodegib, a hedgehog inhibitor, combined with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway is overexpressed in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Preclinical studies have shown that Hh inhibitors reduce pancreatic cancer stem cells (pCSC), stroma and Hh signalling. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDA were treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Vismodegib was added starting on the second cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with historical controls. Tumour biopsies to assess pCSC, stroma and Hh signalling were obtained before treatment and after cycle 1 (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel) or after cycle 2 (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel plus vismodegib). RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 5.42 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.37-6.97) and 9.79 months (95% CI: 7.85-10.97), respectively. Of the 67 patients evaluable for response, 27 (40%) had a response: 26 (38.8%) partial responses and 1 complete response. In the tumour samples, there were no significant changes in ALDH + pCSC following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding vismodegib to chemotherapy did not improve efficacy as compared with historical rates observed with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study does not support the further evaluation of Hh inhibitors in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01088815.

Phase I study of imalumab (BAX69), a fully human recombinant antioxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor antibody in advanced solid tumours.

AIM: Preclinical evidence suggests that oxidized macrophage migration inhibitory factor (oxMIF) may be involved in carcinogenesis. This phase 1 study (NCT01765790) assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity of imalumab, an oxMIF inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer using '3 + 3' dose escalation. METHODS: In Schedule 1, patients with solid tumours received doses from 1 to 50 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks. In Schedule 2, patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, non-small-cell lung, or ovarian cancer received weekly doses of 10 or 25 mg/kg IV (1 cycle = 28 days). Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, dose-limiting toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. RESULTS: Fifty of 68 enrolled patients received imalumab. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) included fatigue (10%) and vomiting (6%); four grade 3 serious TRAEs (two patients) occurred. The dose-limiting toxicity was allergic alveolitis (one patient, 50 mg/kg every 2 weeks). The maximum tolerated and biologically active doses were 37.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 10 mg/kg weekly, respectively. Of 39 assessed patients, 13 had stable disease (≥4 months in 8 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Imalumab had a maximum tolerated dose of 37.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumours, with a biologically active dose of 10 mg/kg weekly. Further investigation will help define the role of oxMIF as a cancer treatment target.

A phase 2 randomised study of veliparib plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab versus placebo plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has low survival rates. We assessed if addition of veliparib, concurrent to FOLFIRI, improves survival in patients with previously untreated mCRC. METHODS: This study compared veliparib (200 mg BID for 7 days of each 14-day cycle) to placebo, each with FOLFIRI. Bevacizumab was allowed in both arms. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Patients were randomised to receive veliparib (n = 65) or placebo (n = 65) in combination with FOLFIRI. Median PFS was 12 vs 11 months (veliparib vs placebo) [HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.48)]. Median OS was 25 vs 27 months [HR = 1.26 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.16)]. Response rate was 57% vs 62%. Median DOR was 11 vs 9 months [HR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.38, 1.40)]. AEs with significantly higher frequency (p < 0.05) in the veliparib group were anaemia (39% vs 19%, p = 0.019) and neutropenia (66% vs 37%, p = 0.001) for common AEs (≥20%); neutropenia (59% vs 22%, p < 0.001) for common Grade 3/4 AEs (≥5%); none in serious AEs. Haematopoietic cytopenias were more common with veliparib (79% vs 52%, p = 0.003). Fourteen percent of patients on veliparib and 15% on placebo discontinued treatment due to AEs. CONCLUSION: Veliparib added to FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab demonstrated similar efficacy as FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab in frontline mCRC patients. No unexpected safety concerns occurred.

Correction: A phase 2 randomised study of veliparib plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab versus placebo plus FOLFIRI±bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

The original version of this article contained an error in Figure 1a. The number of patients at risk listed in the Veliparib arm of Figure 1a should have read "65" instead of "35".An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

