Departments of 1 Oncology (ANCHOR Unit), 2 Gastroenterology and 3 Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen; 4 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics (Oncology), University of Aberdeen, Institute of Medical Sciences, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK
Received 8 January 2003; accepted 5 March 2003
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The effective treatment of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma represents a formidable challenge. There is a need to develop systemic therapies which combine efficacy with acceptable toxicity. The current gold standard gemcitabine gives an objective response rate of the order of 20% and median survival up to 6 months. Here we have evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of mitomycin C, cisplatin and protracted infusional 5-fluorouracil (MCF).
Patients and methods:
Forty-five patients with locally advanced (13 patients) or metastatic (32 patients) pancreatic carcinoma were treated with mitomycin C 7 mg/m2 6 weekly, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 3 weekly and protracted venous infusion 5-FU 300 mg/m2/day. Patients were evaluated for response after three cycles and received six cycles in total in the absence of progressive disease or poor tolerance. Median age was 62 (4575) years; 41 patients were World Health Organization performance status 01.
Results:
Treatment was well tolerated with 36 (84%) patients completing three or more cycles. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were uncommon: anaemia in three patients (7%), mucositis in two (5%), nausea and vomiting in three (7%) and diarrhoea in one (1%). An objective response was seen in 21 (46%) patients. There was one complete response. The median survival overall was 7.1 months and 10.5 months in responders. The median duration of response was 4.3 months. One-year survival was 29%, 2-year survival was 18%.
Conclusions:
MCF combines efficacy with low toxicity in the treatment of advanced pancreatic carcinoma. The efficacy is at least comparable and may be superior to single-agent gemcitabine and MCF may therefore provide a cost-effective alternative.
Key words: chemotherapy, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C, pancreatic cancer
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Despite a prolonged period of pessimism it is now clear that systemic chemotherapy can benefit a significant proportion of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer through prolongation of survival, symptom control and improved quality of life [233]. Patient selection is undoubtedly important but data from phase II and phase III trials have shown that response rates of 1530%, median survival of 59 months and 1-year survival of 1525% can be achieved [233]. The use of the composite end point of clinical benefit response (CBR), involving measurements of pain, Karnofsky performance status and weight, has revealed that up to 60% of patients may benefit from chemotherapy.
Several agents alone and in combination have been evaluated. Most comprehensive data exists for gemcitabine. In the cardinal study by Burris et al., 126 patients were randomised to gemcitabine or weekly bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) [2]. CBR was seen in 24% of gemcitabine patients as compared to 5% of 5-FU treated and median survivals (5.7 versus 4.4) and 1-year survivals (18% versus 2%) were significantly improved with gemcitabine. Gemcitabine was well tolerated compared with 5-FU in this study with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia in 19% and 7%, thrombocytopenia in 10% and 0%, anaemia in 7% and 3%, nausea and vomiting in 10% and 3% and diarrhoea in 2% and 0%, respectively. Smaller studies have reported similar efficacy and toxicity for single-agent gemcitabine [3]. Consequently many authorities regard single-agent gemcitabine as the standard of care for first-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite encouraging results from phase II trials, phase III studies to date have not shown a consistent clinically significant benefit for combination chemotherapy over single-agent chemotherapy [4, 5].
Here we present the results of a phase II study of mitomycin C, cisplatin and protracted venous infusion 5-FU (MCF) in advanced pancreatic cancer. The rationale for this was the observed single-agent activity of each drug in pancreatic carcinoma, combined with the observation of synergy between 5-FU and cisplatin, and 5-FU and mitomycin C in a number of clinical and preclinical settings [3436]. A phase II study of cisplatin and 5-FU in advanced pancreatic cancer demonstrated good efficacy and acceptable toxicity [6]. Phase II studies of MCF in carcinoma of unknown primary and gastric carcinoma have shown this regimen to be well tolerated [37, 38].
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Eligible patients had not received prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy, were over 18 years of age, had no central nervous system metastases, no uncontrolled infection and a life expectancy of more than 3 months. Adequate bone marrow function (absolute neutrophil count 1.5 x 109, platelets >100 x 109), renal function [serum creatinine less than upper limit of normal (ULN) and calculated clearance by CockcroftGault formulae of >50], hepatic function (serum billirubin BR <1.5 ULN, serum transaminases <1.5 ULN) were assessed. Pain and biliary obstruction were controlled in all patients before entry into the study. The trial was approved by institutional ethics committee.
