Irinotecan Plus Oxaliplatin and Leucovorin-Modulated Fluorouracil in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer—A Groupe Tumeurs Digestives of the Federatio
http://www.100md.com
《临床肿瘤学》
Centre Alexis Vautrin, Nancy
University Hospital, Rouen
Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice
Centre Claudius Regaud, Toulouse
Centre Franois Baclesse, Caen
University Hospital Jean Minjoz, Besanon
Institut Jean Godinot, Reims
University Hospital, Brest
Clinique Claude Bernard, Metz
Laboratoire Aventis, Paris, France
ABSTRACT
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically proven APA and bidimensionally measurable disease were treated with Folfirinox therapy every 2 weeks, which comprised oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 followed by bolus FU 400 mg/m2 on day 1, then FU 2,400 mg/m2 as a 46-hour continuous infusion. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30).
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were entered, and 46 received treatment. Thirty-five patients (76%) had metastatic disease. A total of 356 cycles were delivered, with a median of eight cycles per patient (range, one to 24 cycles). All patients were assessable for safety. No toxic death occurred. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia occurred in 52% of patients, including two patients with febrile neutropenia. Other relevant toxicities included grade 3 to 4 nausea (20%), vomiting (17%), and diarrhea (17%) and grade 3 neuropathy (15%; Levi's scale). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), including 4% complete responses. Median time to progression was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 11.6 months), and median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 14.4 months). Between baseline and end of treatment, patients had improvement in all functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, except cognitive functioning. Responders had major improvement in global QOL.
CONCLUSION: With a good safety profile, a promising response rate, and an improvement in QOL, Folfirinox will be further assessed in a phase III trial.
INTRODUCTION
Irinotecan, a camptothecin analog, has been demonstrated to have a higher growth inhibitory effect against cultured pancreatic adenocarcinoma than cisplatin, mitomycin, and FU.16 Preclinical studies have indicated a synergy when irinotecan precedes FU-leucovorin exposure.17-19 Other studies have shown high activity of irinotecan on pancreatic tumor cells in culture and in xenografts.20,21 Irinotecan has been investigated as a single agent in patients with nonpretreated APA, producing response rates from 9% to 27%.22-24 Some activity as second-line chemotherapy has also been reported.25,26
Oxaliplatin, a platinum-based drug, also inhibits pancreatic tumor cell lines.27 When used as a single agent, oxaliplatin has minimal activity against APA, but a 10% response rate has been described when it was used with FU.28 In vitro, synergistic activity has been described between irinotecan and oxaliplatin.29,30 Differences in mechanism of action of oxaliplatin and irinotecan, combined with the demonstrated antitumor activity of each agent, suggest that coadministration of oxaliplatin and irinotecan to patients with APA may provide clinical outcomes superior to those obtained with either drug administered alone. Furthermore, with the exception of myelosuppression and diarrhea, the two drugs have no overlapping clinical toxicity.
One previous phase I trial31 evaluated a triplet combination of leucovorin plus bolus and continuous-infusion FU (LV5FU),32 irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. The recommended doses were oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, and full doses of simplified LV5FU. Of five patients with APA, one complete response (CR) and one partial response (PR) were observed. On the basis of these encouraging results, a multicenter phase II study of the oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus LV5FU combination (Folfirinox) was conducted by the Gastrointestinal Tumor Group of the French Anticancer Centers. The main objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of the Folfirinox combination as first-line treatment in patients with APA.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Chemotherapy
Folfirinox consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 diluted in 5% dextrose administered as a 2-hour intravenous infusion followed by irinotecan 180 mg/m2 administered as a 90-minute infusion in dextrose 5% 500 mL or normal saline 1 hour after the end of oxaliplatin infusion. The simplified LV5FU regimen was administered after the irinotecan infusion as follows: leucovorin 400 mg/m2 over 2 hours followed by FU 400 mg/m2 bolus, then FU 2,400 mg/m2 was administered as a 46-hour continuous infusion. Treatment cycles were repeated every 2 weeks.
Antiemetic prophylaxis was left to investigator's discretion. In case of severe cholinergic syndrome, preventive treatment with atropine (0.25 mg subcutaneously) was to be administered at all subsequent cycles. If patients experienced delayed diarrhea, early high-dose loperamide was prescribed according to specific guidelines, and if diarrhea persisted more than 48 hours, prophylactic oral fluoroquinolones were administered. In case of severe neutropenia and/or no recovery to grade less than 1 at day 14, further cycles could be administered with a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF).
Patients were assessed for toxicity before each cycle. Chemotherapy was delayed until recovery if neutrophils were less than 1.5 x 109/L or platelets were less than 100 x 109/L. Doses adjustments were made according to nadir values and time of recovery to a grade ≤ 1. Doses reductions were also recommended in case of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, stomatitis, hand and foot syndrome, and vomiting and/or in case of grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. For any other nonhematologic toxicity that occurred with grade ≥ 2, a maximum delay of treatment of 2 weeks was allowed to attempt recovery to grade ≤ 1. Once the dose was decreased, re-escalation was not permitted. Patients went off study if they required more than two dose reductions.
Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal. Twelve cycles were recommended in responding patients, and patients were observed every 3 months until death or cutoff date.
Efficacy Assessment
The primary efficacy end point was response rate, which was defined as the sum of CR and PR assessed according to WHO criteria.33 CR was defined as the complete disappearance of all assessable disease, and PR was defined as a decrease of at least 50% of the sum of the products of the diameters of measurable lesions. Responses had to be confirmed by repeat assessments performed no less than 4 weeks after the criteria for response were first met. Stable disease was defined as a decrease of less than 50% or an increase of less than 25% in measurable lesions, and progressive disease was defined as an increase of at least 25% in measurable lesions or the appearance of new malignant lesion(s). Computed tomography scan imaging was performed at baseline and then every 6 weeks until disease progression. Patients who were withdrawn from study before the first evaluation were classified as having experienced treatment failure. All computed tomography scans were reviewed by an external response review committee (ERRC), which was a panel of two independent radiologists not involved in the study. Secondary efficacy end points included the duration of response and stabilization, time to progression, and overall survival. Time to progression was calculated from the start of treatment to the first day of progression. Survival lasted from the date of inclusion until death.
