Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Phase II Trial to Evaluate Gemcitabine and Etoposide for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Marianne K. Melnik, Craig P. Webb, Patrick J. Richardson, et al. Mol Cancer Ther 2010;9:2423-2429. Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010. Updated version Supplementary Material Cited Articles E-mail alerts Reprints and Subscriptions Permissions Access the most recent version of this article at: doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Access the most recent supplemental material at: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/suppl/2010/08/03/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854.DC1.html This article cites by 43 articles, 20 of which you can access for free at: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/9/8/2423.full.html#ref-list-1 Sign up to receive free email-alerts related to this article or journal. To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications Department at [email protected]. To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, contact the AACR Publications Department at [email protected]. Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Molecular Medicine in Practice Phase II Trial to Evaluate Gemcitabine and Etoposide for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Marianne K. Melnik1,2,3, Craig P. Webb4, Patrick J. Richardson4, Charles R. Luttenton1,2, Alan D. Campbell1,2, Thomas J. Monroe2, Timothy J. O'Rourke1,2, Kathleen J. Yost1,2, Connie M. Szczepanek1, Michelle R. Bassett4, Kimberly J. Truszkowski3, Phyllis Stein1, Matthew W. Van Brocklin4, Alan T. Davis3, Gabriela Bedolla2, George F. Vande Woude4, and Han-Mo Koo4 † Abstract Prior studies suggest that tumor cell lines harboring RAS mutations display remarkable sensitivity to gemcitabine and etoposide. In a phase II clinical trial of patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, we evaluated the response rate to a combination of these drugs. Forty chemo-naïve patients with nonresectable and histologically confirmed pancreatic cancer were accrued. Patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) and etoposide 80 mg/m2 (days 8, 9, and 10; 21-day cycle). The primary end point was radiological response rate. Secondary objectives were determination of overall survival, response duration (time to progression), quality of life, toxicity, and CA 19-9 biomarker response. In 35 evaluable patients, 10 exhibited a radiological partial response and 12 had stable disease in response to treatment. Twenty patients exhibited a >20% decrease in CA 19-9 biomarker levels. Median overall survival was 6.7 months for all patients (40) and 7.2 months for evaluable patients (35). Notably, four patients survived for longer than 1 year, with two patients surviving for more than 2 years. Median time to progression for evaluable patients was 3.1 months. The median overall survival for locally advanced patients was 8.8 months and 6.75 months for metastatic patients. One-year survival was 10% for all patients and 11.4% for evaluable patients. Quality of life improved in 12 patients and remained stable in 3 of the evaluable patients. The primary dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic toxicity and fatigue. These results show that the gemcitabine and etoposide combination is generally well-tolerated and exhibits a response rate similar to other published studies. Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8); 2423–9. ©2010 AACR. Introduction Although pancreatic cancer accounts for just 3% of new cancer cases in the United States, it is the fourth leading cause of all cancer deaths (1). The American Cancer Society predicted that in 2009, ∼42,470 people in the United States would be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and about 35,240 would succumb (1). At the time of diagnosis, 96% to 99% of the patients have incurable disease with a median survival of less than 1 year (1). Despite multiple clinical trials with new chemotherapeutic approaches and more aggressive surgery, the 5-year survival rate remains a dismal 5%, with only ∼25% of Authors' Affiliations: 1 Grand Rapids Clinical Oncology Program, 2Spectrum Health, 3Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; and 4Van Andel Research Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan Note: Supplementary material for this article is available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/). M.K. Melnik and C.P. Webb contributed equally to this work. † Deceased. Corresponding Author: Marianne K. Melnik, 100 Michigan Northeast, no. 012, Grand Rapids, MI 49503. Phone: 616-486-6333; Fax: 616486-6399. E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 ©2010 American Association for Cancer Research. all cases being potentially surgically resectable. Of the resectable cancers, the 5-year survival rate remains low at only 5% to 20%. Treatment with single-agent gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer has shown a marginal survival benefit, but notably, has exhibited improvement in diseaserelated symptoms (2–4). 