A Phase 2 Study of PCI-27483, a Factor VIIa Inhibitor in Combination with Gemcitabine for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Tissue factor overexpression is associated with tumor progression, venous thromboembolism, and worsened survival in patients with cancer. Tissue factor and activated factor VII (FVIIa) complex may contribute to tumor invasiveness by promoting cell migration and angiogenesis. The study objective was to evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of PCI-27483, a selective FVIIa inhibitor. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter phase 2 trial of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Part A of the study was an intrapatient dose escalation lead-in portion in patients concurrently receiving gemcitabine, and in part B, patients were randomized 1: 1 to the recommended phase 2 dose combination PCI-27483-gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone. RESULTS: Target international normalized ratio (between 2.0-3.0) was achieved following PCI-27483 treatment. Overall safety of PCI-27483-gemcitabine (n = 26) was similar to gemcitabine alone (n = 16), with a higher incidence of mostly low-grade bleeding events (65% vs. 19%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between patients treated with PCI-27483-gemcitabine (PFS: 3.7 months, OS: 5.7 months) and those treated with gemcitabine alone (PFS: 1.9 months, OS: 5.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted inhibition of the coagulation cascade was achieved by administering PCI-27483. PCI-27483-gemcitabine was well tolerated, but superiority to single agent gemcitabine was not demonstrated.

Phase 1 trials of PEGylated recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronan accumulation in tumour stroma is associated with reduced survival in preclinical cancer models. PEGPH20 degrades hyaluronan to facilitate tumour access for cancer therapies. Our objective was to assess safety and antitumour activity of PEGPH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: In HALO-109-101 (N=14), PEGPH20 was administered intravenously once or twice weekly (0.5 or 50 µg kg-1) or once every 3 weeks (0.5-1.5 µg kg-1). In HALO-109-102 (N=27), PEGPH20 was administered once or twice weekly (0.5-5.0 µg kg-1), with dexamethasone predose and postdose. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities included grade ⩾3 myalgia, arthralgia, and muscle spasms; the maximum tolerated dose was 3.0 µg kg-1 twice weekly. Plasma hyaluronan increased in a dose-dependent manner, achieving steady state by Day 8 in multidose studies. A decrease in tumour hyaluronan level was observed in 5 of the 6 patients with pretreatment and posttreatment tumour biopsies. Exploratory imaging showed changes in tumour perfusion and decreased tumour metabolic activity, consistent with observations in animal models. CONCLUSIONS: The tumour stroma has emerging importance in the development of cancer therapeutics. PEGPH20 3.0 µg kg-1 administered twice weekly is feasible in patients with advanced cancers; exploratory analyses indicate antitumour activity supporting further evaluation of PEGPH20 in solid tumours.

A phase 1 dose-escalation study of veliparib with bimonthly FOLFIRI in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. This phase 1 study aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib combined with various FOLFIRI regimens in patients with solid tumours. METHODS: Patients received veliparib (10-270 mg BID, days 1-5, 15-19) and FOLFIRI (days 1-3, 15-17) in three regimens containing 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m2: irinotecan 150 mg/m2 and folinic acid 400 mg/m2 (part 1); irinotecan 180 mg/m2, folinic acid 400 mg/m2, and 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus (part 2), or irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (part 3). The RP2D was further evaluated in safety expansion cohorts. Preliminary antitumour activity was also assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients received ≥1 veliparib dose. MTD was not reached; RP2D was set at 200 mg BID veliparib plus FOLFIRI (without 5-fluorouracil bolus). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (66.3%), diarrhoea, and nausea (60.9% each). Dose-limiting toxicities (n = 4) were grade 3 gastritis and grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Veliparib exposure was dose-proportional, with no effects on the pharmacokinetics of FOLFIRI components. Fifteen patients had a partial response (objective response rate, 17.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The acceptable safety profile and preliminary antitumour activity of veliparib plus FOLFIRI support further evaluation of this combination.

Phase 1 trials of PEGylated recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.327.

Structure-Guided Blockade of CSF1R Kinase in Tenosynovial Giant-Cell Tumor.