Safety Assessment
Patients who received at least one infusion were assessable for safety. For hematologic and biologic parameters, at least one measure per cycle was required. Toxic effects (except paresthesias) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 1.0. Peripheral sensitive neuropathy was graded according to Levi's specific grading.34
QOL and Clinical Benefit Assessment
QOL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0). The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire including five functional scales, three symptom scales, one QOL scale, and six single items on common symptoms.35 The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was distributed to the patients before each cycle and at the end of the treatment. Questionnaires were scored according to the EORTC instructions.36 Baseline and last available questionnaires were compared. The primary objective was to analyze changes in global QOL, and secondary objectives were to describe changes in fatigue, pain, physical functioning, and emotional functioning. These scales were chosen because they are the most deteriorated in APA patients according to the EORTC reference values manual.37 Clinical benefit response was evaluated according to assessment of consumption of pain-relieving drugs, weight trends, or evolution of asthenia or anorexia.
Statistical Considerations
According to a Simon two-stage phase II optimal design38 for a goal of 25% true response rate with an {alpha} and error probability of .05 and .20, respectively, an accrual of at least 40 eligible patients assessable for response was planned. Assuming that 15% of patients would be inassessable, 46 patients needed to be included. An early termination of the study was required if less than three responses were observed in the first 22 patients. Otherwise, recruitment continued. The 95% CI for response was calculated. Time-related parameters, including median follow-up time, were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.39,40
RESULTS
Study Treatment and Drug Delivery
A total of 356 cycles were completed (median, eight cycles per patient; range, one to 24 cycles). Doses reductions were required in 50 cycles (14%), and the main reasons for dose reduction were hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and diarrhea (Table 2). Short treatment delays (< 7 days) occurred in 48 cycles (13%), and longer delays (> 7 days) occurred in 66 cycles (19%). Those delays were mainly a result of at least one hematologic toxicity (76 cycles, 67%). In 25 cycles (22%), delays were unrelated to study treatment. The delivered relative dose-intensity per patient was 82% for oxaliplatin, 84% for irinotecan, and 83% for FU.
Objective Response and Survival
Response rate was evaluated in all treated patients. After the first 22 assessable patients were treated, four confirmed objective responses were observed and, thus, accrual could continue. Overall results are listed in Table 3. Twelve PRs (26%) and 18 stabilizations (39%) were observed by the investigators, resulting in an overall response rate of 26% (95% CI, 13% to 39%). Three (27.3%) of 11 patients with local APA and nine of 35 patients with metastatic disease achieved a confirmed response. This was confirmed by the ERRC, with two CRs (4%), 10 PRs (22%), and 16 patients with stable disease (35%). With a median follow-up of 33 months, the median response duration was 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 15.2 months), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 9.0 months) according to the investigators. According to the ERRC, median response duration was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 13.6 months), median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 11.6 months), and median duration of stable disease was 7.5 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 15.1 months). When tumor progressed, 31 patients (67%) received a second-line treatment, including gemcitabine (n = 18), radiochemotherapy (n = 4), Folfiri (irinotecan, bolus- and continuous-infusion FU; n = 3), gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (n = 1), Folfox (oxaliplatin, bolus- and continuous-infusion FU; n = 1), and FU-leucovorin (n = 1). After having stopped chemotherapy, three patients who responded to Folfirinox received Folfirinox again when they progressed.
Median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 14.4 months); in metastatic patients, the median overall survival was 9.5 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 13.7 months, and in locally advanced patients, it was 15.7 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 43 months). The 1-year survival rate was 43% for the whole group (Fig 1). Six patients (including three patients with metastatic disease) are still alive, with a mean follow-up of +30 months (range, +26 to +33 months).
Safety
All treated patients (n = 46) were assessable for safety, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities are listed in Table 4. The most common toxicity was hematologic, with 52% of patients experiencing a grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 22% of cycles. Grade 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in two patients (4%) without growth factors support. Overall, four patients received G-CSF for 12 cycles. The other grade 3 or 4 treatment-related hematologic toxicities were anemia and thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 18% and 6% of patients, respectively.
Nonhematologic toxicities of grade 3 to 4 occurred in less than 5% of cycles. Grades 3 and 4 vomiting was observed in 20% and 17% of patients, respectively, and grades 3 and 4 asthenia occurred in 20% and 2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea led to hospitalization for four patients. Thirteen percent and 15% of patients experienced grades 2 and 3 peripheral neuropathy, respectively, leading to study discontinuation for seven patients (15%).
QOL
Among all patients, 256 (65.8%) of a possible 389 EORTC QLQ-C30 forms were completed. For eight patients (17%), no baseline questionnaire was available. There was no difference between the overall population and the 38 patients who completed the baseline questionnaires regarding sex ratio, PS, median age, and disease stage. Two patients who had completed the baseline questionnaire failed to complete further forms. Patients with objective response and those with minor response (n = 5) were classified as responders (n = 14) for the QOL analysis and were compared to patients with stable (n = 12) or progressive disease (n = 12). Median scores at baseline and at the end of study treatment are listed in Table 5 together with the percentage of patients with 10 points in degradation or improvement of each scores.
Regarding the primary QOL end point, global QOL scores deteriorated in 18.8% of the patients, and 37.5% reported a moderate improvement (≥ 10 points). Of note, the global QOL score was improved by 25 points in responders, a major improvement according to the criteria of Osoba et al.41 The scores of the secondary QOL objectives of fatigue, pain, and physical and emotional functioning improved by more of 10 points in 36%, 53%, 21%, and 36% of the patients, respectively. Changes in global QOL scores were associated with treatment response (P = .003). Global QOL scores at baseline were not predictive of treatment outcome (P = .54).
Median scores of all functional scales improved during treatment, except cognitive functioning. Most symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, appetite loss, and constipation decreased under treatment except diarrhea. Fatigue and nausea were unchanged.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we offered Folfirinox for good PS patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 0 and 1). Patients with Karnofsky PS less than 70 have a short median survival (eg, 2.4 months when treated with gemcitabine)47 and were not eligible for this potentially toxic regimen. In this selected population, Folfirinox regimen seems promising and has a favorable tolerance profile. Despite a high rate of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (52% of patients, 22% per cycle), only two cases of febrile neutropenia occurred. Hematologic toxicities resulted in 9% of cycles with dose reduction and 21% delayed cycles. These results may be improved with a larger use of G-CSF because only three patients received prophylactic G-CSF. The other toxicities were manageable, and no toxic deaths occurred.
