Search

Background: A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination., Methods: ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed., Findings: Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease)., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment., Funding: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KD reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Servier, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. SB reports honoraria for scientific presentations from Celgene, Servier, and MSD, fees for consultancy or advisory roles from Celgene, Servier, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Bristol Myers Squibb, and support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Lilly. MR reports honoraria for speakers' bureaus from Roche, Falk, and Servier and approved patents (EP18783030.2-1109, combination treatment of pancreatic cancer targeting PI3K signalling; EP20206259.2, analysis of tissue samples using quantitative phase-contrast microscopy). TJE reports research funding from Baxalta/Shire, support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Ipsen, fees for consultancy or advisory roles from Eisai, MSD, Bayer, Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Lilly, Ipsen, and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. OW reports honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Zentiva, consultancy fees from Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Servier, and support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Abbvie, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Ipsen, Medac, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. DPM reports research funding to his institution from Amgen and Servier, honoraria from Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Taiho Pharmaceutical, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Onkowissen, Sanofi, Lilly, Institut für klinische Krebsforschung, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Incyte, and Takeda, and fees for consultancy or advisory roles from Merck Serono, Amgen, MSD, Roche, Servier, Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Cor2Ed, IQvia, and Onkowissen. PM reports grants from Lilly, royalties and licenses from Elsevier, consultancy fees from Lilly and Ipsen, honoraria for speakers' bureaus from Falk, Amgen, and Roche, and support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Galapagos. DP reports consultancy fees and honoraria paid to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim, Deciphera, and PharmaMar, support for travel, accommodation, and expenses paid to his institution from PharmaMar, fees for consultancy or advisory roles paid to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim, Deciphera, PharmaMar, and Thermosome, and research funding paid to his institution from Bristol Myers Squibb, PharmaMar, Roche, EUSA Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim. AR-S reports honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, MCI Group, and AstraZeneca, support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, and MSD, fees for consultancy or advisory roles from Abbvie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier, and research funding paid to her institution from Roche, Celgene, Ipsen, Amgen, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Servier, AIO-Studien, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Erytech Pharma, and BioNTech. HP reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca, support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Abbvie, iOMEDICO, and Merck, fees for consultancy or advisory roles from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, Amgen, Abbvie, GSK, BeiGene, Oncopeptides, Incyte, Seagen, and Kedrion, and leadership and fiduciary roles for PiTri Studien. VH reports research funding paid to his institution from Merck, Amgen, and Roche, fees for consultancy and advisory roles from Merck, Amgen, Roche, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, TERUMO, GSK, Servier/Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Oncosil, and Nordic Bioscience, honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Sanofi, Merck, Servier, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Seagen, and support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Merck. FK reports research funding from Celgene and consultancy fees from Bayer and Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Even clearly resectable pancreatic cancer still has an unfavorable prognosis. Neoadjuvant or perioperative therapies might improve the prognosis of these patients. Thus, evaluation of perioperative chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer in a prospective, randomized trial is warranted. A substantial improvement in overall survival of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer with FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine vs standard gemcitabine has been demonstrated in phase III-trials. Indeed nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine has a more favorable toxicity profile compared to the FOLFIRINOX protocol and appears applicable in a perioperative setting., Methods: NEONAX is an interventional, prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, two sided phase II study with an unconnected analysis of the results in both experimental arms against a fixed survival probability (38% at 18 months with adjuvant gemcitabine), NCT02047513. NEONAX will enroll 166 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (≤ cT3, N0 or N1, cM0) in two arms: Arm A (perioperative arm): 2 cycles nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2)/gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, d1, 8 and 15 of an 28 day-cycle) followed by tumor surgery followed by 4 cycles nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, Arm B (adjuvant arm): tumor surgery followed by 6 cycles nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. The randomization (1:1) is eminent to avoid allocation bias between the groups. Randomization is stratified for tumor stage (ct1/2 vs. cT3) and lymph node status (cN0 vs. cN1). Primary objective is disease free survival (DFS) at 18 months after randomization. Key secondary objectives are 3-year overall survival (OS) rate and DFS rate, progression during neoadjuvant therapy, R0 and R1 resection rate, quality of life and correlation of DFS, OS and tumor regression with pharmacogenomic markers, tumor biomarkers and molecular analyses (ctDNA, transcriptome, miRNA-arrays). In addition, circulating tumor-DNA will be analyzed in patients with the best and the worst responses to the neoadjuvant treatment. The study was initiated in March 2015 in 26 centers for pancreatic surgery in Germany., Discussion: The NEONAX trial is an innovative study on resectable pancreatic cancer and currently one of the largest trials in this field of research. It addresses the question of the role of intensified perioperative treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in resectable pancreatic cancers to improve disease-free survival and offers a unique potential for translational research., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02047513, 08/13/2014.