BACKGROUND: Expression of the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) gene is elevated in most tenosynovial giant-cell tumors. This observation has led to the discovery and clinical development of therapy targeting the CSF1 receptor (CSF1R). METHODS: Using x-ray co-crystallography to guide our drug-discovery research, we generated a potent, selective CSF1R inhibitor, PLX3397, that traps the kinase in the autoinhibited conformation. We then conducted a multicenter, phase 1 trial in two parts to analyze this compound. In the first part, we evaluated escalations in the dose of PLX3397 that was administered orally in patients with solid tumors (dose-escalation study). In the second part, we evaluated PLX3397 at the chosen phase 2 dose in an extension cohort of patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors (extension study). Pharmacokinetic and tumor responses in the enrolled patients were assessed, and CSF1 in situ hybridization was performed to confirm the mechanism of action of PLX3397 and that the pattern of CSF1 expression was consistent with the pathological features of tenosynovial giant-cell tumor. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation study, and an additional 23 patients were enrolled in the extension study. The chosen phase 2 dose of PLX3397 was 1000 mg per day. In the extension study, 12 patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors had a partial response and 7 patients had stable disease. Responses usually occurred within the first 4 months of treatment, and the median duration of response exceeded 8 months. The most common adverse events included fatigue, change in hair color, nausea, dysgeusia, and periorbital edema; adverse events rarely led to discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of tenosynovial giant-cell tumors with PLX3397 resulted in a prolonged regression in tumor volume in most patients. (Funded by Plexxikon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01004861.).

Phase I dose escalation study of NMS-1286937, an orally available Polo-Like Kinase 1 inhibitor, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

Background Pharmacological inhibition of polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) represents a new approach for the treatment of solid tumors. This study was aimed at determining the first cycle dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and related maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of NMS-1286937, a selective ATP-competitive PLK1-specific inhibitor. Secondary objectives included evaluation of its safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile in plasma, its antitumor activity, and its ability to modulate intracellular targets in biopsied tissue. Methods This was a Phase I, open-label, dose-escalation trial in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. A treatment cycle comprised 5 days of oral administration followed by 16 days of rest, for a total of 21 days (3-week cycle). Results Nineteen of 21 enrolled patients with confirmed metastatic disease received study medication. No DLTs occurred at the first 3 dose levels (6, 12, and 24 mg/m2/day). At the subsequent dose level (48 mg/m2/day), 2 of 3 patients developed DLTs. An intermediate level of 36 mg/m2/day was therefore investigated. Four patients were treated and two DLTs were observed. After further cohort expansion, the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) were determined to be 24 mg/m2/day. Disease stabilization, observed in several patients, was the best treatment response observed. Hematological toxicity (mostly thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) was the major DLT. Systemic exposure to NMS-1286937 increased with dose and was comparable between two cycles of treatment following oral administration of the drug. Conclusions This study successfully identified the MTD and DLTs for NMS-1286937 and characterized its safety profile.

Novel targeted therapy strategies for biliary tract cancers and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Worldwide hepatobiliary cancers are the second leading cause of cancer related death. Despite their relevance, hepatobiliary cancers have a paucity of approved systemic therapy options. However, there are a number of emerging therapeutic biomarkers and therapeutic concepts that show promise. In hepatocellular carcinoma, nivolumab appears particularly promising and recently received US FDA approval. In intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, therapies targeting FGFR2 and IDH1 and immune checkpoint inhibitors are the furthest along and generating the most excitement. There are additional biomarkers that merit further exploration in hepatobiliary cancers including FGF19, ERRFI1, TERT, BAP1, BRAF, CDKN2A, tumor mutational burden and ERBB2 (HER2/neu). Development of new and innovative therapies would help address the unmet need for effective systemic therapies in advanced and metastatic hepatobiliary cancers.

Second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited therapeutic options for treatment-refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a paucity of data to support the best option after progression on gemcitabine-based regimens. The authors performed a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) after first-line treatment progression in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Different databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy versus FP combination therapy that included either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in patients with PDAC who progressed after first-line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared with FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Five studies with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to receive FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS and a trend toward improved OS compared with those who received FP monotherapy. When comparing FPIRI with FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.87; P = .005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89; P = .004) in patients who received the combination. Conversely, FPOX produced only a modest improvement in PFS with no improvement in OS. CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy with OX or various IRI formulations appears to improve PFS compared with single-agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX, appears to confer an OS advantage. The combination of FP with irinotecan formulations appears to be the appropriate next line of treatment upon progression after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens. Cancer 2017;123:4680-4686. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Clinical study of genomic drivers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a lethal cancer with complex genomes and dense fibrotic stroma. This study was designed to identify clinically relevant somatic aberrations in pancreatic cancer genomes of patients with primary and metastatic disease enrolled and treated in two clinical trials. METHODS: Tumour nuclei were flow sorted prior to whole genome copy number variant (CNV) analysis. Targeted or whole exome sequencing was performed on most samples. We profiled biopsies from 68 patients enrolled in two Stand Up to Cancer (SU2C)-sponsored clinical trials. These included 38 resected chemoradiation naïve tumours (SU2C 20206-003) and metastases from 30 patients who progressed on prior therapies (SU2C 20206-001). Patient outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were observed. RESULTS: We defined: (a) CDKN2A homozygous deletions that included the adjacent MTAP gene, only its' 3' region, or excluded MTAP; (b) SMAD4 homozygous deletions that included ME2; (c) a pancreas-specific MYC super-enhancer region; (d) DNA repair-deficient genomes; and (e) copy number aberrations present in PDA patients with long-term (⩾ 40 months) and short-term (⩽ 12 months) survival after surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a clinically relevant framework for genomic drivers of PDA and for advancing novel treatments.