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)–based therapies combined with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiation therapy have shown a potential minimal survival benefit as adjuvant therapy after surgical resection (5). A number of other trials have been conducted with variable response and overall survival rates, with none resulting in a significant, complete response rate (6–29). Recently, the Food and Drug Administration approved erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced, inoperable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer due to its ability to improve overall survival by 23% (hazard ratio, 0.81; ref. 30). However, the long-term survival for advanced disease remains extremely poor. It is well established that certain molecular features of neoplastic cells correlate with their sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents and could therefore be used as a basis for drug selection and therapeutic design. In relation to the current study, Koo and colleagues observed a correlation between activating RAS mutations in cancer cell lines and enhanced sensitivity to the cytotoxic agents, cytosine www.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. 2423 Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Melnik et al. cytarabine and gemcitabine (an analogue of cytarabine; ref. 31). Similarly, they found that tumor cell lines harboring RAS oncogenes are more sensitive to topoisomerase II inhibitors, particularly to epipodophyllotoxin-derived inhibitors such as etoposide and teniposide (31–33). These studies suggested that tumors harboring activating RAS mutations (such as carcinoma of the pancreas, colon, and lung) might be particularly sensitive to these chemotherapeutic agents. In support of this hypothesis, the presence of oncogenic RAS in acute myeloid leukemic cells was associated with an increased rate of complete remission, prolonged duration of complete remission, and improved overall survival of patients in response to treatment with high-dose cytarabine (34, 35). Activating RAS mutations are one of the most common gain-of-function mutations found in human cancer, and are present in over 90% of pancreatic cancers (36). Based on the high frequency of activating RAS mutations found in pancreatic cancers and the preferential sensitivity of RAStransformed cells to gemcitabine and etoposide, we designed a phase II trial to evaluate the response/efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine and etoposide combination therapy in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of the duration of response (time to progression), CA 19-9 biomarker response, overall survival, and quality of life (QOL), as well as the toxicity profile of this two-drug regimen. KRAS codon 12 and 13 mutation analysis was done on a subset of patient tumors to determine any association between the presence and prevalence of KRAS mutations and tumor response. Materials and Methods Patient enrollment To evaluate the stated objectives of the study, the Grand Rapids Clinical Oncology Program was engaged to provide clinical management and oversight for this trial. After obtaining institutional review board approval, patients were enrolled in this study beginning in March 2002, and continuing through October 2005. For our analysis, 40 patients were enrolled at four of the Grand Rapids Clinical Oncology Program member sites: Spectrum Health (Grand Rapids), Saint Mary's Health Care, Munson Medical Center, and Battle Creek Health System (see Table 1 for general patient demographics). A clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was confirmed by cytologic or histologic analysis from biopsy material. All patients enrolled had unresectable tumors and were chemo-naïve. Five patients received 5-FU as a radiation sensitizer. No other patients received therapeutic radiation. Pretreatment evaluation required uni-dimensional computerized tomography measurements of target lesions (as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors standards), baseline CA 19-9 values and a QOL assessment as measured by the “quality of life” form, BRE 43 (adapted with permission from the Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, Nashville, TN). Although unverified, the 2424 Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 Table 1. Patient demographics (all patients) Age Median (range) Gender Male Female Karnofsky performance status 90–100% 70–89% 50–69% Disease state Locally advanced Metastatic 61.4 (28.2–78.7) 19 21 19 20 1 7 33 BRE 43 QOL form is similar to the verified European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 QOL questionnaire (Supplementary Form 1). Questions asked included basic performance status questions, associated health issues, pain level, mental status questions, and treatment effect on family and social life. QOL was determined to be an important measure to include, to ascertain whether adding