Because of a frequent desmoplastic reaction in APA, tumor response assessment is difficult, especially in locally advanced disease. However, there was no major difference between the investigators and the ERRC conclusions. The encouraging response rate of 26% (CI 95%, 13% to 39%) with Folfirinox was similar in locally advanced disease (27.3%) and in metastatic disease (25.7%). In our study, all responses were confirmed by a second assessment and were independently reviewed. Two CRs, a rare event in APA, were observed (durations of 11 and 12 months). The overall response duration of 9.3 months (CI 95%, 8.2 to 13.6 months) is also encouraging. The overall tumor growth control was 61%, with a duration of 9.3 months (CI 95%, 7.8 to 11.7 months). Although second-line chemotherapy is often considered ineffective in APA, it was offered to 67% of patients, and one can not completely rule out some clinical impact resulting in an improved survival.
Patient QOL can be greatly reduced by side effects of chemotherapy or symptoms of APA, which include severe pain, depression, weight loss, loss of appetite, and fatigue. QOL was measured in our study with the EORTC QLQ-C30. As in all studies, the major problem with QOL assessment was the compliance, and eight questionnaires were lacking at baseline. However, the attrition rate was low, and at the end of treatment, data were available for all patients except two. All functional scales improved during treatment, except cognitive functioning. The greatest improvement in median scores was seen for role functioning, social functioning, and global QOL. Responders had the greatest improvement, with a median improvement of 25 points in global QOL, which is a major change according to Osoba criteria.41 The median score of fatigue remained stable, and pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation were improved. The only item that deteriorated during treatment was diarrhea.
Until now, few studies have demonstrated a QOL improvement with chemotherapy in APA. In 1996, Glimelius et al5 reported on 53 patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (FU and leucovorin with or without etoposide) plus BSC or BSC alone. Changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 were categorized by two assessors who were unaware of the patient group assignment. Eleven patients (38%) were considered to have a favorable QOL outcome in the chemotherapy group compared with three patients (13%) in the BSC group. However, the sample size was small, and the QOL evaluation was limited to the first 4 months. Most of the further studies showed a rapid degradation in QOL during chemotherapy, probably mostly because of tumor progression. In only one study, global QOL at 24 weeks was significantly superior to the pretreatment value with a FU-mitomycin combination.46 The pain and dyspnea scores were also improved. Two studies have formally assessed QOL during gemcitabine treatment. Results are contradictory, with improvement of QOL in one study8 and worsening of QOL at 4 and 8 weeks in another.44
Other trials have assessed irinotecan or oxaliplatin in APA. The combination of gemcitabine plus irinotecan is active in APA.48 A randomized phase III study comparing gemcitabine alone to gemcitabine-irinotecan was recently published.12 The confirmed response rate was significantly better in the two-drug regimen than with gemcitabine alone (16.1% v 4.4%, respectively; P < .001). However, there was no difference in PFS, overall survival, and QOL. The efficacy of oxaliplatin was tested in a three-arm randomized phase II study comparing oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2, FU 1 g/m2/d continuous infusion for 4 days, and the two drugs combined; the response rates were 0%, 0%, and 10% respectively. Tolerance was excellent, and the median survival of 9 months in the oxaliplatin-FU arm was encouraging.28 Sixty-two patients were treated in a Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche Clinique en Oncologie et Radiotherapie (GERCOR) phase II study with a fixed dose-rate infusion of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 as a 10 mg/m2/min infusion on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2 every 2 weeks (Gemox). The response rate was 30.6%.49 Using 3-week Gemox schedule, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group50 had a response rate of only 10.9%. The differences in these results suggest that the manner in which the drugs are administered influences the regimen's efficacy. An ongoing three-arm phase III study by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group will better clarify both the benefits of the fixed dose-rate infusion of gemcitabine and the added benefit of oxaliplatin. A randomized phase III study comparing the GERCOR's Gemox combination to standard weekly gemcitabine was recently presented.11 Of 313 eligible patients, the response rate according the investigators was 26.8% for the Gemox combination versus 17.3% for gemcitabine alone (P = .02); PFS was 5.8 and 3.7 months, respectively (P = .038). However, no significant increase in survival was observed, and QOL was not measured.
In conclusion, the Folfirinox regimen seems promising for good PS patients. The objective response rate was 26%, including two CRs, and tumor control was achieved in 61% of patients. The median duration of response (9.3 months) and the median survival (10.2 months) are encouraging. Toxicity, which was mainly hematologic, was manageable, and an improvement in almost all the EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL domains was observed. This investigational combination is now tested in an ongoing phase II to III trial versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Acknowledgment
We thank Christine Gayet for her management of data throughout the study and Ludovic Mussak for his helpful contribution to the statistical analysis.