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.).

Chemotherapy induced neutropenia at 1-month mark is a predictor of overall survival in patients receiving TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: TAS-102 (trifluridine and tipiracil hydrochloride; a novel combination oral nucleoside anti-tumor agent) has recently received regulatory approval for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Internal review of data at a single-institution showed a trend towards better overall survival (OS) for patients who experienced chemotherapy-induced neutropenia at 1-month (CIN-1-month). To explore this finding further, a cohort study was designed based on outcome data from three centers in United States and one from Japan. METHODS: CIN-1-month after starting TAS-102 was defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.03 as a neutrophil count decrease of ≥ grade 2 (absolute neutrophil count < 1500/mm(3)). Patients had confirmed mCRC that was refractory to standard therapies. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with CIN-1-month (CIN-1-month positive) versus those who did not have CIN-1-month (CIN-1-month negative); with the median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences evaluated using the Log-rank test. RESULTS: Our cohort study had a total of 149 patients with data regarding their neutrophil assessment at 1-month mark. Patients who developed ≥ grade 2 CIN-1-month had a both longer PFS (median 3.0 months versus 2.4 months; Log-rank P-value = 0.01), as well as OS (14.0 versus 5.6 months; Log-rank P-value < 0.0001). Only CIN-1-month (adjusted HR: 0.21 (95 % CI: 0.11-0.38) and higher baseline CEA levels (adjusted HR: 2.00 (95 % CI: 1.22-3.35) were noted to be independent predictors of OS. Furthermore, the CIN-1-month was noted to be a statistically significantly predictor of OS over a wide range of cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations are novel and hypothesis generating. Neutropenia after starting TAS-102 was associated with better prognosis in patients with refractory mCRC. It can be postulated that the dosage of TAS-102 potentially may need to be increased to achieve better outcomes in patients not experiencing any neutropenia. Further pharmacologic investigations should help elucidate these issues.

Phase 2 study of MK-2206, an allosteric inhibitor of AKT, as second-line therapy for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: A SWOG cooperative group trial (S1005).

BACKGROUND: The AKT inhibitor MK-2206 at a dose of 60 mg every other day was evaluated in gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancers. METHODS: Patients who had progressed after first-line treatment were eligible. Pertinent eligibility criteria included adequate organ function, a fasting serum glucose level ≤ 150 mg/dL, and less than grade 2 malabsorption or chronic diarrhea. MK-2206 was given orally (60 evaluable patients required). The primary endpoint was overall survival, and a median survival of 6.5 months (power, 89%; significance level, 0.07) was considered encouraging for further investigation. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in the final analyses. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 30.4-86.7 years); 70% were male, 89% were white, and 7% were Asian. There were 2 deaths possibly related to the study drug (cardiac arrest and respiratory failure). Grade 4 adverse events included hyperglycemia, anemia, and lung infection (1 each). Grade 3 adverse events occurred in < 5% of patients except for fatigue (6%). Other adverse events (all grades) included anemia (17%), anorexia (30%), diarrhea (26%), fatigue (50%), hyperglycemia (30%), nausea (40%), vomiting (22%), dry skin (19%), maculopapular rash (30%), and acneiform rash (13%). The response rate was 1%, the median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% confidence interval, 1.7-1.8 months), and the median overall survival was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval, 3.7-9.4 months) CONCLUSIONS: MK-2206 as second-line therapy was well tolerated by an unselected group of patients with gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancers, but it did not have sufficient activity (response rate, 1%; overall survival, 5.1 months) to warrant further testing in this population.