etoposide in combination with gemcitabine diminished the QOL in this patient population. A Karnofsky performance status of ≥50% was required to be eligible for the study. A total of eight cycles (21 days per cycle) were to be administered to each patient (Table 2). When gemcitabine and etoposide were administered sequentially on the same day (day 8), gemcitabine was infused first. Toxicity was assessed on days 1 and 8 of every cycle, using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria v2.0. Clinical response was based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors standards obtained through two independent radiological interpretations. All responses were confirmed by independent radiologic review (evaluations were conducted every two cycles by computerized tomography scan measurements of target lesions). Responders were identified as those patients achieving complete response or partial response (PR) during the course of the trial. Blood serum CA 19-9 levels were measured following every cycle. Patients who exhibited a response were allowed to continue treatment beyond the eight cycles until disease progression occurred or patients elected to discontinue treatment. KRAS codon 12 and 13 analysis Codons 12 and 13 of the KRAS (v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue) gene were examined by pyrosequencing on a PyroMarkQ24 instrument (Qiagen). H&E-stained slides were reviewed by a pathologist and areas containing high tumor content were selected for DNA extraction from the corresponding paraffinembedded tissue. To increase the sensitivity of the mutant RAS assay, cold PCR was used as described by Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Gemcitabine and Etoposide for Pancreatic Cancer Zuo et al. (37) using PyroMark KRAS v2.0 reagents (Qiagen) followed by pyrosequencing as specified by the manufacturer. Statistical analysis The data were analyzed using SAS/STAT software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute). Kaplan-Meier survival curves along with median survival times and their corresponding confidence intervals were analyzed using the LIFETEST procedure. The log rank test was used to calculate survival differences. Demographic data were analyzed using the means and univariate procedures. Proportions for the toxicity data, as well as their corresponding confidence intervals, were analyzed using the FREQ procedure. CA 19-9 levels and their predictive ability on radiologic response were analyzed using the LOGISTIC procedure. A two-sided P value of 0.05 was used for all statistical hypotheses. Results Of the 40 patients accrued to this clinical trial, 7 had locally advanced disease, whereas 33 had metastatic disease. Five patients were unevaluable due to progression of disease before cycle 2, with one death occurring from an unrelated cause, thus providing 35 evaluable patients (Table 3). Median overall survival for all patients was 6.7 months (4.5–8.1), and 7.2 months (5.5–8.8) for the evaluable patients. The 1-year overall survival was 10% (3.2– 21.5) for all patients and 11.4% (3.6–24) in the evaluable patients (Table 3). Of the 35 evaluable patients, 10 (28.6%) exhibited a PR, 12 (34.3%) had stable disease (SD) and 13 (37.1%) had progressive disease (PD; Table 3). Survival curves were significantly different for patients based on their radiological best-observed response by log rank test (P = 0.0012). For those evaluable patients classified as partial responders, the median time to progression was 3.1 months (1.4–9.3; Fig. 1). Within individual response categories, it was shown that survival times for PR patients were significantly improved relative to patients exhibiting PD (P = 0.0007, Fig. 1). Notably, two patients survived over 2 years, the longest surviving 32.8 months, and 2 patients survived over 1 year. The median overall survival for the locally advanced patients was 8.8 months (6–14.8), and 6.75 months (4.5–8.1) for the metastatic patients (P = 0.09). One-year survival differences between metastatic and locally advanced groups were not significantly different (P = 0.4995). No significant survival difference was observed between patients exhibiting PR and those with SD (P = 0.0748). Additionally, there was no significant difference between the number of patients achieving PR or SD between locally advanced and metastatic disease subsets (P = 0.62). Using the LOGISTIC procedure in SAS/STAT 9.2, the predictive ability of CA 19-9 levels on radiologic response was investigated. CA 19-9 levels were recorded at baseline and immediately after every cycle (every 21 days). A >20% drop in CA 19-9 from baseline was used as the threshold of response (38, 39). We observed a >20% decrease in the CA 19-9 level relative to baseline in 20 (57%) evaluable patients. In general, there was a more robust CA 19-9 response in patients exhibiting either PR or SD (data not shown). We found that the overall change in CA 19-9 from baseline level to end of study was a significant predictor of radiologic response (P = 0.048). Additionally, patients showing a >20% decrease in CA 19-9 levels from baseline to end point had approximately five times higher odds of showing radiologic response than patients who did not experience such a decrease (odds ratio, 4.9). Patients who experienced a >20% drop at any point during the study relative to baseline had ∼11 times higher odds of showing radiological response (odds ratio, 11.4). This was also shown to be a significant predictor of radiologic response (P = 0.03). QOL improved in 12 (35%) of the evaluable patients and remained stable in 3 (8.8%; Table 3). The two most commonly observed dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic toxicity and fatigue (Table 4). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was seen in 26 (74%) of the evaluable patients. Grade 2/3 fatigue was observed in 21 patients (60%). Nine patients died during study treatment or within 30 days of discontinuing treatment because of PD or disease-related complications. Of these nine patients, all were discontinued due to PD, with three patients having associated complications including pleural effusion, recurring strokes, and pain control issues, respectively. Of the remaining evaluable patients, 20 patients were eventually discontinued due to PD. The results of our trial showed an overall response rate of 28%, which compares well with response rates reported in other clinical studies ranging from 4.1% to 33% (Table 5). Table 2. Treatment plan Dose schedule Gemcitabine Etoposide Premedication Growth factor support www.aacrjournals.org 2-wk treatment and 1-wk rest schedule (21-d cycle) 1,000 mg/m2 over 30 min in 250 mL normal saline on days 1 and 8 of a 21-d cycle 80 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 h in 250 mL normal saline on days 8, 9, and 10 of a 21-d cycle Dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. and a serotonin uptake inhibitor (granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron) prior to each chemotherapy treatment. Other premedications at the discretion of the investigator Discretion of the treatment physician Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. 2425 Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Melnik et al. Table 3. Response and survival data of the study population Characteristic Chemo-naïve patients* Median survival† 1-y survival Evaluable patients PR SD PD 1-y survival Median time to progression CA 19-9 >20% decrease Survival (months) Median Minimum Maximum QOL improved†† QOL stable Overall Metastatic Locally advanced 40 6.7 (4.5–8.1) mo 10% (3.2–21.5) 35 28.6% (14.6–46.3) 34.3% (19-52) 37.1% (21.5–55.1) 11.4% (3.6–24) 3.1 (1.4–9.3) 20 (57.1%) 33 5.5 (3.2–7.7) 6% (1–17.6) 28 25% (11-45) 35.7% (18.6–56) 39.3% (21.5–59.4) 7% (1-20) 2.8 (1.2–15) 15 (53.6%) 7 8.8 (6–14.8)‡ 14.3% (1-46)§ 7 43% (10-82) 28.6% (3.6–71) 28.4% (3.7–70.1) 14.3% (1-46)∥ 4.2 (1.4–9.3)¶ 5 (71.4%) 7.2 (5.5–8.8) 2.0 32.8 12 (35%) 3 (8.8%) 6.75 (4.5–8.1) 2.0 28 11 (40.7%) 2 (7.4%) 8.8 (6–14.8)** 6.0 32.8 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) *Except 5-FU as a radiosensitizer. 95% confidence intervals shown in parentheses. ‡ Log rank test (P = 0.09). § Fishers exact test (P = 0.4478). ∥ Fishers exact test (P = 0.4995). ¶ Log rank test (P = 0.7016). **Log rank test (P = 0.1577). †† Based on patient survey. † To further characterize the potential association between the presence of an activating RAS mutation and clinical response to gemcitabine/etoposide, archival tissue available from 17 patients was screened for KRAS mutations by pyrosequencing as described in Materials and Methods. Fifteen patient tumors were shown to carry exclusive single base substitutions in either position 1 or position 2 of codon 12 (Supplementary Table S1). KRAS mutations were not identified in either codon 12 or 13 in two patients (both classified as nonresponders; PD). The relative percentage of mutation burden varied greatly (6–95%) in KRAS-positive tumors (Supplementary Table S1). Interestingly, although not statistically significant [P = 0.06 (PR-PD), P = 0.14 (SD-PD), P = 0.57 (SD-PR), pairwise Wilcoxon tests], there was a general positive trend between tumors harboring a Figure 1. Response and survival rates for all 35 evaluable patients. Overall survival rates over time for each response category; difference in survival time of PR versus PD was statistically significant (P = 0.0007). 