piperidines and Biliary-Tract-Neoplasms

Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care.. To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.. We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references).. Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine.. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.. We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rat. In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Female; Gallbladder Neoplasms; Gemcitabine; Humans; Male; Mitomycin; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Oxonic Acid; Piperidines; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tegafur

BACKGROUNDMEK inhibitors have limited activity in biliary tract cancers (BTCs) as monotherapy but are hypothesized to enhance responses to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibition.METHODSThis open-label phase II study randomized patients with BTC to atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) as monotherapy or in combination with cobimetinib (MEK inhibitor). Eligible patients had unresectable BTC with 1 to 2 lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting, measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status less than or equal to 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTSSeventy-seven patients were randomized and received study therapy. The trial met its primary endpoint, with a median PFS of 3.65 months in the combination arm versus 1.87 months in the monotherapy arm (HR 0.58, 90% CI 0.35-0.93, 1-tail P = 0.027). One patient in the combination arm (3.3%) and 1 patient in the monotherapy arm (2.8%) had a partial response. Combination therapy was associated with more rash, gastrointestinal events, CPK elevations, and thrombocytopenia. Exploratory analysis of tumor biopsies revealed enhanced expression of antigen processing and presentation genes and an increase in CD8/FoxP3 ratios with combination treatment. Patients with higher baseline or lower fold changes in expression of certain inhibitory ligands (LAG3, BTLA, VISTA) on circulating T cells had evidence of greater clinical benefit from the combination.CONCLUSIONThe combination of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib prolonged PFS as compared with atezolizumab monotherapy, but the low response rate in both arms highlights the immune-resistant nature of BTCs.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT03201458.FUNDINGNational Cancer Institute (NCI) Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN); F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.; NCI, NIH (R01 CA228414-01 and UM1CA186691); NCI's Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Gastrointestinal Cancers (P50 CA062924); NIH Center Core Grant (P30 CA006973); and the Passano Foundation.

Topics: Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Azetidines; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Piperidines; Progression-Free Survival

Vandetanib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that affects vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), and rearranged during transfection (RET) mediated receptors which are important for growth and invasion of biliary and pancreatic cancers. This phase I study evaluated the safety profile of vandetanib in combination with standard doses of gemcitabine and capecitabine in order to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).. In this single center phase I trial, patients received gemcitabine intravenously (i.v.) at 1000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 in a 28 day cycle, capecitabine orally at 850 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, and escalating doses of vandetanib (200 or 300 mg orally daily). Once the MTD was defined, an expansion cohort of patients with advanced biliary cancers and locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer was enrolled. Blood samples were also collected at predetermined time points for biomarker analysis.. Twenty-three patients were enrolled: 9 in the dose escalation and 14 in the dose expansion cohort. One dose limiting toxicity (DLT), of grade 4 neutropenia, occurred in the 200 mg vandetanib cohort. The most common adverse effects were diarrhea (39 %), nausea and vomiting (34%), and rash (33%). There were 3 partial responses and stable disease of >2 months (range 2-45, median 5) was observed in 15/23 patients. There was no association between changes in biomarker analytes and disease response.. The combination of gemcitabine, capecitabine and vandetanib is well tolerated at the recommended phase II dose of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly for three consecutive weeks, capecitabine 850 mg/m2 BID days 1-21, and vandetanib 300 mg daily, every 28 days. This combination demonstrated promising activity in pancreaticobiliary cancers and further evaluation is warranted in these diseases. NCT00551096.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Cohort Studies; Deoxycytidine; Female; Gemcitabine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Piperidines; Quinazolines; Treatment Outcome

The management of biliary tract cancers (BTCs) is complex due to limited data on the optimal therapeutic approach. This phase II multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vandetanib monotherapy compared with vandetanib plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced BTC.. Patients were randomized in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to three treatment groups: vandetanib 300 mg monotherapy (V), vandetanib 100 mg plus gemcitabine (V/G), gemcitabine plus placebo (G/P). Vandetanib (300 mg or 100 mg) or placebo was given in single oral daily doses. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was i.v. infused on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were: objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, overall survival, duration of response, performance status and safety outcomes.. A total of 173 patients (mean age 63.6 years) were recruited at 19 centers across Italy. Median (95% confidence intervals) PFS (days) were 105 (72-155), 114 (91-193) and 148 (71-225), respectively, for the V, V/G and G/P treatment groups, with no statistical difference among them (P = 0.18). No statistical difference between treatments was observed for secondary end points, except ORR, which slightly favored the V/G combination over other treatments. The proportion of patients reporting adverse events (AEs) was similar for the three groups (96.6% in V arm, 91.4% in the V/G arm and 89.3% in the G/P arm).. Vandetanib treatment did not improve PFS in patients with advanced BTC. The safety profile of vandetanib did not show any additional AEs or worsening of already known AEs.. NCT00753675.

Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Deoxycytidine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gemcitabine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Piperidines; Quinazolines