Prognostic factors of survival in a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: nab-Paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), based on superiority over gemcitabine demonstrated in the phase III MPACT trial. Previously, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and the presence of liver metastases were shown to be predictive of survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine treatment. This analysis sought to further explore the relationship between clinical characteristics and survival in the MPACT trial and to identify potential predictors of overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with MPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors and a stepwise multivariate analysis of prespecified baseline prognostic factors were performed. RESULTS: Treatment effect was significantly associated with survival, with a similar magnitude of reduction in risk of death compared with the previously reported primary analysis. Treatment effect consistently favored nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine across the majority of the prespecified factors. In addition to KPS score and presence of liver metastases, age and number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors of overall and progression-free survival. Baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival in this analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis confirm broad utility of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the treatment of MPC. In addition, these findings suggest that KPS score, presence of liver metastases, age, and number of metastatic sites are important predictors of survival that may be useful when making treatment decisions and designing future clinical trials.

Roles of chemokines CCL2 and CCL5 in the pharmacokinetics of PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin in vivo and in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

Nanoparticles (NPs) are cleared by monocytes and macrophages. Chemokines CCL2 and CCL5 are key mediators for recruitment of these immune cells into tumors and tissues. The purpose of this study was to investigate effects of CCL2 and CCL5 on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of NPs. Mice deficient in CCL2 or CCL5 demonstrated altered clearance and tissue distribution of polyethylene glycol tagged liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared to control mice. The PK studies using mice bearing SKOV3 ovarian cancer xenografts revealed that the presence of tumor cells and higher expression of chemokines were significantly associated with greater clearance of PLD compared to non-tumor bearing mice. Plasma exposure of encapsulated liposomal doxorubicin positively correlated with the total exposure of plasma CCL2 and CCL5 in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer treated with PLD. These data emphasize that the interplay between PLD and chemokines may have an important role in optimizing PLD therapy. FROM THE CLINICAL EDITOR: The use of nanoparticles as drug delivery carriers is gaining widespread acceptance in the clinical setting. However, the underlying pharmacokinetics of these novel drugs has not really been elucidated. In this interesting article, the authors carried out experiments using mice deficient in CCL2 or CCL5 to study the clearance of liposomal system. They showed the important role the immune system played and would enable better designs of future drug delivery systems.

Dual blockade of epidermal growth factor receptor and insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 signaling in metastatic pancreatic cancer: phase Ib and randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine, erlotinib, and cixutumumab versus gemcitabine plus erlotinib (SWOG S0727).

BACKGROUND: Targeting a single pathway in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is unlikely to affect its natural history. We tested the hypothesis that simulataneous targeting of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF-1R) pathways would significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) by abrogating reciprocal signaling that promote drug resistance METHODS: This was a phase Ib/II study testing cixutumumab, combined with erlotinib and gemcitabine (G) in patients with untreated metastatic PC. The control arm was erlotinib plus G. The primary end point was PFS. Eligibility included performance status 0/1 and normal fasting blood glucose. Polymorphisms in genes involved in G metabolism and in the EGFR pathway were also studied RESULTS: The phase I results (n = 10) established the safety of cixutumumab 6 mg/kg/week intravenously, erlotinib 100 mg/day orally, and G 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In the RP2 portion (116 eligible patients; median age, 63), the median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 3.6 and 7.0 months, respectively, on the cixutumumab arm, and 3.6 and 6.7 months, respecively, on the control arm. Major grades 3 and 4 toxicities with cixutumumab and control were elevation of transaminases, 12% and 6%, respectively; fatigue, 16% and 12%, respectively; gastrointestinal, 35% and 28%, respectively; neutropenia, 21% and 10%, respectively; and thrombocytopenia, 16% and 7%, respecively. Grade 3/4 hyperglycemia was seen in 16% of patients on cixutumumab. Grade 3 or 4 skin toxicity was similar in both arms of the study (< 5%). No significant differences in PFS by genotype were seen for any of the polymorphisms. CONCLUSIONS: Adding the IGF-1R inhibitor cixutumumab to erlotinib and G did not lead to longer PFS or OS in metastatic PC.