Article

Gemcitabine Alone Versus Gemcitabine Plus Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial

Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, 980 West Walnut St, Suite C528, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 11/2011; 29(31):4105-12. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.8904
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the role of radiation therapy with concurrent gemcitabine (GEM) compared with GEM alone in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer.
Patients with localized unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (at 1,000 mg/m(2)/wk for weeks 1 to 6, followed by 1 week rest, then for 3 of 4 weeks) or GEM (600 mg/m(2)/wk for weeks 1 to 5, then 4 weeks later 1,000 mg/m(2) for 3 of 4 weeks) plus radiotherapy (starting on day 1, 1.8 Gy/Fx for total of 50.4 Gy). Measurement of quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary questionnaire was also performed.
Of 74 patients entered on trial and randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (arm A; n = 37) or GEM plus radiation (arm B; n = 34), patients in arm B had greater incidence of grades 4 and 5 toxicities (41% v 9%), but grades 3 and 4 toxicities combined were similar (77% in A v 79% in B). No statistical differences were seen in quality of life measurements at 6, 15 to 16, and 36 weeks. The primary end point was survival, which was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 11.4 months) and 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 15.5 months) for arms A and B, respectively (one-sided P = .017 by stratified log-rank test).
This trial demonstrates improved overall survival with the addition of radiation therapy to GEM in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer, with acceptable toxicity.

Full-text

Available from: David Cella, Jul 22, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
192 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic cancer is a disease with a poor prognosis usually diagnosed at a late stage. Therefore, screening, diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic cancer patients require up-to-date and evidence based management guidelines. The Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group proposed to prepare an evidence based guideline based on the available scientific evidence and international guidelines. The preparatory and consultation board appointed by the Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group translated and complemented/modified the recent international guidelines. 37 clinical statements in 10 major topics were defined (Risk factors and genetics, Screening, Diagnosis, Staging, Surgical care, Pathology, Systemic treatment, Radiation therapy, Palliation and supportive care, Follow-up and recurrence). Evidence was graded according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) grading system. The draft of the guideline was presented and discussed at the consensus meeting in September 12, 2014. Statements were accepted with either total (more than 95% of votes, n = 15) or strong agreement (more than 70% of votes, n = 22). The present guideline is the first evidence based pancreatic cancer guideline in Hungary that provides a solid ground for teaching purposes, offers quick reference in everyday patient care and guides patient financing options. The authors strongly believe that these guidelines will become a standard reference for pancreatic cancer treatment in Hungary. Orv. Hetil., 2015, 156(8), 326-339.
    Orvosi Hetilap 02/2015; 156(8):326-39. DOI:10.1556/OH.2015.30063
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to identify targets whose inhibition may enhance the efficacy of chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer, we previously conducted an RNAi library screen of 8,800 genes. We identified Mcl-1 (myeloid cell leukemia-1), an anti-apoptotic member of the Bcl-2 family, as a target for sensitizing pancreatic cancer cells to chemoradiation. In the present study we investigated Mcl-1 inhibition by either genetic or pharmacological approaches as a radiosensitizing strategy in pancreatic cancer cells. Mcl-1 depletion by siRNA produced significant radiosensitization in BxPC-3 and Panc-1 cells in association with Caspase-3 activation and PARP cleavage, but only minimal radiosensitization in MiaPaCa-2 cells. We next tested the ability of the recently identified, selective, small molecule inhibitor of Mcl-1, UMI77, to radiosensitize in pancreatic cancer cells. UMI77 caused dissociation of Mcl-1 from the pro-apoptotic protein Bak and produced significant radiosensitization in BxPC-3 and Panc-1 cells, but minimal radiosensitization in MiaPaCa-2 cells. Radiosensitization by UMI77 was associated with Caspase-3 activation and PARP cleavage. Importantly, UMI77 did not radiosensitize normal small intestinal cells. In contrast, ABT-737, an established inhibitor of Bcl-2, Bcl-XL, and Bcl-w, failed to radiosensitize pancreatic cancer cells suggesting the unique importance of Mcl-1 relative to other Bcl-2 family members to radiation survival in pancreatic cancer cells. Taken together, these results validate Mcl-1 as a target for radiosensitization of pancreatic cancer cells and demonstrate the ability of small molecules which bind the canonical BH3 groove of Mcl-1, causing displacement of Mcl-1 from Bak, to selectively radiosensitize pancreatic cancer cells. Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Survival in patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAUPC) is poor, and local recurrence continues to be a major problem in the management of this disease. Radiotherapy (RT) using different RT techniques, including intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), may lead to different clinical outcomes for patients with LAUPC. Here, we compared SBRT with IMRT for patients with LAUPC with respect to survival rate, local control (LC) rate, and toxicity-related dose distribution. This retrospective study from March 2007 to March 2011 included 41 patients with LAUPC who were divided into two groups, with 20 patients receiving SBRT and 21 patients receiving IMRT. The median follow-up time was 16 months. For the IMRT and SBRT groups, the median survival times were 13 and 20 months, and 1-year overall survival (OS) rates were 70.7 and 80.0%, respectively. There was no difference in OS between the two RT techniques. RT with SBRT showed significantly better local disease-free survival than IMRT for patients with LAUPC. Tobacco use had a borderline effect on LC. Thus, further statistical analysis showed that patients who used tobacco had better LC after receiving SBRT than IMRT. SBRT improved LC for LAUPC patients and had similar radiation toxicity compared with IMRT. Further study is required to define the effects of administered radiation dose and fractionation, as well as to further expand the sample size, to use a prospective study, and to observe the long-term efficacy of these techniques.