Treatment and evaluation schedule
MCF consisted of mitomycin C 6 mg/m2 administered as an intravenous bolus every 6 weeks, cisplatin 50 mg/m2 infusion with hydration (0.9% sodium chloride 1000 ml with potassium chloride 10 mmol and magnesium sulphate 8 mmol over 2 h pre- and post-cisplatin and 0.9% sodium chloride 500 ml post-cisplatin) 3 weekly and 5-FU administered as protracted infusion at 300 mg/m2/day via indwelling central venous catheter in the subclavian or internal jugular vein. Prophylactic warfarin 1 mg o.d. was given to all patients. If toxicity of the National Cancer InstituteCommon Toxicity Criteria (NCICTC) grade 2 or greater was observed the subsequent cycle was delayed until the toxicity was resolved and a 20% dose reduction in mitomycin and cisplatin instigated. Toxicities specifically related to 5-FU (mucositis, Palmar Planter Erythema (PPE) and diarrhoea) of grade 2 or worse resulted in the interruption of the protracted venous infusion until resolution and recommencement at 20% dose reduction.
Assessment of efficacy and toxicity
All patients had a baseline computed tomography (CT) scan. Patients were assessed clinically for response and toxicity weekly during treatment. Toxicity and performance status were recorded on each occasion (NCICTC grade). Treatment was continued for 9 weeks after which response was assessed by CT scan. If stable disease or better was recorded treatment continued for a further 9 weeks to complete 18 weeks of treatment. Treatment was discontinued at any time if there was clinical, biochemical or radiological evidence of disease progression or if in the opinion of the investigator or patient unacceptable toxicity was encountered.
Response was assessed according to the World Health Organization criteria. All responses were confirmed by second CT scan at least 4 weeks after the CT documenting the response.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Toxicity
Toxicities are recorded in Table 2. With the exception of nausea, vomiting and mucositis toxicity was uncommon and in particular grade 3 or 4 toxicity was infrequent: anaemia grade 3 and 4 occurred in 2% and 4% of patients, respectively, mucositis grade 3 occurred in 7% of patients and diarrhoea grade 3 occurred in 2% of patients. No grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia was recorded.
|
Efficacy
Efficacy data are summarised in Table 3. One patient had a complete response. Twenty partial responses were recorded. The overall objective response rate was 46%. All responses were confirmed with CT at least 4 weeks after the initial responding scan. Stable disease was recorded in a further seven patients.
|
The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 29% and 18%, respectively. In patients with an objective response to chemotherapy 1-year survival was 62% and 2-year survival was 38%.
Response rate and survival were not significantly different in those patients with a histological diagnosis compared to those without (1-year survival 52% and 37%, P = 0.12, respectively, and median survival 6 months versus 4 months, P = 0.122, respectively, for histologically proven versus not histologically proven).
Interestingly, all patients with an objective response responded within the first 9 weeks (three cycles) of treatment and none progressed before completion of 18 weeks (six cycles) of treatment. No patients with stable disease after 9 weeks of treatment subsquently responded with further treatment.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Twenty-nine out of the 45 cases (64%) were confirmed histologically. Biopsy was attempted in 85%. In this group of patients with advanced disease, often difficult symptom control problems and poor prognosis it was deemed appropriate to make only one attempt at biopsy. However, careful review of the clinical and radiological features of each case in the multidisciplinary setting (involving medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, hepatobiliary surgeons and gastroenterologists) combined with observation of the natural history of all cases in this study (own recorded observationsclinical and radiological) leaves no doubt as to the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in all patients. This is supported by the lack of significant difference in response rate and median survival between patients with and without a histological diagnosis. Furthermore, in a cohort of 186 patients with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of pancreatic cancer but no histological diagnosis with long-term follow-up only 13 (6.9%) had a benign cause [39].
The overall objective response rate was 46%. This compares favourably to those rates published for gemcitabine and gemcitabine-based combinations [25, 733]. The difficulties in evaluating reponse in advanced pancreatic cancer are well documented [39]. In particular, the often intense desmoplastic reaction associated with the primary tumour can make measurement difficult and subjective. Independent review of the radiological response data was not performed in this study. Therefore while the reported response rate is encouraging the 1-year and 2-year survival data provide more convincing evidence of the efficacy of this regimen. Again these data compare favourably with the published data for 1-year and 2-year survival for gemcitabine and gemcitabine-based combinations [25, 733].
Single-agent chemotherapy with gemcitabine is considered by many oncologists to represent the gold standard for first-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer [2]. Ongoing phase III studies are addressing the issue of whether gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy can provide superior efficacy without acceptable additional toxicity [35]. Table 4 summarises all the published phase II/III studies of gemcitabine and gemcitabine-based combinations in advanced pancreatic cancer patients (all studies had at least 30 patients). The studies are arranged in descending order based upon reported median survival. Clearly the results for many of these studies will be influenced by patient selection and prognostic factor distribution within the treated groups, so that comparison should be made with caution. Nevertheless, the results from this study lie within the middle of the range reported for gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and therefore suggest that MCF has comparable efficacy.
|
In conclusion, MCF is an effective, well-tolerated, cost-effective regimen in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The efficacy appears to be at least comparable and may be superior to single-agent gemcitabine with similar toxicity. Further studies are ongoing but MCF may provide a cost-effective alternative for the management of advanced pancreatic carcinoma.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Burris HA, Moore MJ Andersen J et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first line therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised trial. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 24032413.[Abstract]
3. Carmichael J, Fink U, Russell RC et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer 1996; 73: 101105 and 1999; 73: 101105.[CrossRef]
4. Berlin J, Catalano P, Thomas J et al. A phase III study of gemcitabine in combination with 5-FU versus gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma (E2297). An Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 127 (Abstr 505).
