BACKGROUND: The pancreatic tumor microenvironment is rich in receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFRs). Imatinib mesylate (IM) inhibits PDGFRs and decreases tumor interstitial fluid pressure, potentially improving drug access. These data and promising results in a phase 1 trial formed the rationale for a phase 2 trial combining IM and gemcitabine (GEM) in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status ≤2; and adequate end-organ function. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). GEM was given at 1200 mg/m(2)/120 min on days 3 and 10. IM (400 mg) was taken orally on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 of a 21-day cycle. Response was assessed every 3 cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients from 7 centers were enrolled from October 2005 through July 2009. Median age was 62 years. The median number of cycles completed was 3 (range, 0-17). Common adverse effects included neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and fatigue. Half the patients required dose reductions. There were no complete responses to therapy. During treatment, 1 patient showed a partial response, 16 had stable disease, and 18 had progressive disease. The median PFS was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.1), the median OS was 6.3 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-8.5), and the 1-year survival rate was 25.6% (95% confidence interval, 13.8-39.1). CONCLUSION: IM in combination with GEM is tolerated in locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent pancreatic cancer, but does not show a statistically significant PFS or OS benefit over chemotherapy with GEM alone.
BACKGROUND: The pancreatic tumor microenvironment is rich in receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFRs). Imatinib mesylate (IM) inhibits PDGFRs and decreases tumor interstitial fluid pressure, potentially improving drug access. These data and promising results in a phase 1 trial formed the rationale for a phase 2 trial combining IM and gemcitabine (GEM) in pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status ≤2; and adequate end-organ function. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). GEM was given at 1200 mg/m(2)/120 min on days 3 and 10. IM (400 mg) was taken orally on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 of a 21-day cycle. Response was assessed every 3 cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients from 7 centers were enrolled from October 2005 through July 2009. Median age was 62 years. The median number of cycles completed was 3 (range, 0-17). Common adverse effects included neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and fatigue. Half the patients required dose reductions. There were no complete responses to therapy. During treatment, 1 patient showed a partial response, 16 had stable disease, and 18 had progressive disease. The median PFS was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.1), the median OS was 6.3 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-8.5), and the 1-year survival rate was 25.6% (95% confidence interval, 13.8-39.1). CONCLUSION:IM in combination with GEM is tolerated in locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent pancreatic cancer, but does not show a statistically significant PFS or OS benefit over chemotherapy with GEM alone.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bruce E Johnson; Thomas Fischer; Berthold Fischer; David Dunlop; Danny Rischin; Sandra Silberman; Mildred Ortu Kowalski; Deanne Sayles; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Christopher Fletcher; Jason Hornick; Ravi Salgia; Thierry Le Chevalier Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jaap Verweij; Paolo G Casali; John Zalcberg; Axel LeCesne; Peter Reichardt; Jean-Yves Blay; Rolf Issels; Allan van Oosterom; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Martine Van Glabbeke; Rossella Bertulli; Ian Judson Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 25-Oct 1 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kristian Pietras; Kristofer Rubin; Tobias Sjöblom; Elisabeth Buchdunger; Mats Sjöquist; Carl-Henrik Heldin; Arne Ostman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Charles D Blanke; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Burton Eisenberg; Peter J Roberts; Michael C Heinrich; David A Tuveson; Samuel Singer; Milos Janicek; Jonathan A Fletcher; Stuart G Silverman; Sandra L Silberman; Renaud Capdeville; Beate Kiese; Bin Peng; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Brian J Druker; Christopher Corless; Christopher D M Fletcher; Heikki Joensuu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rosa F Hwang; Kenji Yokoi; Corazon D Bucana; Rachel Tsan; Jerald J Killion; Douglas B Evans; Isaiah J Fidler Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Junsheng Li; Jörg Kleeff; Junchao Guo; Lars Fischer; Nathalia Giese; Markus W Büchler; Helmut Friess Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2003-09-17 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Yan Bi; Jiachu Li; Baoan Ji; Ningling Kang; Liu Yang; Douglas A Simonetto; Jung H Kwon; Marielle Kamath; Sheng Cao; Vijay Shah Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Niranjan Awasthi; Stefan Hinz; Rolf A Brekken; Margaret A Schwarz; Roderich E Schwarz Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: David B Zhen; Kent A Griffith; Joshua M Ruch; Kevin Camphausen; Jason E Savage; Edward J Kim; Vaibhav Sahai; Diane M Simeone; Mark M Zalupski Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.850