Background: Conflicting results on the role of secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteins (SPARC) expression have been reported in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and its prognostic and/or predictive role in advanced PDAC (aPDAC) has not been extensively investigated yet. This study was designed to evaluate SPARC expression as a biomarker in aPDAC patients (pts) not receiving nab-paclitaxel., Methods: Using immunohistochemistry, we examined the stromal as well as the tumoral (i.e., cytoplasmic) SPARC expression in tumour tissue (primary tumours and metastases) of 134 aPDAC pts participating in completed prospective clinical and biomarker trials. The SPARC expression levels were correlated to the pts' clinicopathological parameters and survival times., Results: Sixty-seven per cent of the analysed tumours showed high stromal SPARC expression, which was not associated with overall survival (OS, median 9.1 vs 7.6 months, P=0.316). A positive cytoplasmic SPARC expression was detected in 55% of the tumours and correlated significantly with inferior progression-free survival (PFS, 6.2 vs 8.6 months, P=0.004) and OS (7.8 vs 8.4 months, P=0.032). This association was strongest for pts, where primary tumour tissue was examined (PFS: 6.7 vs 10.8 months, P=0.004; OS: 7.9 vs 11.9 months, P=0.030), whereas no significant correlation was detected for pts, where only metastatic tissue was available (PFS: 5.8 vs 6.6 months, P=0.502; OS: 7.0 vs 7.8 months, P=0.452). In pts receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy cytoplasmic SPARC expression was significantly associated with an inferior PFS and OS (PFS: 6.2 vs 9.2 months, P=0.002; OS 7.3 vs 9.9 months, P=0.012), whereas no such association was detected for stromal SPARC expression or for pts receiving fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy., Conclusion: We identified cytoplasmic SPARC expression in the primary tumour as a biomarker associated with inferior PFS and OS in aPDAC. Cytoplasmic SPARC expression may furthermore act as a negative predictive biomarker in pts treated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Background: Drug-induced skin toxicity may correlate with treatment efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or biological agents. The correlation of the capecitabine-associated hand-foot skin reaction (HFS) on outcome parameters in pancreatic cancer (PC) has not yet been investigated., Methods: Within the multicentre phase III AIO-PK0104 trial, patients with confirmed advanced PC were randomly assigned to first-line treatment with either capecitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) or gemcitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). A cross-over to either gemcitabine (arm A) or capecitabine (arm B) was performed after failure of the first-line regimen. Data on skin toxicity were correlated with efficacy study endpoints using uni- and multivariate analyses. To control for guarantee-time bias (GTB), we focused on subgroup analyses of patients who had completed two and three or more treatment cycles., Results: Of 281 randomised patients, skin toxicity data were available for 255 patients. Median time to capecitabine-attributed HFS was two cycles, 36 of 47 (77%) HFS events had been observed by the end of treatment cycle three. Considering HFS during first-line treatment in 101 patients treated with capecitabine for at least two cycles within the capecitabine plus erlotinib arm, time to treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2) and overall survival (OS) both were significantly prolonged for the 44 patients (44%) with HFS compared to 57 patients without HFS (56%) (TTF2: 7.8 vs. 3.8 months, HR 0.50, p = 0.001; OS: 10.4 vs. 5.9 months, HR 0.55, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis of 70 patients on treatment with capecitabine for at least three cycles showed similar results (TTF2: 8.3 vs. 4.4 months, HR 0.53, p = 0.010; OS: 10.4 vs. 6.7 months, HR 0.62, p = 0.056)., Conclusion: The present subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104 suggests that HFS may serve as an independent clinical predictor for treatment outcome in capecitabine-treated patients with advanced PC.