NOTES
Presented in part at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Chicago, IL, May 31-June 3, 2003.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, et al: Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5-26, 2003
2. Fernandez E, La-Vecchia C, Porta M, et al: Trends in pancreatic cancer mortality in Europe, 1955-1989. Int J Cancer 57:786-792, 1994
3. Sant M, Aareleid T, Berrino F, et al: EUROCARE-3: Survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990-94—Results and commentary. Ann Oncol 14:61-118, 2003 (suppl 5)
4. Palmer KR, Kerr M, Knowles G, et al: Chemotherapy prolongs survival in inoperable pancreatic carcinoma. Br J Surg 81:882-885, 1994
5. Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Sjoden PO, et al: Chemotherapy improves survival and quality of life in advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer. Ann Oncol 7:593-600, 1996
6. Burris AH, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al: Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15:2403-2413, 1997
7. Berlin JD, Catalano P, Thomas JP, et al: Phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with fluorouracil versus gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E2297. J Clin Oncol 20:3270-3275, 2002
8. Bramhall SR, Schulz J, Nemunaitis J, et al: A double-blind placebo-controlled, randomised study comparing gemcitabine and marimastat with gemcitabine and placebo as first line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 87:161-167, 2002
9. Colucci G, Giulani F, Gebbia V, et al: Gemcitabine alone or with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: A prospective, randomized phase III study of the Gruppo Oncologia del l'Italia Meridionale. Cancer 94:902-910, 2002
10. Heinemann V, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, et al: A phase III trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:250, 2003 (abstr 1003)
11. Louvet C, Labianca R, Hammel P, et al: GemOx (gemcitabine + oxaliplatin) versus Gem (gemcitabine) in non resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Final results of the GERCOR/GISCAD intergroup phase III. J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr)
12. 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 22:3776-3783, 2004
13. Scheithauer W, Schull B, Ulrich-Pur H, et al: Biweekly high-dose gemcitabine alone or in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A randomised phase II trial. Ann Oncol 14:97-104, 2003
14. O'Reilly EM, Abou-Alfa GK, Letourneau R, et al: A randomized phase III trial of DX-8951f (exatecan mesylate; DX) and gemcitabine (GEM) vs. gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4006)
15. Richards DA, Kindler HL, Oettle H, et al: A randomized phase III study comparing gemcitabine + pemetrexed versus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4007)
16. Matsuoka H, Yano K, Seo Y, et al: Cytotoxicity of CPT-11 for gastrointestinal cancer cells cultured on fixed-contact-sensitive plates. Anticancer Drugs 6:413-418, 1995
17. Mullany S, Svingen PA, Kaufmann SH, et al: Effect of adding the topoisomerase I poison 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38) to 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in HCT-8 cells: Elevated dTTP pools and enhanced cytotoxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42:391-399, 1998
18. Pavillard V, Formento P, Rostagno P, et al: Combination of irinotecan (CPT11) and 5-fluorouracil with an analysis of cellular determinants of drug activity. Biochem Pharmacol 56:1315-1322, 1998
19. Mans DR, Grivicich I, Peters GJ, et al: Sequence-dependent growth inhibition and DNA damage formation by the irinotecan-5-fluorouracil combination in human colon carcinoma cell lines. Eur J Cancer 35:1851-1861, 1999
20. Takeda S, Shimazoe T, Kuga H, et al: Camptothecin analog (CPT-11)-sensitive human pancreatic tumor cell line QGP-1N shows resistance to SN-38, an active metabolite of CPT-11. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 188:70-77, 1992
21. Bissery MC, Vrignaud P, Lavelle F, et al: Experimental antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics of the camptothecin analog irinotecan (CPT-11) in mice. Anticancer Drugs 7:437-460, 1996
22. Sakata Y, Shimada Y, Yoshino M, et al: A late phase II study of CPT-11, irinotecan hydrochloride, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: CPT-11 Study Group on GastroIntestinal Cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 21:1039-1046, 1994
23. Wagener DJ, Verdonk HE, Dirix LY, et al: Phase II trial of CPT-11 in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, an EORTC early clinical trials group study. Ann Oncol 6:129-132, 1995
24. Funakoshi A, Okusaka T, Ishii H, et al: Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) alone in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:338s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4102)
25. Klapdor R, Fenner C: Irinotecan (Campto R): Efficacy as third/fourth line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 20:5209-5212, 2000
26. Ulrich-Pur H, Raderer M, Verena Kornek G, et al: Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Cancer 88:1180-1184, 2003
27. Kornmann M, Fakler H, Butzer U, et al: Oxaliplatin exerts potent in vitro cytotoxicity in colorectal and pancreatic cancer cell lines and liver metastases. Anticancer Res 20:3259-3264, 2000
28. Ducreux M, Mitry E, Ould-Kaci M, et al: Randomized phase II study evaluating oxaliplatin alone, oxaliplatin combined with infusional 5-FU, and infusional 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic carcinoma patients. Ann Oncol 15:467-473, 2004
29. Zeghari-Squalli N, Raymond E, Cvitkovic E, et al: Cellular pharmacology of the combination of the DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor SN-38 and the diaminocyclohexane platinum derivative oxaliplatin. Clin Cancer Res 5:1189-1196, 1999
30. Goldwasser F, Bozec L, Zeghari-Squalli N, et al: Cellular pharmacology of the combination of oxaliplatin with topotecan in the IGROV-1 human ovarian cancer cell line. Anticancer Drugs 10:195-201, 1999
31. Ychou M, Conroy T, Seitz JF, et al: An open phase I study assessing the feasibility of the triple combination: Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan plus leucovorin/5-fluorouracil every 2 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 14:481-489, 2003
32. Tournigand C, De Gramont A, Louvet C, et al: A simplified bi-monthly regimen with leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5 FU) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:274a, 1998 (abstr 1052)
33. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207-214, 1981
34. Caussanel JP, Levi F, Brienza S, et al: Phase I trial of 5-day continuous venous infusion of oxaliplatin at circadian rhythm-modulated rate compared with constant rate. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1046-1050, 1990
35. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365-376, 1993
36. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al: EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels, Belgium, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 1995
37. Fayers P, Weeden S, Curran D: EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. Brussels, Belgium, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Study Group, 1998
38. Simon R: Optimal two stage for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989
39. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457-481, 1958
40. Shuster JJ: Median follow-up in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:191-192, 1991
41. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al: Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:139-144, 1998
42. Bramhall SR, Rosemurgy A, Brown PD, et al: Marimastat as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 19:3447-3455, 2001
43. Van Cutsem E, van de Velde H, Karasek P, et al: Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:1430-1438, 2004
44. Moore MJ, Hamm J, Dancey J, et al: Comparison of gemcitabine versus the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: A phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol 21:3296-3302, 2003
45. Cheverton P, Friess H, Andras C, et al: Phase III results of exatecan (DX-8951f) versus gemcitabine (Gem) in chemotherapy-nave patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APA). J Clin Oncol 22:314s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4005)
46. Maisey N, Chau I, Cunningham D, et al: Multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin in inoperable pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3130-3136, 2002
47. Storniolo AM, Enas NH, Brown CA, et al: An investigational new drug treatment program for patients with gemcitabine: Results for over 3000 patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 85:1261-1268, 1999
48. Rocha Lima CMS, 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 20:1182-1191, 2002
49. Louvet CH, 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 20:1512-1518, 2002
50. Alberts SR, Townley PM, Goldberg RM, et al: Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study. Ann Oncol 14:580-585, 2003(Thierry Conroy, Bernard P)
University Hospital, Rouen
Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice
Centre Claudius Regaud, Toulouse
Centre Franois Baclesse, Caen
University Hospital Jean Minjoz, Besanon
Institut Jean Godinot, Reims
University Hospital, Brest
Clinique Claude Bernard, Metz
Laboratoire Aventis, Paris, France
ABSTRACT
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically proven APA and bidimensionally measurable disease were treated with Folfirinox therapy every 2 weeks, which comprised oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 followed by bolus FU 400 mg/m2 on day 1, then FU 2,400 mg/m2 as a 46-hour continuous infusion. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30).
