Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): a randomised phase 2 trial

      research-article

      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.

          Summary

          Background

          Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer; expression of VEGF and its receptors is associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib (an oral inhibitor of VEGF receptor 1, 2, and 3) to cisplatin and gemcitabine on progression-free survival.

          Methods

          In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed advanced biliary tract cancer from hepatobiliary oncology referral centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if they had an ECOG performance status of 0–1 and an estimated life expectancy of longer than 3 months. Patients were given first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy (25 mg/m 2 cisplatin and 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine [on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, for up to eight cycles]) with either 20 mg oral cediranib or placebo once a day until disease progression. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm, incorporating the stratification factors: extent of disease, primary disease site, previous treatment, ECOG performance status, and centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00939848, and was closed on Sept 30, 2014; results of the final analysis for the primary endpoint are presented.

          Findings

          Between April 5, 2011, and Sept 28, 2012, we enrolled 124 patients (62 in each group). With a median follow-up of 12·2 months (IQR 7·3–18·5), median progression-free survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·5–9·3) in the cediranib group and 7·4 months (5·7–8·5) in the placebo group (HR 0·93, 80% CI 0·74–1·19, 95% CI 0·65–1·35; p=0·72). Patients who received cediranib had more grade 3–4 toxic effects than did patients who received placebo: hypertension (23 [37%] vs 13 [21%]; p=0·05), diarrhoea (eight [13%] vs two [3%]; p=0·05); platelet count decreased (ten [16%] vs four [6%]; p=0·09), white blood cell decreased (15 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·06) and fatigue (16 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·04).

          Interpretation

          Cediranib did not improve the progression-free survival of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, which remains the standard of care. Although patients in the cediranib group had more adverse events, we recorded no unexpected toxic effects. The role of VEGF inhibition in addition to chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer remains investigational.

          Funding

          Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • 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

            Evaluation and prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

            Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) lacks validated biomarkers to predict treatment response. This study investigated whether circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are detectable in patients with NSCLC and what their ability might be to provide prognostic information and/or early indication of patient response to conventional therapy. In this single-center prospective study, blood samples for CTC analysis were obtained from 101 patients with previously untreated, stage III or IV NSCLC both before and after administration of one cycle of standard chemotherapy. CTCs were measured using a semiautomated, epithelial cell adhesion molecule-based immunomagnetic technique. The number of CTCs in 7.5 mL of blood was higher in patients with stage IV NSCLC (n = 60; range, 0 to 146) compared with patients with stage IIIB (n = 27; range, 0 to 3) or IIIA disease (n = 14; no CTCs detected). In univariate analysis, progression-free survival was 6.8 v 2.4 months with P < .001, and overall survival (OS) was 8.1 v 4.3 months with P < .001 for patients with fewer than five CTCs compared with five or more CTCs before chemotherapy, respectively. In multivariate analysis, CTC number was the strongest predictor of OS (hazard ratio [HR], 7.92; 95% CI, 2.85 to 22.01; P < .001), and the point estimate of the HR was increased with incorporation of a second CTC sample that was taken after one cycle of chemotherapy (HR, 15.65; 95% CI, 3.63 to 67.53; P < .001). CTCs are detectable in patients with stage IV NSCLC and are a novel prognostic factor for this disease. Further validation is warranted before routine clinical application.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Increasing incidence and mortality of primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States.

              T. Patel (2001)
              Clinical observations suggest a recent increase in intrahepatic biliary tract malignancies. Thus, our aim was to determine recent trends in the epidemiology of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States. Reported data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the United States Vital Statistics databases were analyzed to determine the incidence, mortality, and survival rates of primary intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Between 1973 and 1997, the incidence and mortality rates from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma markedly increased, with an estimated annual percent change (EAPC) of 9.11% (95% CI, 7.46 to 10.78) and 9.44% (95%, CI 8.46 to 10.41), respectively. The age-adjusted mortality rate per 100,000 persons for whites increased from 0.14 for the period 1975-1979 to 0.65 for the period 1993-1997, and that for blacks increased from 0.15 to 0.58 over the same period. The increase in mortality was similar across all age groups above age 45. The relative 1- and 2-year survival rates following diagnosis from 1989 to 1996 were 24.5% and 12.8%, respectively. In conclusion, there has been a marked increase in the incidence and mortality from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States in recent years. This tumor continues to be associated with a poor prognosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Oncol
                Lancet Oncol
                The Lancet. Oncology
                Lancet Pub. Group
                1470-2045
                1474-5488
                1 August 2015
                August 2015
                : 16
                : 8
                : 967-978
                Affiliations
                [a ]Institute of Cancer Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [b ]The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [c ]Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
                [d ]Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Clinical Trials Centre, London, UK
                [e ]University of Liverpool and Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
                [f ]The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [g ]St James University Hospital, The Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK
                [h ]Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [i ]Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
                [j ]Hull York Medical School, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK
                [k ]Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [l ]Kent Oncology Centre, Maidstone Hospital, Kent, UK
                [m ]Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
                [n ]Southampton University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
                [o ]Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
                [p ]UCL Cancer Institute, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Juan W Valle, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre/The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK juan.valle@ 123456manchester.ac.uk
                Article
                S1470-2045(15)00139-4
                10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00139-4
                4648082
                26179201
                590088e2-99f7-49b6-b5d9-636dc29d3446
                © 2015 Valle et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content294

                Cited by118

                Most referenced authors612