2426 Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Gemcitabine and Etoposide for Pancreatic Cancer Table 4. Most commonly occurring toxicities as reported by patient population Adverse event Alopecia Constipation Fatigue Hematologic Nausea Sensory neuropathy Vomiting Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Overall MET LA Overall MET LA Overall MET LA Overall MET LA 22.9 17.1 22.9 8.6 45.7 8.6 14.3 25.0 21.4 21.4 10.7 50.0 10.7 14.3 14.3 0 28.6 0 28.6 0 14.3 57.1 17.1 37.1 14.3 17.1 0 11.4 57.1 21.4 39.3 17.9 14.3 0 14.3 57.1 0 28.6 0 28.6 0 0 — 11.4 22.9 28.6 8.6 0 5.7 — 7.1 21.4 25 7.1 0 3.6 — 28.6 28.6 42.9 14.3 0 14.3 — 0 0 45.7 0 0 0 — 0 0 42.9 0 0 0 — 0 0 57.1 0 0 0 NOTE: Values given are percentages of patients. Abbreviations: LA, locally advanced; MET, metastatic. higher percentage of KRAS-positive cells and radiological tumor response [mean values for PR (70.1), SD (51.2), and PD (21.8)]. Discussion RAS mutations are found in >90% of pancreatic cancers (36). Koo et al. (31, 32) observed a striking correlation between activating RAS mutations in human tumor cells and enhanced sensitivity to deoxycytidine analogues as well as to topoisomerase II inhibitors. Thus, human cell lines harboring activated RAS oncogenes display enhanced cytotoxicity to deoxycytidine analogues, including 1-β-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine (cytarabine) and gemcitabine, and especially to topoisomerase II inhibitors. The presence of RAS oncogenes in acute myeloid leukemia is associated with increased complete remission rate, longer complete remission duration, and improved overall survival in patients treated with cytarabine or the Table 5. Comparative studies using chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer Drugs Gemcitabine + cisplatin Gemcitabine Gemcitabine 5-FU + strep + cisplat + LV/5-FU Docetaxel Gemcitabine + docetaxel Gemcitabine Cetuximab + gemcitabine Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin Gemcitabine + 5-FU Gemcitabine + 5-FU 5-FU + trimetrexate + leucovorin (NFL) Gemcitabine Irinotecan + gemcitabine phase 2 Irinotecan + gemcitabine phase 3 Gemcitabine + docetaxel Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin Erlotinib + gemcitabine Rubitecan Bevacizumab + gemcitabine Gemcitabine + capecitabine Gemcitabine + capecitabine Gemcitabine + etoposide www.aacrjournals.org Response rate (%) 26 27 24 33 15 27 12 12 30.6 19 7 4.1 11 24 16 27 27 8.6 7 21 18.9 25 28.6 Author Reference Phillip et al. Rothenberg et al. Burris et al. Martin et al. Rougier et al. Sherman et al. Crino et al. Xiong et al. Louvet et al. Kanat et al. Oliani et al. Garcia et al. Moriwaki et al. Rocha Lima et al. Rocha Lima Schneider et al. Louvet et al. Zuo et al. Burris et al. Kindler et al. Stathopoulos et al. Heinemann Melnik (18) (22) (7) (15) (23) (25) (9) (28, 29) (13, 14) (11) (17) (10) (16) (21) (20) (24) (13, 14) (37) (8) (12) (26) (2) Reported herein Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. 2427 Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Melnik et al. combination of cytarabine and a topoisomerase II inhibitor (34, 40). Collectively, the Koo et al. (31, 32) and Neubauer et al. (34, 35) studies provide a rationale for the combination therapy of gemcitabine and etoposide in the pancreatic cancer study that we describe here. We tested the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in patients who presented with nonresectable pancreatic cancer (41) and are particularly encouraged, both by the trend in patient response (Supplementary Table S1), as well as by the studies of Neubauer et al. (34, 35), showing a more favorable response in patients with acute myeloid leukemia harboring RAS-activating mutations. This combination has shown significant activity against non–small cell lung cancers (42), which also displays frequent RAS mutations (41). None of the studies thus far provide an explanation for why oncogenic RAS enhances sensitivity to cytarabine/gemcitabine and anthracycline/etoposide. In the pancreatic cancer patient group for which tissue was available for KRAS mutation analysis, a trend was found between radiologic response and degree of KRAS expression. Moreover, in this group, the longest survivor (28 months) showed the highest degree of KRAS mutation (95%). These findings provide intriguing support for the earlier data of Koo et al. (32), linking mutant KRAS expression with increased sensitivity to gemcitabine and etoposide in vitro. It further suggests that future clinical investigation in this area should include, in addition to more detailed study of KRAS expression as it relates to clinical response and survival, a comparison of this regimen with standard gemcitabine. It seems possible that greater KRAS expression could identify patient subpopulations with significant sensitivity to this regimen. It would be desirable to include a gene-targeting drug such as erlotinib, which was recently approved for pancreatic cancer (30), with gemcitabine plus an additional agent such as etoposide or cisplatin, anticipating that the loss of receptor tyrosine kinase activity would enhance the tumor sensitivity to chemotherapy agents. Our clinical trial showed a response rate of 28%, which compares well with the response rates reported in other clinical studies ranging from 4.1% to 33% (Table 5). In our clinical trial, the 1-year survival rate was 11.4% (Table 3). Notably, two patients survived for more than 2 years and a total of four patients (11.4%) survived for more than 1 year. As in most other studies, dose-limiting toxicities were primarily hematologic toxicity and fatigue, but were manageable (Table 4). On the basis of