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were entered, and 46 received treatment. Thirty-five patients (76%) had metastatic disease. A total of 356 cycles were delivered, with a median of eight cycles per patient (range, one to 24 cycles). All patients were assessable for safety. No toxic death occurred. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia occurred in 52% of patients, including two patients with febrile neutropenia. Other relevant toxicities included grade 3 to 4 nausea (20%), vomiting (17%), and diarrhea (17%) and grade 3 neuropathy (15%; Levi's scale). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 13% to 39%), including 4% complete responses. Median time to progression was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 11.6 months), and median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 14.4 months). Between baseline and end of treatment, patients had improvement in all functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30, except cognitive functioning. Responders had major improvement in global QOL.
CONCLUSION: With a good safety profile, a promising response rate, and an improvement in QOL, Folfirinox will be further assessed in a phase III trial.
INTRODUCTION
Irinotecan, a camptothecin analog, has been demonstrated to have a higher growth inhibitory effect against cultured pancreatic adenocarcinoma than cisplatin, mitomycin, and FU.16 Preclinical studies have indicated a synergy when irinotecan precedes FU-leucovorin exposure.17-19 Other studies have shown high activity of irinotecan on pancreatic tumor cells in culture and in xenografts.20,21 Irinotecan has been investigated as a single agent in patients with nonpretreated APA, producing response rates from 9% to 27%.22-24 Some activity as second-line chemotherapy has also been reported.25,26
Oxaliplatin, a platinum-based drug, also inhibits pancreatic tumor cell lines.27 When used as a single agent, oxaliplatin has minimal activity against APA, but a 10% response rate has been described when it was used with FU.28 In vitro, synergistic activity has been described between irinotecan and oxaliplatin.29,30 Differences in mechanism of action of oxaliplatin and irinotecan, combined with the demonstrated antitumor activity of each agent, suggest that coadministration of oxaliplatin and irinotecan to patients with APA may provide clinical outcomes superior to those obtained with either drug administered alone. Furthermore, with the exception of myelosuppression and diarrhea, the two drugs have no overlapping clinical toxicity.
One previous phase I trial31 evaluated a triplet combination of leucovorin plus bolus and continuous-infusion FU (LV5FU),32 irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. The recommended doses were oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, and full doses of simplified LV5FU. Of five patients with APA, one complete response (CR) and one partial response (PR) were observed. On the basis of these encouraging results, a multicenter phase II study of the oxaliplatin and irinotecan plus LV5FU combination (Folfirinox) was conducted by the Gastrointestinal Tumor Group of the French Anticancer Centers. The main objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of the Folfirinox combination as first-line treatment in patients with APA.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Chemotherapy
Folfirinox consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 diluted in 5% dextrose administered as a 2-hour intravenous infusion followed by irinotecan 180 mg/m2 administered as a 90-minute infusion in dextrose 5% 500 mL or normal saline 1 hour after the end of oxaliplatin infusion. The simplified LV5FU regimen was administered after the irinotecan infusion as follows: leucovorin 400 mg/m2 over 2 hours followed by FU 400 mg/m2 bolus, then FU 2,400 mg/m2 was administered as a 46-hour continuous infusion. Treatment cycles were repeated every 2 weeks.
Antiemetic prophylaxis was left to investigator's discretion. In case of severe cholinergic syndrome, preventive treatment with atropine (0.25 mg subcutaneously) was to be administered at all subsequent cycles. If patients experienced delayed diarrhea, early high-dose loperamide was prescribed according to specific guidelines, and if diarrhea persisted more than 48 hours, prophylactic oral fluoroquinolones were administered. In case of severe neutropenia and/or no recovery to grade less than 1 at day 14, further cycles could be administered with a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF).
Patients were assessed for toxicity before each cycle. Chemotherapy was delayed until recovery if neutrophils were less than 1.5 x 109/L or platelets were less than 100 x 109/L. Doses adjustments were made according to nadir values and time of recovery to a grade ≤ 1. Doses reductions were also recommended in case of grade 3 to 4 diarrhea, stomatitis, hand and foot syndrome, and vomiting and/or in case of grade 2 peripheral neuropathy. For any other nonhematologic toxicity that occurred with grade ≥ 2, a maximum delay of treatment of 2 weeks was allowed to attempt recovery to grade ≤ 1. Once the dose was decreased, re-escalation was not permitted. Patients went off study if they required more than two dose reductions.
Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal. Twelve cycles were recommended in responding patients, and patients were observed every 3 months until death or cutoff date.
Efficacy Assessment
The primary efficacy end point was response rate, which was defined as the sum of CR and PR assessed according to WHO criteria.33 CR was defined as the complete disappearance of all assessable disease, and PR was defined as a decrease of at least 50% of the sum of the products of the diameters of measurable lesions. Responses had to be confirmed by repeat assessments performed no less than 4 weeks after the criteria for response were first met. Stable disease was defined as a decrease of less than 50% or an increase of less than 25% in measurable lesions, and progressive disease was defined as an increase of at least 25% in measurable lesions or the appearance of new malignant lesion(s). Computed tomography scan imaging was performed at baseline and then every 6 weeks until disease progression. Patients who were withdrawn from study before the first evaluation were classified as having experienced treatment failure. All computed tomography scans were reviewed by an external response review committee (ERRC), which was a panel of two independent radiologists not involved in the study. Secondary efficacy end points included the duration of response and stabilization, time to progression, and overall survival. Time to progression was calculated from the start of treatment to the first day of progression. Survival lasted from the date of inclusion until death.
