Oral capecitabine in gemcitabine-pretreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
ABSTRACT To date, no standard regimen for salvage chemotherapy after gemcitabine (Gem) failure has been defined for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Oral capecitabine (Cap) has shown promising activity in first-line chemotherapy trials in PC patients.
Within a prospective single-center study, Cap was offered to patients who had already received at least 1 previous treatment regimen containing full-dose Gem (as a single agent, as part of a combination chemotherapy regimen or sequentially within a chemoradiotherapy protocol). Cap was administered orally at a dose of 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days followed by 7 days of rest. Study endpoints were objective tumor response rate by imaging criteria (according to RECIST), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker response, time to progression, overall survival and toxicity.
A median of 3 treatment cycles (range 1-36) was given to 39 patients. After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, 27 patients were evaluable for response: no complete or partial responses were observed, but 15 patients (39%) had stable disease. A CA19-9 reduction of >20% after 2 cycles of Cap was documented in 6 patients (15%). Median time to progression was 2.3 months (range 0.5-45.1) and median overall survival (since start of Cap treatment) was 7.6 months (range 0.7-45.1). Predominant grade 2 and 3 toxicities (per patient analysis) were hand-foot syndrome 28% (13% grade 3); anemia 23%; leg edema 15%; diarrhea 13%; nausea/vomiting 10%, and leukocytopenia 10%.
Single-agent Cap is a safe treatment option for Gem-pretreated patients with advanced PC. Further evaluation of Cap in controlled clinical trials of Gem-pretreated patients with advanced PC is recommended.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is one of the deadliest solid malignancies. A large proportion of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease at the time of presentation and, unfortunately, this severely limits the number of patients who can undergo surgical resection, which offers the only chance for cure. Recent therapeutic advances for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have extended overall survival, but prognosis still remains grim. Given that traditional chemotherapy is ineffective in curing advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, current research is taking a multidirectional approach in the hopes of developing more effective treatments. This article reviews the major clinical trial data that is the basis for the current chemotherapy regimens used as first- and second-line treatments for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We also review the current ongoing clinical trials, which include the use of agents targeting the oncogenic network signaling of K-Ras, agents targeting the extracellular matrix, and immune therapies.03/2015; 7(2). DOI:10.1177/1758834014564775
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While an increasing number of therapeutic options are now available for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, the optimal choice for treatment in the second-line setting and beyond is less well defined. A variety of cytotoxic agents, either alone or in combination, have been evaluated, although primarily in the context of small single-arm or retrospective studies. Most regimens have been associated with median progression-free survival rates in the range of 2-4 mo and overall survival rates between 4-8 mo, highlighting the very poor prognosis of patients who are candidates for such treatment. Targeted therapies studied in this chemotherapy-refractory setting, meanwhile, have produced even worse efficacy results. In the current article, we review the clinical evidence for treatment of refractory disease, primarily in patients who have progressed on front-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. In the process, we highlight the limitations of the available data to date as well as some of the challenges in designing appropriate clinical trials in this salvage setting, including how to select an appropriate control arm given the absence of a well-established reference standard, and the importance of incorporating predictive biomarkers and quality of life measures whenever possible into study design.World Journal of Gastroenterology 03/2014; 20(9):2224-2236. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2224 · 2.43 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Docetaxel and capecitabine combination is synergistic in preclinical models. We investigated the efficacy and toxicity of this combination as second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC), pretreated with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Eligible patients were treated with capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) orally PO bid on days 1-14 in combination with intravenous docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall response rate. Using a three-stage sequential design, two interim analyses for early stopping due to lack of efficacy were planned and conducted after 13 and 26 patients were accrued. Secondary end points included time to treatment failure, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and 50 % drop in CA19-9 levels. Forty-three patients were evaluable for toxicity and 42 evaluable for response, at a median age of 64 years. The majority of patients (74 %) had ECOG PS 0-1. Six patients (14 %) achieved a partial tumor response, and stable disease for ≥2 cycles was observed in 59 % of patients (n = 25). Thirty-five percent (n = 11/31) of patients had a ≥50 % decrease in CA19-9 levels. The median PFS was 3.7 months (95 % CI 2.1-4.3 months), and the median OS was 5.3 months (95 % CI 4.3-8.6 months). Treatment was generally well tolerated. Grade 3 toxicity and grade 4 toxicity were seen in 45 and 5 % of patients, respectively. One patient had a potential treatment-related mortality. The combination of capecitabine and docetaxel is active and well tolerated in mPC patients pretreated with gemcitabine-based therapy.Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 02/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00280-014-2414-z · 2.80 Impact Factor