Explore the vast range of titles available.

The FOLFIRINOX combination of chemotherapy drugs had not been fully evaluated for Japanese pancreatic cancer patients. Therefore, we carried out a phase II study to examine the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX in chemotherapy‐naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. FOLFIRINOX (i.v. infusion of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 180 mg/m2 irinotecan, and 200 mg/m2 l‐leucovorin, followed by a bolus of 400 mg/m2 fluorouracil and a 46‐h continuous infusion of 2400 mg/m2 fluorouracil) was given every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the response rate. The 36 enrolled patients received a median of eight (range, 1–25) treatment cycles. The response rate was 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1–56.5); median overall survival, 10.7 months (95% CI, 6.9–13.2); and median progression‐free survival, 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.0–7.8). Major grade 3 or 4 toxicities included neutropenia (77.8%), febrile neutropenia (22.2%), thrombocytopenia (11.1%), anemia (11.1%), anorexia (11.1%), diarrhea (8.3%), nausea (8.3%), elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (8.3%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5.6%). Febrile neutropenia occurred only during the first cycle. There were no treatment‐related deaths. FOLFIRINOX can be a standard regimen showing favorable efficacy and acceptable toxicity profile in chemotherapy‐naïve Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. FOLFIRINOX showed favorable results regarding RR (38.9%), PFS (5.6 months) and OS (10.7 months) in Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. This regimen can be a new first‐line standard treatment.

Background The efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II study comparing a sequential HAIC-sorafenib regimen versus sorafenib alone as an initial therapy for HCC. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sequential HAIC with cisplatin followed by sorafenib (HAIC group, n  = 35) or sorafenib alone (sorafenib group, n  = 33) as an initial therapy. The primary endpoint was the one-year survival rate. Secondary endpoint included overall survival (OS), the 2-year survival rate, the time-to-progression (TTP), the objective response rate (ORR), the disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results For the primary endpoint, the one-year survival rates were 46% in the HAIC group and 58% in the sorafenib group. The median OS period was 10.0 months (95% CI, 7.0–18.8) in the HAIC group and 15.2 months (95% CI, 8.2–19.7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.86, P  = 0.78). The median TTP, ORR and DCR in the HAIC group were 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.7–5.5), 14.3, and 45.7%, respectively, while those in the sorafenib group were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3–6.8), 9.1, and 45.5%, respectively. No unexpected adverse events related to HAIC or sorafenib were observed in either group. Conclusions Sequential HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib does not improve the survival benefit, compared with sorafenib alone, when used as an initial therapy for advanced HCC. However, this study was underpowered in regard to its primary and secondary endpoints, so the results should be interpreted with caution. Trial registration UMIN ID 000006147 , registration data: August 11, 2011.

Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471146. Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9–9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9–10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786–1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 [7%] and 5 [2%] events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 [7%] and 17 [6%]), fatigue (27 [9%] and 21 [7%]), and anorexia (19 [6%] and 11 [4%]). The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease. Pfizer.

GC33 is a humanized mAb against human glypican‐3 (GPC3). In the first‐in‐human study carried out in the USA, GC33 was well tolerated and showed preliminary antitumor activity in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of GC33 in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The study design was a conventional 3 + 3 dose‐escalation design to determine the maximum tolerated dose of GC33 given i.v. at 5, 10, or 20 mg/kg weekly. Immunohistochemistry was carried out on tumor biopsies to evaluate GPC3 expression. Thirteen patients were enrolled across the three dose levels, and no patients observed any dose‐limiting toxicity up to the highest planned dose of 20 mg/kg. The most common adverse events were decreased lymphocyte count, decreased natural killer cell count, increased C‐reactive protein, and pyrexia. Grade 3 adverse events (increased blood pressure, decreased lymphocyte count, and decreased platelet count) were observed in two or more patients. The AUCinf showed a dose‐proportional increase from the 5 mg/kg dose group to the 20 mg/kg dose group. The trough concentrations of GC33 appeared to reach a steady state after the fourth to the sixth dose. Seven of the 13 patients showed stable disease, the other six showed progressive disease. Furthermore, three patients showed long‐term stable disease of more than 5 months. In conclusion, GC33 given at up to 20 mg/kg weekly was well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. GC33 administered at up to 20 mg/kg weekly was well tolerated in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Seven of the 13 patients showed stable disease, the other six showed progressive disease. Furthermore, three patients showed long stable disease of more than 5 months.