Safety Assessment
Patients who received at least one infusion were assessable for safety. For hematologic and biologic parameters, at least one measure per cycle was required. Toxic effects (except paresthesias) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 1.0. Peripheral sensitive neuropathy was graded according to Levi's specific grading.34
QOL and Clinical Benefit Assessment
QOL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0). The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire including five functional scales, three symptom scales, one QOL scale, and six single items on common symptoms.35 The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was distributed to the patients before each cycle and at the end of the treatment. Questionnaires were scored according to the EORTC instructions.36 Baseline and last available questionnaires were compared. The primary objective was to analyze changes in global QOL, and secondary objectives were to describe changes in fatigue, pain, physical functioning, and emotional functioning. These scales were chosen because they are the most deteriorated in APA patients according to the EORTC reference values manual.37 Clinical benefit response was evaluated according to assessment of consumption of pain-relieving drugs, weight trends, or evolution of asthenia or anorexia.
Statistical Considerations
According to a Simon two-stage phase II optimal design38 for a goal of 25% true response rate with an {alpha} and error probability of .05 and .20, respectively, an accrual of at least 40 eligible patients assessable for response was planned. Assuming that 15% of patients would be inassessable, 46 patients needed to be included. An early termination of the study was required if less than three responses were observed in the first 22 patients. Otherwise, recruitment continued. The 95% CI for response was calculated. Time-related parameters, including median follow-up time, were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.39,40
RESULTS
Study Treatment and Drug Delivery
A total of 356 cycles were completed (median, eight cycles per patient; range, one to 24 cycles). Doses reductions were required in 50 cycles (14%), and the main reasons for dose reduction were hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and diarrhea (Table 2). Short treatment delays (< 7 days) occurred in 48 cycles (13%), and longer delays (> 7 days) occurred in 66 cycles (19%). Those delays were mainly a result of at least one hematologic toxicity (76 cycles, 67%). In 25 cycles (22%), delays were unrelated to study treatment. The delivered relative dose-intensity per patient was 82% for oxaliplatin, 84% for irinotecan, and 83% for FU.
Objective Response and Survival
Response rate was evaluated in all treated patients. After the first 22 assessable patients were treated, four confirmed objective responses were observed and, thus, accrual could continue. Overall results are listed in Table 3. Twelve PRs (26%) and 18 stabilizations (39%) were observed by the investigators, resulting in an overall response rate of 26% (95% CI, 13% to 39%). Three (27.3%) of 11 patients with local APA and nine of 35 patients with metastatic disease achieved a confirmed response. This was confirmed by the ERRC, with two CRs (4%), 10 PRs (22%), and 16 patients with stable disease (35%). With a median follow-up of 33 months, the median response duration was 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 15.2 months), and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 9.0 months) according to the investigators. According to the ERRC, median response duration was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 13.6 months), median PFS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 11.6 months), and median duration of stable disease was 7.5 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 15.1 months). When tumor progressed, 31 patients (67%) received a second-line treatment, including gemcitabine (n = 18), radiochemotherapy (n = 4), Folfiri (irinotecan, bolus- and continuous-infusion FU; n = 3), gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (n = 1), Folfox (oxaliplatin, bolus- and continuous-infusion FU; n = 1), and FU-leucovorin (n = 1). After having stopped chemotherapy, three patients who responded to Folfirinox received Folfirinox again when they progressed.
Median overall survival was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 14.4 months); in metastatic patients, the median overall survival was 9.5 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 13.7 months, and in locally advanced patients, it was 15.7 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 43 months). The 1-year survival rate was 43% for the whole group (Fig 1). Six patients (including three patients with metastatic disease) are still alive, with a mean follow-up of +30 months (range, +26 to +33 months).
Safety
All treated patients (n = 46) were assessable for safety, and no treatment-related deaths occurred. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities are listed in Table 4. The most common toxicity was hematologic, with 52% of patients experiencing a grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 22% of cycles. Grade 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in two patients (4%) without growth factors support. Overall, four patients received G-CSF for 12 cycles. The other grade 3 or 4 treatment-related hematologic toxicities were anemia and thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 18% and 6% of patients, respectively.
Nonhematologic toxicities of grade 3 to 4 occurred in less than 5% of cycles. Grades 3 and 4 vomiting was observed in 20% and 17% of patients, respectively, and grades 3 and 4 asthenia occurred in 20% and 2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea led to hospitalization for four patients. Thirteen percent and 15% of patients experienced grades 2 and 3 peripheral neuropathy, respectively, leading to study discontinuation for seven patients (15%).
QOL
Among all patients, 256 (65.8%) of a possible 389 EORTC QLQ-C30 forms were completed. For eight patients (17%), no baseline questionnaire was available. There was no difference between the overall population and the 38 patients who completed the baseline questionnaires regarding sex ratio, PS, median age, and disease stage. Two patients who had completed the baseline questionnaire failed to complete further forms. Patients with objective response and those with minor response (n = 5) were classified as responders (n = 14) for the QOL analysis and were compared to patients with stable (n = 12) or progressive disease (n = 12). Median scores at baseline and at the end of study treatment are listed in Table 5 together with the percentage of patients with 10 points in degradation or improvement of each scores.
Regarding the primary QOL end point, global QOL scores deteriorated in 18.8% of the patients, and 37.5% reported a moderate improvement (≥ 10 points). Of note, the global QOL score was improved by 25 points in responders, a major improvement according to the criteria of Osoba et al.41 The scores of the secondary QOL objectives of fatigue, pain, and physical and emotional functioning improved by more of 10 points in 36%, 53%, 21%, and 36% of the patients, respectively. Changes in global QOL scores were associated with treatment response (P = .003). Global QOL scores at baseline were not predictive of treatment outcome (P = .54).
Median scores of all functional scales improved during treatment, except cognitive functioning. Most symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, appetite loss, and constipation decreased under treatment except diarrhea. Fatigue and nausea were unchanged.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we offered Folfirinox for good PS patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 0 and 1). Patients with Karnofsky PS less than 70 have a short median survival (eg, 2.4 months when treated with gemcitabine)47 and were not eligible for this potentially toxic regimen. In this selected population, Folfirinox regimen seems promising and has a favorable tolerance profile. Despite a high rate of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (52% of patients, 22% per cycle), only two cases of febrile neutropenia occurred. Hematologic toxicities resulted in 9% of cycles with dose reduction and 21% delayed cycles. These results may be improved with a larger use of G-CSF because only three patients received prophylactic G-CSF. The other toxicities were manageable, and no toxic deaths occurred.