Background: The role of pERK, pAKT and p53 as biomarkers in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has not yet been defined., Methods: Within the phase III study AIO-PK0104 281 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer received an erlotinib-based 1st-line regimen. Archival tissue from 153 patients was available for central immunohistochemistry staining for pERK, pAKT and p53. Within a subgroup analysis, biomarker data were correlated with efficacy endpoints and skin rash using a Cox regression model., Results: Fifty-five out of 153 patients were classified as pERKlow and 98 patients as pERKhigh; median overall survival (OS) was 6.2 months and 5.7 months, respectively (HR 1.29, p = 0.16). When analysing pERK as continuous variable, the pERK score was significantly associated with OS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.0-1.12, p = 0.05). Twenty-one of 35 patients were pAKTlow and 14/35 pAKThigh with a corresponding median OS of 6.4 months and 6.8 months, respectively (HR 1.03, p = 0.93). Four out of 50 patients had a complete loss of p53 expression, 20 patients a regular expression and 26 patients had tumors with p53 overexpression. The p53 status had no impact on OS (p = 0.91); however, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (6.0 vs 1.8 months, HR 0.24, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of skin rash (84% vs 25%, p = 0.02) was observed for patients with a regular p53 expression compared to patients with a complete loss of p53., Conclusion: pERK expression may have an impact on OS in erlotinib-treated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer; p53 should be further investigated for its potential role as a predictive marker for PFS and skin rash., Trial Registration: NCT00440167 (registration date: February 22, 2007).

For almost 15 years there has been stagnation in the systemic treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Recently, several developments seem to indicate clinically relevant improvements in the treatment of patients with metastatic disease. One of these developments is the introduction of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) into the firstline treatment of metastatic disease. In this review, underlying preclinical and clinical data are discussed, with a special focus on mechanisms of action, the potential interaction with albumin and calcium-binding matricellular glycoproteins, such as the secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC), as well as the clinical outcome associated with the use of nab-paclitaxel.

Objective: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine., Methods: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients., Results: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005)., Conclusion: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.

To date, only limited toxicity data are available for the combination of erlotinib with either capecitabine or gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Within a randomized phase III trial, 281 treatment-naive patients were randomly assigned between capecitabine (2000 mg/m/day, for 14 days, once every 3 weeks) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m as a 30-min infusion) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). In case of treatment failure, patients were crossed over to a second-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was the time to treatment failure of second-line therapy (TTF2). This interim analysis of toxicity contains safety data from the first 127 randomized patients. During first-line therapy, patients received a median number of three treatment cycles (range 0-13) in both the arms. Regarding chemotherapy, a treatment delay was observed in 12% of the cycles in arm A and in 22% of the cycles in arm B. Dose reductions of the cytostatic drug were performed in 18 and 27% of treatment cycles, respectively. Erlotinib dose reductions were performed in 6 and 11% of all cycles. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was <10% in both the arms; major grade 3/4 toxicities in arms A and B were diarrhea (9 vs. 7%), skin rash (4 vs. 12%), and hand-foot syndrome (7 vs. 0%). No treatment-related death was observed. In conclusion, this interim safety analysis suggests that treatment with erlotinib 150 mg/day is feasible in combination with capecitabine or gemcitabine.

Background: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer related death in Western countries. Advantages in surgical techniques, radiation and chemotherapy had almost no impact on the long term survival of affected patients. Therefore, the need for better treatment strategies is urgent. HER2, a receptor tyrosine kinase of the EGFR family, involved in signal transduction pathways leading to cell growth and differentiation is overexpressed in a number of cancers, including breast and pancreatic cancer. While in breast cancer HER2 has already been successfully used as a treatment target, there are only limited data evaluating the effects of inhibiting HER2 tyrosine kinases in patients with pancreatic cancer., Methods: Here we report the design of a prospective, non-randomized multi-centered Phase II clinical study evaluating the effects of the Fluoropyrimidine-carbamate Capecitabine (Xeloda) and the monoclonal anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab (Herceptin) in patients with non-resectable, HER2 overexpressing pancreatic cancer. Patients eligible for the study will receive Trastuzumab infusions on day 1, 8 and 15 concomitant to the oral intake of Capecitabine from day 1 to day 14 of each three week cycle. Cycles will be repeated until tumor progression. A total of 37 patients will be enrolled with an interim analysis after 23 patients., Discussion: Primary end point of the study is to determine the progression free survival after 12 weeks of bimodal treatment with the chemotherapeutic agent Capecitabine and the anti-HER2 antibody Trastuzumab. Secondary end points include patient's survival, toxicity analysis, quality of life, the correlation of HER2 overexpression and clinical response to Trastuzumab treatment and, finally, the correlation of CA19-9 plasma levels and progression free intervals.