28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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:

          This study evaluated the addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinoma first-line therapy.

          Methods:

          Patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas received gemcitabine 1000 mg m −2 and cisplatin 25 mg m −2 on a 2 weeks on/1 week off cycle and sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. After the initial 16 patients were enrolled, the chemotherapy doses were amended in view of grade 3 and 4 hand–foot skin reaction and haematologic toxicity. Subsequently, 21 patients received gemcitabine 800 mg m −2, cisplatin 20 mg m −2 and sorafenib 400 mg. The primary end point was an improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6) from historical 57–77% (90% power, type I error of 10%). Pretreatment pERK, evaluated by immunostaining, was correlated with clinical outcome.

          Results:

          A total of 39 patients were accrued. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities noted in >10% of patients were fatigue, elevated liver function tests and haematologic toxicities including thromboemboli, hyponatraemia and hypophosphataemia. Six-month progression-free survival was 51% (95% confidence interval (CI) 34–66%). Median PFS and overall survival were 6.5 (95% CI: 3.5–8.3) and 14.4 months (95% CI: 11.6–19.2 months), respectively. No correlation was observed between pERK and outcomes.

          Conclusion:

          The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine and cisplatin in biliary adenocarcinomas did not improve efficacy over historical data, and toxicity was increased.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

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

          Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study – The UK ABC-01 Study

          Background: We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy. Methods: Patients, aged ⩾18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) ⩾60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m−2 on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m−2 followed by G 1000 mg m−2 D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression. Results: In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3–4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively). Conclusion: Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mutations of the BRAF gene in cholangiocarcinoma but not in hepatocellular carcinoma.

            The Raf/MEK/ERK (mitogen activated protein kinase-MAPK) signal transduction cascade is an important mediator of a number of cellular fates, including growth, proliferation, and survival. The BRAF gene, one of the human isoforms of RAF, is activated by oncogenic Ras, leading to cooperative effects in cells responding to growth factor signals. The aim of this study was to elucidate a possible function of BRAF in liver tumours. Mutations of BRAF and KRAS were evaluated in 25 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) and in 69 cholangiocarcinomas (CC) by direct DNA sequencing analyses after microdissection. The presence of active intermediates of the MAPK pathway was assessed immunohistochemically. The results obtained were correlated with histopathological variables and patient survival. Activating BRAF missense mutations were identified in 15/69 CC (22%) and in one case of tumour surrounding liver. KRAS mutations were found in 31 of 69 (45%) CC examined and in two cases of tumour surrounding non-neoplastic liver tissue. In HCC, neither BRAF nor KRAS mutations were detected. All 31 CC with KRAS mutations had an intact BRAF gene. We failed to observe a correlation between BRAF or KRAS mutations and histopathological factors or prognosis of patients. Our data indicate that BRAF gene mutations are a relatively common event in CC but not in HCC. Disruption of the Raf/MEK/ERK (MAPK) kinase pathway, either by RAS or BRAF mutation, was detected in approximately 62% of all CC and is therefore one of the most frequent defects in cholangiocellular carcinogenesis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Transforming growth factor beta 1 stimulates vascular endothelial growth factor gene transcription in human cholangiocellular carcinoma cells.

              The expression pattern and functional interaction of proangiogenic factors in human cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC) have not been fully defined. We therefore investigated the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta 1 as well as their respective receptors in human CCC tumor samples and further analyzed their functional interaction in vitro. Expression of VEGF, TGF-beta 1, and their receptors was examined by immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization, quantitative competitive reverse transcription-PCR, and ELISA. VEGF promoter analysis and identification of transcription factors involved in promoter regulation were investigated using transient transfection and electrophoretic mobility shift assays. We observed strong expression of VEGF in CCC tumor cells and localization of VEGF receptors 1 and 2 in endothelial cells; in addition, coexpression of TGF-beta 1 and its receptors in tumor cells suggests a possible functional interaction between both cytokines. In vitro studies confirmed a paracrine/autocrine stimulation of VEGF by TGF-beta 1 at a transcriptional level. Additional molecular studies using 5' deletion and mutational analysis of the human VEGF promoter revealed that TGF-beta 1 stimulates VEGF through Sp1-dependent transcriptional activation. These data suggest that overexpression and functional interaction of TGF-beta 1 and VEGF might contribute to the "angiogenic switch" and the malignant phenotype in human CCC.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                Br. J. Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                20 August 2013
                30 July 2013
                : 109
                : 4
                : 915-919
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center , 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center , 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, Weill Medical College at Cornell University , 300 East 66th Street, New York, NY 10065, USA
                [4 ]Cancer Centers of the Carolinas , 120 Dillon Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29307, USA
                Author notes
                Article
                bjc2013432
                10.1038/bjc.2013.432
                3749586
                23900219
                f486574d-0efd-412a-8771-6b1b016d0944
                Copyright © 2013 Cancer Research UK

                From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

                History
                : 01 April 2013
                : 20 June 2013
                : 01 July 2013
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                biliary adenocarcinomas,cholangiocarcinoma,gallbladder cancer,sorafenib,gemcitabine,cisplatin,perk

                Comments

                Comment on this article