Gemcitabine is a key drug for the treatment of pancreatic cancer; however, with its limitation in clinical benefits, the development of another potent therapeutic is necessary. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 is an essential target for tumor angiogenesis, and we have conducted a phase I clinical trial using gemcitabine and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 peptide (elpamotide). Based on the promising results of this phase I trial, a multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind phase II/III clinical trial has been carried out for pancreatic cancer. The eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were assigned to either the Active group (elpamotide + gemcitabine) or Placebo group (placebo + gemcitabine) in a 2:1 ratio by the dynamic allocation method. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The Harrington–Fleming test was applied to the statistical analysis in this study to evaluate the time‐lagged effect of immunotherapy appropriately. A total of 153 patients (Active group, n = 100; Placebo group, n = 53) were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the prolongation of overall survival (Harrington–Fleming P‐value, 0.918; log–rank P‐value, 0.897; hazard ratio, 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.486–1.557). Median survival time was 8.36 months (95% CI, 7.46–10.18) for the Active group and 8.54 months (95% CI, 7.33–10.84) for the Placebo group. The toxicity observed in both groups was manageable. Combination therapy of elpamotide with gemcitabine was well tolerated. Despite the lack of benefit in overall survival, subgroup analysis suggested that the patients who experienced severe injection site reaction, such as ulceration and erosion, might have better survival. Phase II/III trial of elpamotide was performed to evaluate the clinical effect for advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite the lack of benefit in OS, sub‐group analysis suggested that the patients with severe ISR might have better survival.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified many single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are significantly associated with pancreatic cancer susceptibility. We sought to replicate the associations of 61 GWAS-identified SNPs at 42 loci with pancreatic cancer in Japanese and to develop a risk model for the identification of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer development in the general Japanese population. The model was based on data including directly determined or imputed SNP genotypes for 664 pancreatic cancer case and 664 age- and sex-matched control subjects. Stepwise logistic regression uncovered five GWAS-identified SNPs at five loci that also showed significant associations in our case-control cohort. These five SNPs were included in the risk model and also applied to calculation of the polygenic risk score (PRS). The area under the curve determined with the leave-one-out cross-validation method was 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66) or 0.61 (0.58-0.64) for versions of the model that did or did not include cigarette smoking and family history of pancreatic cancer in addition to the five SNPs, respectively. Individuals in the lowest and highest quintiles for the PRS had odds ratios of 0.62 (0.42-0.91) and 1.98 (1.42-2.76), respectively, for pancreatic cancer development compared with those in the middle quintile. We have thus developed a risk model for pancreatic cancer that showed moderately good discriminatory ability with regard to differentiation of pancreatic cancer patients from control individuals. Our findings suggest the potential utility of a risk model that incorporates replicated GWAS-identified SNPs and established demographic or environmental factors for the identification of individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer development.

Background REACH evaluated ramucirumab in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the intent-to-treat population ( n  = 565), a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was not observed. In patients with an elevated baseline α-fetoprotein (AFP) level (400 ng/mL or greater), an improvement in OS was demonstrated. An analysis of the Japanese patients in REACH was performed. Methods An analysis was performed with the subset of the intent-to-treat population enrolled in Japan ( n  = 93). Results The median OS was 12.9 months for the ramucirumab arm ( n  = 45) and 8.0 months for the placebo arm ( n  = 48) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.621 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.391–0.986); P  = 0.0416]. The median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for the ramucirumab arm and 1.7 months for the placebo arm [HR 0.449 (95 % CI 0.285–0.706); P  = 0.0004]. The objective response rates were 11 % for the ramucirumab arm and 2 % for the placebo arm ( P  = 0.0817). The grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in more than 5 % of patients with a higher incidence for the ramucirumab arm ( n  = 44) than for the placebo arm ( n  = 47) were ascites (7% vs 2 %), hypertension (7 % vs 2 %), and cholangitis (7 % vs 0 %). In patients with a baseline AFP level of 400 ng/mL or greater, the median OS was 12.9 months for the ramucirumab arm ( n  = 20) and 4.3 months for the placebo arm ( n  = 22) [HR 0.464 (95 % CI 0.232–0.926); P  = 0.0263]. Conclusions In the Japanese patients in REACH, ramucirumab treatment improved OS, including in patients with a baseline AFP level of 400 ng/mL or greater; improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were also demonstrated. The safety profile of ramucirumab was acceptable and well tolerated in Japanese patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01140347.

Erlotinib combined with gemcitabine has not been evaluated in Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. This two‐step phase II study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetics of erlotinib 100 mg/day (oral) plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (i.v. days 1, 8, 15) in a 28‐day cycle in the first step, and efficacy and safety in the second step. The primary end‐point was safety. One hundred and seven patients were enrolled (first step, n = 6; second step, n = 101). The most common adverse event was RASH (compiled using the preferred terms rash, acne, exfoliative rash, dermatitis acneiform, erythema, eczema, dermatitis and pustular rash) in 93.4% of patients. One treatment‐related death occurred. While interstitial lung disease‐like events were reported in nine patients (8.5%; grade 1/2/3, 3.8/2.8/1.9%), all patients recovered or improved. The median overall survival, the 1‐year survival rate and median progression‐free survival were 9.23 months, 33.0% and 3.48 months, respectively. The overall response and disease control rates were 20.3% and 50.0%, respectively. In Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, erlotinib plus gemcitabine had acceptable toxicity and efficacy that was not inferior to that seen in Western patients. (Cancer Sci 2011; 102: 425–431)

We genotyped 2 SNPs (rs3790844 T/C and rs3790843 G/A) in the NR5A2 gene that were identified in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of pancreatic cancer in populations of mainly European ancestry and we examined their associations with pancreatic cancer risk in a case-control study of 360 patients and 400 control subjects in Japan. Unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The SNPs were in linkage disequilibrium (r 2  = 0.80). For rs3790843, the multivariable-adjusted OR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41–1.36) and 0.60 (95%CI: 0.33–1.08) for subjects with the AG and AA genotype, respectively, compared to subjects with the GG genotype. The per allele OR was 0.78 (0.62–0.99) (P = 0.046). For rs3790844, the multivariable-adjusted OR was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.37–1.14) and 0.47 (95%CI: 0.27–0.83) for subjects with the CT and CC genotype, respectively, compared to subjects with the TT genotype. The per allele OR was 0.70 (0.56–0.89) (P = 0.003). Our case-control study found that rs3790843 and rs3790844 in the NR5A2 gene are associated with pancreatic cancer risk in Japanese subjects. The direction of association is consistent with the prior findings from GWASs.

[...]to introduce the FOLFIRINOX therapy as early as possible in Japan, we used the same dosing regimen as that in the ACCORD11 study. When we planned this trial, we already knew the results of the ACCORD11 study. [...]we considered that it would be more appropriate to assess the safety of the FOLFIRINOX regimen on a large cohort of Japanese patients rather than to assess dose limiting toxicity in 3–6 patients with an escalation of the patient doses by conducting a typical phase I study. [...]the response rate that was the primary endpoint was comparable to that of the ACCORD11 study.