OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS:281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.
Authors: Tomislav Dragovich; Mark Huberman; Daniel D Von Hoff; Eric K Rowinsky; Paul Nadler; Debra Wood; Marta Hamilton; George Hage; Julie Wolf; Amita Patnaik Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Volker Heinemann; Detlef Quietzsch; Frank Gieseler; Michael Gonnermann; Herbert Schönekäs; Andreas Rost; Horst Neuhaus; Caroline Haag; Michael Clemens; Bernard Heinrich; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Martin Fuchs; Doris Fleckenstein; Wolfgang Gesierich; Dirk Uthgenannt; Hermann Einsele; Axel Holstege; Axel Hinke; Andreas Schalhorn; Ralf Wilkowski Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Malcolm J Moore; David Goldstein; John Hamm; Arie Figer; Joel R Hecht; Steven Gallinger; Heather J Au; Pawel Murawa; David Walde; Robert A Wolff; Daniel Campos; Robert Lim; Keyue Ding; Gary Clark; Theodora Voskoglou-Nomikos; Mieke Ptasynski; Wendy Parulekar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Boeck; T Hoehler; G Seipelt; R Mahlberg; A Wein; A Hochhaus; H-P Boeck; B Schmid; E Kettner; M Stauch; F Lordick; Y Ko; M Geissler; K Schoppmeyer; G Kojouharoff; A Golf; S Neugebauer; V Heinemann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Matthew H Kulke; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; David P Ryan; Jeffrey W Clark; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Andrew X Zhu; Peter C Enzinger; Eunice L Kwak; Alona Muzikansky; Colleen Lawrence; Charles S Fuchs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard Herrmann; György Bodoky; Thomas Ruhstaller; Bengt Glimelius; Emilio Bajetta; Johannes Schüller; Piercarlo Saletti; Jean Bauer; Arie Figer; Bernhard Pestalozzi; Claus-Henning Köhne; Walter Mingrone; Salomon M Stemmer; Karin Tàmas; Gabriela V Kornek; Dieter Koeberle; Susanne Cina; Jürg Bernhard; Daniel Dietrich; Werner Scheithauer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stephan Kruger; Michael Haas; Steffen Ormanns; Sibylle Bächmann; Jens T Siveke; Thomas Kirchner; Volker Heinemann; Stefan Boeck Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Stefan Boeck; Andreas Jung; Rüdiger P Laubender; Jens Neumann; Rosalind Egg; Clara Goritschan; Steffen Ormanns; Michael Haas; Dominik P Modest; Thomas Kirchner; Volker Heinemann Journal: J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 7.527
Authors: Michael Guenther; Vivien Veninga; Joerg Kumbrink; Michael Haas; C Benedikt Westphalen; Stephan Kruger; Volker Heinemann; Thomas Kirchner; Stefan Boeck; Andreas Jung; Steffen Ormanns Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Jens Werner; Stephanie E Combs; Christoph Springfeld; Werner Hartwig; Thilo Hackert; Markus W Büchler Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Emil Ter Veer; L Bengt van Rijssen; Marc G Besselink; Rosa M A Mali; Jordan D Berlin; Stefan Boeck; Franck Bonnetain; Ian Chau; Thierry Conroy; Eric Van Cutsem; Gael Deplanque; Helmut Friess; Bengt Glimelius; David Goldstein; Richard Herrmann; Roberto Labianca; Jean-Luc Van Laethem; Teresa Macarulla; Jonathan H M van der Meer; John P Neoptolemos; Takuji Okusaka; Eileen M O'Reilly; Uwe Pelzer; Philip A Philip; Marcel J van der Poel; Michele Reni; Werner Scheithauer; Jens T Siveke; Chris Verslype; Olivier R Busch; Johanna W Wilmink; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 41.316