observed toxicities, especially neutropenia, growth factor support was added at the discretion of the clinician and should be strongly considered when this combination therapy is used. QOL was generally described as favorable, with improvements reported in 35% of evaluable patients. This compares favorably with early studies of gemcitabine that showed improvement in clinical benefit response in 28% of patients treated with gemcitabine alone (43). Thus, the combination of gemcitabine and etoposide is generally well-tolerated and exhibits a response rate similar to other published studies (Table 5). Based on the results of this study, follow-up phase II clinical trials comparing or combining this combination with new agents targeting molecular vulnerabilities identified in pancreatic cancer (44) are warranted. An interesting finding in this study is the remarkable overall survival seen in four patients, with two surviving more than 2 years, suggesting that specific molecular subsets might exist that are particularly sensitive to this regimen. Thus, follow-up trials should include correlative studies to determine whether the molecular traits of individual patients and/or their tumors, including the RAS mutation status, could be associated with differential therapeutic responses and outcomes. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest G.F. Vande Woude: Consultant/advisory board. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Acknowledgments Han-Mo Koo, Ph.D., a brilliant scientist responsible for the preclinical data and instrumental in the development of this protocol, sadly suffered an untimely death in the midst of this study, succumbing to an aggressive NK T-cell lymphoma. He remains sorrowfully missed. Grant Support This study was supported entirely by a generous grant (B9E-US-X360) through Eli Lilly and Company. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Received 09/11/2009; revised 05/21/2010; accepted 05/21/2010; published OnlineFirst 08/03/2010. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 2428 Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71–96. Heinemann V. Gemcitabine: progress in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Oncology 2001;60:8–18. Noble S, Goa KL. Gemcitabine. A review of its pharmacology and clinical potential in non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. Drugs 1997;54:447–72. Oettle H, Arnold D, Hempel C, Riess H. The role of gemcitabine alone and in combination in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Drugs 2000;11:771–86. Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 5. 6. 7. Moertel CG, Frytak S, Hahn RG, et al. Therapy of locally unresectable pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized comparison of high dose (6000 rads) radiation alone, moderate dose radiation (4000 rads + 5-fluorouracil), and high dose radiation + 5-fluorouracil: The Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Cancer 1981;48:1705–10. Abad A, Massuti B, Blanco E, et al. Seventy-two hour epirubicin infusion plus quinidine in unresectable and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: a phase II trial. Am J Clin Oncol 1998;21:151–4. Burris HA III, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. Published OnlineFirst August 3, 2010; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0854 Gemcitabine and Etoposide for Pancreatic Cancer 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2403–13. Burris HA III, Rivkin S, Reynolds R, et al. Phase II trial of oral rubitecan in previously treated pancreatic cancer patients. Oncologist 2005;10:183–90. Crino L, Mosconi AM, Calandri C, et al. Gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase II trial. Am J Clin Oncol 2001;24:296–8. Garcia AA, Leichman L, Baranda J, Pandit L, Lenz HJ, Leichman CG. Phase II clinical trial of 5-fluorouracil, trimetrexate, and leucovorin (NFL) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 2003;34:79–86. Kanat O, Evrensel T, Kurt E, et al. Treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer with a combination of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil: a single center phase II study. Tumori 2004;90:192–5. Kindler HL, Friberg G, Singh DA, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8033–40. Louvet C, Andre T, Lledo G, et al. Gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: final results of a GERCOR multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1512–8. Louvet C, Labianca R, Hammel P, et al. Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a GERCOR and GISCAD phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3509–16. Martin JL, Harvey HA, Lipton A, Martin R. Combined chemoradiotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1999;22:309–14. Moriwaki T, Hyodo I, Nishina T, et al. Clinical study of gemcitabine therapy for recurrent or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2004;31:1373–6. Oliani C, Padovani M, Manno P, et al. Gemcitabine and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: a phase I-II study. Anticancer Res 2004;24:2107–12. Philip PA, Zalupski MM, Vaitkevicius VK, et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2001;92:569–77. Rich T, Harris J, Abrams R, et al. Phase II study of external irradiation and weekly paclitaxel for nonmetastatic, unresectable pancreatic cancer: RTOG-98–12. Am J Clin Oncol 2004;27:51–6. Rocha Lima CM, Green MR, Rotche R, et al. Irinotecan plus gemcitabine results in no survival advantage compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer despite increased tumor response rate. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3776–83. Rocha Lima CM, Savarese D, Bruckner H, et al. Irinotecan plus gemcitabine induces both radiographic and CA 19-9 tumor marker responses in patients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1182–91. Rothenberg ML, Moore MJ, Cripps MC, et al. A phase II trial of gemcitabine in patients with 5-FU-refractory pancreas cancer. Ann Oncol 1996;7:347–53. Rougier P, Adenis A, Ducreux M, et al. A phase II study: docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1016–25. Schneider BP, Ganjoo KN, Seitz DE, et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine plus docetaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: a Hoosier Oncology Group study. Oncology 2003;65:218–23. Sherman WH, Fine RL. Combination gemcitabine and docetaxel therapy in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Oncology 2001;60:316–21. Stathopoulos GP, Syrigos K, Polyzos A, et al. Front-line treatment of www.aacrjournals.org 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. inoperable or metastatic pancreatic cancer with gemcitabine and capecitabine: an intergroup, multicenter, phase II study. Ann Oncol 2004;15:224–9. Tempero M, Plunkett W, Ruiz Van Haperen V, et al. Randomized phase II comparison of dose-intense gemcitabine: thirty-minute infusion and fixed dose rate infusion in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3402–8. Xiong HQ, Plunkett W, Wolff R, Du M, Lenzi R, Abbruzzese JL. A pharmacological study of celecoxib and gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2005; 55:559–64. Xiong HQ, Rosenberg A, LoBuglio A, et al. Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, in combination with gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer: a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2610–6. Genentech USA Inc. Non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer treatment 2008. Available from: http://www.tarceva.com. Koo HM, Monks A, Mikheev A, et al. Enhanced sensitivity to 1-β-Darabinofuranosylcytosine and topoisomerase II inhibitors in tumor cell lines harboring activated ras oncogenes. Cancer Res 1996;56: 5211–6. Koo HM, Gray-Goodrich M, Kohlhagen G, et al. The ras oncogenemediated sensitization of human cells to topoisomerase II inhibitorinduced apoptosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:236–44. Vande Woude GF, Kelloff GJ, Ruddon RW, et al. Reanalysis of cancer drugs: old drugs, new tricks. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3897–907. Neubauer A, Dodge RK, George SL, et al. Prognostic importance of mutations in the ras proto-oncogenes in de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 1994;83:1603–11. Neubauer A, Maharry K, Mrozek K, et al. Patients with acute myeloid leukemia and RAS mutations benefit most from postremission high-dose cytarabine: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4603–9. Barbacid M. ras oncogenes: their role in neoplasia. Eur J Clin Invest 1990;20:225–35. Zuo Z, Chen S, Chandra PK, et al. Application of COLD-PCR for improved detection of KRAS mutations in clinical samples. Mod Pathol 2009;22:1023–31. Halm U, Schumann T, Schiefke I, Witzigmann H, Mossner J, Keim V. Decrease of CA 19-9 during chemotherapy with gemcitabine predicts survival time in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1013–6. Maisey NR, Norman AR, Hill A, Massey A, Oates J, Cunningham D. CA19-9 as a prognostic factor in inoperable pancreatic cancer: the implication for clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2005;93:740–3. Coghlan DW, Morley AA, Matthews JP, Bishop JF. The incidence and prognostic significance of mutations in codon 13 of the N-ras gene in acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 1994;8:1682–7. Bos JL. ras oncogenes in human cancer: a review. Cancer Res 1989; 49:4682–9. Biesma B, Smit EF, Postmus PE. A dose and schedule finding study of gemcitabine and etoposide in patients with progressive non-small cell lung cancer after platinum containing chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 1999;24:115–21. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared to gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG). J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1960–6. Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 2008;321:1801–6. Mol Cancer Ther; 9(8) August 2010 Downloaded from mct.aacrjournals.org on April 4, 2014. © 2010 American Association for Cancer Research. 2429