Because of a frequent desmoplastic reaction in APA, tumor response assessment is difficult, especially in locally advanced disease. However, there was no major difference between the investigators and the ERRC conclusions. The encouraging response rate of 26% (CI 95%, 13% to 39%) with Folfirinox was similar in locally advanced disease (27.3%) and in metastatic disease (25.7%). In our study, all responses were confirmed by a second assessment and were independently reviewed. Two CRs, a rare event in APA, were observed (durations of 11 and 12 months). The overall response duration of 9.3 months (CI 95%, 8.2 to 13.6 months) is also encouraging. The overall tumor growth control was 61%, with a duration of 9.3 months (CI 95%, 7.8 to 11.7 months). Although second-line chemotherapy is often considered ineffective in APA, it was offered to 67% of patients, and one can not completely rule out some clinical impact resulting in an improved survival.
Patient QOL can be greatly reduced by side effects of chemotherapy or symptoms of APA, which include severe pain, depression, weight loss, loss of appetite, and fatigue. QOL was measured in our study with the EORTC QLQ-C30. As in all studies, the major problem with QOL assessment was the compliance, and eight questionnaires were lacking at baseline. However, the attrition rate was low, and at the end of treatment, data were available for all patients except two. All functional scales improved during treatment, except cognitive functioning. The greatest improvement in median scores was seen for role functioning, social functioning, and global QOL. Responders had the greatest improvement, with a median improvement of 25 points in global QOL, which is a major change according to Osoba criteria.41 The median score of fatigue remained stable, and pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and constipation were improved. The only item that deteriorated during treatment was diarrhea.
Until now, few studies have demonstrated a QOL improvement with chemotherapy in APA. In 1996, Glimelius et al5 reported on 53 patients randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (FU and leucovorin with or without etoposide) plus BSC or BSC alone. Changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 were categorized by two assessors who were unaware of the patient group assignment. Eleven patients (38%) were considered to have a favorable QOL outcome in the chemotherapy group compared with three patients (13%) in the BSC group. However, the sample size was small, and the QOL evaluation was limited to the first 4 months. Most of the further studies showed a rapid degradation in QOL during chemotherapy, probably mostly because of tumor progression. In only one study, global QOL at 24 weeks was significantly superior to the pretreatment value with a FU-mitomycin combination.46 The pain and dyspnea scores were also improved. Two studies have formally assessed QOL during gemcitabine treatment. Results are contradictory, with improvement of QOL in one study8 and worsening of QOL at 4 and 8 weeks in another.44
Other trials have assessed irinotecan or oxaliplatin in APA. The combination of gemcitabine plus irinotecan is active in APA.48 A randomized phase III study comparing gemcitabine alone to gemcitabine-irinotecan was recently published.12 The confirmed response rate was significantly better in the two-drug regimen than with gemcitabine alone (16.1% v 4.4%, respectively; P < .001). However, there was no difference in PFS, overall survival, and QOL. The efficacy of oxaliplatin was tested in a three-arm randomized phase II study comparing oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2, FU 1 g/m2/d continuous infusion for 4 days, and the two drugs combined; the response rates were 0%, 0%, and 10% respectively. Tolerance was excellent, and the median survival of 9 months in the oxaliplatin-FU arm was encouraging.28 Sixty-two patients were treated in a Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche Clinique en Oncologie et Radiotherapie (GERCOR) phase II study with a fixed dose-rate infusion of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 as a 10 mg/m2/min infusion on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 2 every 2 weeks (Gemox). The response rate was 30.6%.49 Using 3-week Gemox schedule, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group50 had a response rate of only 10.9%. The differences in these results suggest that the manner in which the drugs are administered influences the regimen's efficacy. An ongoing three-arm phase III study by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group will better clarify both the benefits of the fixed dose-rate infusion of gemcitabine and the added benefit of oxaliplatin. A randomized phase III study comparing the GERCOR's Gemox combination to standard weekly gemcitabine was recently presented.11 Of 313 eligible patients, the response rate according the investigators was 26.8% for the Gemox combination versus 17.3% for gemcitabine alone (P = .02); PFS was 5.8 and 3.7 months, respectively (P = .038). However, no significant increase in survival was observed, and QOL was not measured.
In conclusion, the Folfirinox regimen seems promising for good PS patients. The objective response rate was 26%, including two CRs, and tumor control was achieved in 61% of patients. The median duration of response (9.3 months) and the median survival (10.2 months) are encouraging. Toxicity, which was mainly hematologic, was manageable, and an improvement in almost all the EORTC QLQ-C30 QOL domains was observed. This investigational combination is now tested in an ongoing phase II to III trial versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Authors' Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Acknowledgment
We thank Christine Gayet for her management of data throughout the study and Ludovic Mussak for his helpful contribution to the statistical analysis.
NOTES
Presented in part at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Chicago, IL, May 31-June 3, 2003.
Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, et al: Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:5-26, 2003
2. Fernandez E, La-Vecchia C, Porta M, et al: Trends in pancreatic cancer mortality in Europe, 1955-1989. Int J Cancer 57:786-792, 1994
3. Sant M, Aareleid T, Berrino F, et al: EUROCARE-3: Survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990-94—Results and commentary. Ann Oncol 14:61-118, 2003 (suppl 5)
4. Palmer KR, Kerr M, Knowles G, et al: Chemotherapy prolongs survival in inoperable pancreatic carcinoma. Br J Surg 81:882-885, 1994
5. Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Sjoden PO, et al: Chemotherapy improves survival and quality of life in advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer. Ann Oncol 7:593-600, 1996
6. Burris AH, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al: Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15:2403-2413, 1997
7. Berlin JD, Catalano P, Thomas JP, et al: Phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with fluorouracil versus gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E2297. J Clin Oncol 20:3270-3275, 2002
8. Bramhall SR, Schulz J, Nemunaitis J, et al: A double-blind placebo-controlled, randomised study comparing gemcitabine and marimastat with gemcitabine and placebo as first line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 87:161-167, 2002
9. Colucci G, Giulani F, Gebbia V, et al: Gemcitabine alone or with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: A prospective, randomized phase III study of the Gruppo Oncologia del l'Italia Meridionale. Cancer 94:902-910, 2002
10. Heinemann V, Quietzsch D, Gieseler F, et al: A phase III trial comparing gemcitabine plus cisplatin vs gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22:250, 2003 (abstr 1003)
11. Louvet C, Labianca R, Hammel P, et al: GemOx (gemcitabine + oxaliplatin) versus Gem (gemcitabine) in non resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Final results of the GERCOR/GISCAD intergroup phase III. J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr)
12. 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 22:3776-3783, 2004
13. Scheithauer W, Schull B, Ulrich-Pur H, et al: Biweekly high-dose gemcitabine alone or in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A randomised phase II trial. Ann Oncol 14:97-104, 2003
14. O'Reilly EM, Abou-Alfa GK, Letourneau R, et al: A randomized phase III trial of DX-8951f (exatecan mesylate; DX) and gemcitabine (GEM) vs. gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4006)
15. Richards DA, Kindler HL, Oettle H, et al: A randomized phase III study comparing gemcitabine + pemetrexed versus gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:315s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4007)
16. Matsuoka H, Yano K, Seo Y, et al: Cytotoxicity of CPT-11 for gastrointestinal cancer cells cultured on fixed-contact-sensitive plates. Anticancer Drugs 6:413-418, 1995
17. Mullany S, Svingen PA, Kaufmann SH, et al: Effect of adding the topoisomerase I poison 7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin (SN-38) to 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid in HCT-8 cells: Elevated dTTP pools and enhanced cytotoxicity. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 42:391-399, 1998
18. Pavillard V, Formento P, Rostagno P, et al: Combination of irinotecan (CPT11) and 5-fluorouracil with an analysis of cellular determinants of drug activity. Biochem Pharmacol 56:1315-1322, 1998
19. Mans DR, Grivicich I, Peters GJ, et al: Sequence-dependent growth inhibition and DNA damage formation by the irinotecan-5-fluorouracil combination in human colon carcinoma cell lines. Eur J Cancer 35:1851-1861, 1999
20. Takeda S, Shimazoe T, Kuga H, et al: Camptothecin analog (CPT-11)-sensitive human pancreatic tumor cell line QGP-1N shows resistance to SN-38, an active metabolite of CPT-11. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 188:70-77, 1992
21. Bissery MC, Vrignaud P, Lavelle F, et al: Experimental antitumor activity and pharmacokinetics of the camptothecin analog irinotecan (CPT-11) in mice. Anticancer Drugs 7:437-460, 1996
22. Sakata Y, Shimada Y, Yoshino M, et al: A late phase II study of CPT-11, irinotecan hydrochloride, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: CPT-11 Study Group on GastroIntestinal Cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 21:1039-1046, 1994
23. Wagener DJ, Verdonk HE, Dirix LY, et al: Phase II trial of CPT-11 in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, an EORTC early clinical trials group study. Ann Oncol 6:129-132, 1995
24. Funakoshi A, Okusaka T, Ishii H, et al: Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) alone in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:338s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4102)
25. Klapdor R, Fenner C: Irinotecan (Campto R): Efficacy as third/fourth line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer. Anticancer Res 20:5209-5212, 2000
26. Ulrich-Pur H, Raderer M, Verena Kornek G, et al: Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Cancer 88:1180-1184, 2003
27. Kornmann M, Fakler H, Butzer U, et al: Oxaliplatin exerts potent in vitro cytotoxicity in colorectal and pancreatic cancer cell lines and liver metastases. Anticancer Res 20:3259-3264, 2000
28. Ducreux M, Mitry E, Ould-Kaci M, et al: Randomized phase II study evaluating oxaliplatin alone, oxaliplatin combined with infusional 5-FU, and infusional 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic carcinoma patients. Ann Oncol 15:467-473, 2004
29. Zeghari-Squalli N, Raymond E, Cvitkovic E, et al: Cellular pharmacology of the combination of the DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor SN-38 and the diaminocyclohexane platinum derivative oxaliplatin. Clin Cancer Res 5:1189-1196, 1999
30. Goldwasser F, Bozec L, Zeghari-Squalli N, et al: Cellular pharmacology of the combination of oxaliplatin with topotecan in the IGROV-1 human ovarian cancer cell line. Anticancer Drugs 10:195-201, 1999
31. Ychou M, Conroy T, Seitz JF, et al: An open phase I study assessing the feasibility of the triple combination: Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan plus leucovorin/5-fluorouracil every 2 weeks in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol 14:481-489, 2003
32. Tournigand C, De Gramont A, Louvet C, et al: A simplified bi-monthly regimen with leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5 FU) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 17:274a, 1998 (abstr 1052)
33. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al: Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 47:207-214, 1981
34. Caussanel JP, Levi F, Brienza S, et al: Phase I trial of 5-day continuous venous infusion of oxaliplatin at circadian rhythm-modulated rate compared with constant rate. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:1046-1050, 1990
35. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365-376, 1993
36. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, et al: EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. Brussels, Belgium, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, 1995
37. Fayers P, Weeden S, Curran D: EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. Brussels, Belgium, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Study Group, 1998
38. Simon R: Optimal two stage for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1-10, 1989
39. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457-481, 1958
40. Shuster JJ: Median follow-up in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9:191-192, 1991
41. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al: Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality of life scores. J Clin Oncol 16:139-144, 1998
42. Bramhall SR, Rosemurgy A, Brown PD, et al: Marimastat as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 19:3447-3455, 2001
43. Van Cutsem E, van de Velde H, Karasek P, et al: Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:1430-1438, 2004
44. Moore MJ, Hamm J, Dancey J, et al: Comparison of gemcitabine versus the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: A phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol 21:3296-3302, 2003
45. Cheverton P, Friess H, Andras C, et al: Phase III results of exatecan (DX-8951f) versus gemcitabine (Gem) in chemotherapy-nave patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APA). J Clin Oncol 22:314s, 2004 (suppl 14, abstr 4005)
46. Maisey N, Chau I, Cunningham D, et al: Multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin in inoperable pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3130-3136, 2002
47. Storniolo AM, Enas NH, Brown CA, et al: An investigational new drug treatment program for patients with gemcitabine: Results for over 3000 patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 85:1261-1268, 1999
48. Rocha Lima CMS, 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 20:1182-1191, 2002
49. Louvet CH, 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 20:1512-1518, 2002
50. Alberts SR, Townley PM, Goldberg RM, et al: Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study. Ann Oncol 14:580-585, 2003(Thierry Conroy, Bernard P)