18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      A Phase Ib Study of NUC-1031 in Combination with Cisplatin for the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC-08)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cisplatin/gemcitabine is standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC). NUC-1031 (phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine) is designed to enhance efficacy by maximizing intratumoral active metabolites.

          Methods

          Patients with untreated ABC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 received NUC-1031 (625 or 725 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. Primary objectives were safety and maximum tolerated dose; secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), pharmacokinetics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

          Results

          Twenty-one patients (median age 61 years, n = 13 male; 17 cholangiocarcinoma, 2 ampullary, and 2 gallbladder cancer) received NUC-1031 625 mg/m2 (n = 8 and expansion n = 7; median six cycles) or 725 mg/m2 (n = 6; median 7.5 cycles). Treatment was well tolerated; most common treatment-emergent grade 3–4 adverse events occurring in more than one patient with 625 mg/m2 NUC-1031 were increased gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), 40%; alanine aminotransferase, 20%; bilirubin, 13%; neutropenia, 27%; decreased white cell count, 20%; thrombocytopenia, 13%; nausea, 13%; diarrhea, 13%; fatigue, 13%; and thrombus, 20% and with 725 mg/m2, increased GGT, 67%, and fatigue, 33%. NUC-1031 725 mg/m2 was selected as the recommended dose with cisplatin in ABC. ORR was 33% (one complete response, six partial responses), DCR was 76%, median PFS was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–10.1), and median OS was 9.6 months (95% CI, 6.7–13.1). The median estimates of area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to last measurable time and maximum concentration were highest for NUC-1031 (218–324 μg•h/mL and 309–889 μg/mL, respectively) and lowest for di-fluoro-deoxycytidine (0.47–1.56 μg•h/mL and 0.284–0.522 μg/mL, respectively).

          Conclusion

          This is the first study reporting on the combination of NUC-1031 with cisplatin in ABC and demonstrated a favorable safety profile; 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin is undergoing phase III trial evaluation in ABC. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02351765; EudraCT ID: 2015-000100-26).

          Implications for Practice

          The prognosis for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) is approximately 1 year, and new treatment options are required. The cisplatin/gemcitabine combination is standard first-line treatment for patients with ABC. NUC-1031 is a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine and is designed to enhance efficacy by maximizing intratumoral active metabolites. This phase Ib study (ABC-08) demonstrated a favorable safety profile of NUC-1031 in combination with cisplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with ABC, and 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 was recommended in combination with cisplatin for phase III trial evaluation; the NuTide:121 global randomized study is currently enrolling.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer.

            There is no established standard chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. We initially conducted a randomized, phase 2 study involving 86 patients to compare cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine alone. After we found an improvement in progression-free survival, the trial was extended to the phase 3 trial reported here. We randomly assigned 410 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampullary cancer to receive either cisplatin (25 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for eight cycles) or gemcitabine alone (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks for six cycles) for up to 24 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. After a median follow-up of 8.2 months and 327 deaths, the median overall survival was 11.7 months among the 204 patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 8.1 months among the 206 patients in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group and 5.0 months in the gemcitabine-only group (P<0.001). In addition, the rate of tumor control among patients in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group was significantly increased (81.4% vs. 71.8%, P=0.049). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, with the exception of more neutropenia in the cisplatin-gemcitabine group; the number of neutropenia-associated infections was similar in the two groups. As compared with gemcitabine alone, cisplatin plus gemcitabine was associated with a significant survival advantage without the addition of substantial toxicity. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with advanced biliary cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262769.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genomic spectra of biliary tract cancer.

              The incidence of biliary tract cancer (BTC), including intrahepatic (ICC) and extrahepatic (ECC) cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, has increased globally; however, no effective targeted molecular therapies have been approved at the present time. Here we molecularly characterized 260 BTCs and uncovered spectra of genomic alterations that included new potential therapeutic targets. Gradient spectra of mutational signatures with a higher burden of the APOBEC-associated mutation signature were observed in gallbladder cancer and ECC. Thirty-two significantly altered genes, including ELF3, were identified, and nearly 40% of cases harbored targetable genetic alterations. Gene fusions involving FGFR2 and PRKACA or PRKACB preferentially occurred in ICC and ECC, respectively, and the subtype-associated prevalence of actionable growth factor-mediated signals was noteworthy. The subgroup with the poorest prognosis had significant enrichment of hypermutated tumors and a characteristic elevation in the expression of immune checkpoint molecules. Accordingly, immune-modulating therapies might also be potentially promising options for these patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Oncologist
                Wiley
                1083-7159
                1549-490X
                April 01 2021
                April 01 2021
                December 03 2020
                April 01 2021
                April 01 2021
                December 03 2020
                : 26
                : 4
                : e669-e678
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [3 ]University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Clatterbridge Cancer Centre and Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Department of Pharmacy, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [7 ]Manchester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
                [8 ]Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
                [9 ]Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
                Article
                10.1002/onco.13598
                8018303
                33210382
                9f3b33df-3f67-41bd-850a-4fe24b63c21c
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article