Phase 2 study of vismodegib, a hedgehog inhibitor, combined with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

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

The Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway is overexpressed in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Preclinical studies have shown that Hh inhibitors reduce pancreatic cancer stem cells (pCSC), stroma and Hh signalling.

Methods

Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDA were treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel. Vismodegib was added starting on the second cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with historical controls. Tumour biopsies to assess pCSC, stroma and Hh signalling were obtained before treatment and after cycle 1 (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel) or after cycle 2 (gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel plus vismodegib).

Results

Seventy-one patients were enrolled. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 5.42 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.37–6.97) and 9.79 months (95% CI: 7.85–10.97), respectively. Of the 67 patients evaluable for response, 27 (40%) had a response: 26 (38.8%) partial responses and 1 complete response. In the tumour samples, there were no significant changes in ALDH + pCSC following treatment.

Conclusions

Adding vismodegib to chemotherapy did not improve efficacy as compared with historical rates observed with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study does not support the further evaluation of Hh inhibitors in this patient population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01088815.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

E A Eisenhauer, P Therasse, J. Bogaerts … (2009)

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.

0 comments Cited 5304 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cancer statistics, 2018

Kimberly D Miller, Rebecca Siegel, Ahmedin Jemal (2018)

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

0 comments Cited 3421 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Cancer Statistics, 2017.

Rebecca Siegel, Kimberly D Miller, Ahmedin Jemal (2017)

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States in the current year and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2017, 1,688,780 new cancer cases and 600,920 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. For all sites combined, the cancer incidence rate is 20% higher in men than in women, while the cancer death rate is 40% higher. However, sex disparities vary by cancer type. For example, thyroid cancer incidence rates are 3-fold higher in women than in men (21 vs 7 per 100,000 population), despite equivalent death rates (0.5 per 100,000 population), largely reflecting sex differences in the "epidemic of diagnosis." Over the past decade of available data, the overall cancer incidence rate (2004-2013) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2005-2014) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. From 1991 to 2014, the overall cancer death rate dropped 25%, translating to approximately 2,143,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the cancer death rate was 15% higher in blacks than in whites in 2014, increasing access to care as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may expedite the narrowing racial gap; from 2010 to 2015, the proportion of blacks who were uninsured halved, from 21% to 11%, as it did for Hispanics (31% to 16%). Gains in coverage for traditionally underserved Americans will facilitate the broader application of existing cancer control knowledge across every segment of the population. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:7-30. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

0 comments Cited 2052 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Ana De Jesus-Acosta: +443-287-0411 , adejesu1@jhmi.edu

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Br J Cancer

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Br. J. Cancer

Title: British Journal of Cancer

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group UK (London )

ISSN (Print): 0007-0920

ISSN (Electronic): 1532-1827

Publication date (Electronic): 20 December 2019

Publication date (Print): 18 February 2020

Volume: 122

Issue: 4

Pages: 498-505

Affiliations

[1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2192 2723, GRID grid.411935.b, Department of Medical Oncology, , Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Hospital, ; Baltimore, MD USA

[2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, GRID grid.21107.35, Department of Biostatistics, , the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ; Baltimore, MD USA

[3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8972, GRID grid.25879.31, Abramson Cancer Center, , University of Pennsylvania, ; Philadelphia, PA USA

[4 ]GRID grid.477855.c, Honor Health Research Institute & Translational Genomics Research Institute, ; Scottsdale, AZ USA

[5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, GRID grid.21107.35, Department of Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, , Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, ; Baltimore, MD USA

[6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2171 9311, GRID grid.21107.35, Departments of Pathology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, , Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, ; Baltimore, MD USA

[7 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2291 4776, GRID grid.240145.6, Departments of Pathology, , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, ; Houston, TX USA

[8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2291 4776, GRID grid.240145.6, Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, ; Houston, TX USA

[9 ]Department of Surgery, Sendai South Hospital, Sendai, Japan

[10 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2173 6488, GRID grid.264771.1, Department of Engineering, , Texas Southern University, ; Houston, TX USA

Article

Publisher ID: 683

DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0683-3

PMC ID: 7029016

PubMed ID: 31857726

SO-VID: a8534ccc-87b1-4097-8b51-217d4e8ab4cd

License:

Note This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

History

Date received : 5 February 2019

Date revision received : 12 November 2019

Date accepted : 28 November 2019

Funding

Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100009730, EIF | Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C);

Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100007228, Skip Viragh Foundation (Skip Viragh Foundation, Inc.);

Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100005979, Lustgarten Foundation (Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research);

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy

Keywords: cancer therapy,gastrointestinal cancer

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy

Keywords: cancer therapy, gastrointestinal cancer

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 65

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 1,112

See all reference authors

- Version 1
- Version 1

Phase 2 study of vismodegib, a hedgehog inhibitor, combined with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Related collections

Karger: Oncology

Most cited references 38

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

Cancer statistics, 2018

Cancer Statistics, 2017.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 348

Cited by 65

Most referenced authors 1,112