5. Diconstanzo F, Sdroboloni A, Carlini P. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with 5-FU continuous infusion in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 154 (Abstr 612).
6. Nicolson M, Webb A, Cunningham D et al. Cisplatin and protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil (CF)good symptom relief with low toxicity in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Oncol 1995; 6: 801804.[Abstract]
7. Reni M, Passoni P, Panucci MG. Definitive results of a phase II trial of cisplatin, epirubicin and continuous infusional 5-FU and gemcitabine in stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 26792686.
8. Louvet C, Andre G, Lledo P et al. Gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: final results of GERCOR multicentre phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 15121518.
9. Gonzalez-Baron M, Mel M, Bolanos L et al. Phase II study of a fixed-dose infusion of gemcitabine associated to UFT in advanced pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: (Abstr 601).
10. Kozuch P, Areneo M, Homel P et al. Biweekly sequential gemcitabine, 5-FU, leucovorin and cisplatin (GFP): a highly active novel combination for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the exocrine pancreas. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001: 200: 155 (Abstr 617).
11. Scheithauer W, Schüll B, Ulrich-Pur H et al. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20:155 (Abstr 500).
12. Oettle H, Arning M, Pelzer U et al. A phase II trial of gemcitabine in combination with 5-FU (24 h) and folinic acid in patients with chemonaive advanced pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 12671272.[Abstract]
13. Louvet C, Andre G, Hammel P et al. Phase II trial of bimonthly leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil and gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (FOLFUGEM). Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 675679.[Abstract]
14. Schmidt C, Fahlke J, Kettner E et al. Phase II multicenter study of gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with inoperable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: (Abstr 577).
15. Ridwelski E, Kettner L, Florscutz A et al. Multicentre phase II study of weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 157 (Abstr 624).
16. Ryan D, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS. A phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Cancer 2002; 94: 97103.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17. Rivera F, Garcia-Castano A, Vega-Villegas M et al. A phase II study of UFT, gemcitabine and cisplatin (UFTGP) in advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 155 (Abstr 687).
18. Berlin JD, Adak S, Vaugh DJ et al. A phase II study of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil in metastatic cancer: an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group study (E3296). Oncology 2000; 58: 215218.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19. Philip P, Zalupski M, El-Rayes B et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine, cisplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 155 (Abstr 590).
20. Heinemann V, Wilke H, Mergenthaler HG. Gemcitabine and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 13991403.[Abstract]
21. Stathopoulos GP, Mavroudis D, Tavaris N et al. Treatment of pancreatic cancer with a combination of gemcitabine, docetaxel and granulocyte colony stimulating factor: a phase II study of the Greek co-operative group for pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 101103.[Abstract]
22. Garnier C, Rebischung C, Chirpaz E et al. Phase II study of a combination of leucovorin (LV), 5 FU bolus and infusion 5 FU, gemcitabine (GEM) and oxaliplatin (LOHP) (FOLFU GEMOX regimen) in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 156 (Abstr 620).
23. Scheithauer W, Kornek GV, Raderer M. A phase II trial of gemcitabine, epirubicin and granulocyte colony stimulating factor in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 17971802.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
24. Lutz MP, Ducreux M, Wagener T et al. Docetaxel/gemcitabine or docetaxel/cisplatin in advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized phase II study of the EORTCGI group. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: (Abstr 498).
25. Colucci G, Giulliani F, Gebbia V et al. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2002; 94: 902910.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
26. Cascinu S, Silva RR, Barni S et al. A combination of gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil in advanced pancreatic cancer, a report from the Italian group for the study of digestive tract cancer (GISCAD). Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 15951598.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
27. Feliu J, Lopez Alvarez MP, Jariaiz MA et al. A phase II trial of gemcitabine and UFT by leucovorin in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma: the ONCOPAZ co-operative group. Cancer 2000; 89: 17061713.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
28. Kindler HL, Dugan W, Hochster H et al. Clinical outcome in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with pemetrexed/gemcitabine. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002; 21: (Abstr 499).
29. Di Constanzo F, Sdroboloni A, Carlini P et al. Gemcitabine alone or in combination with 5-fluorouracil continuous infusion in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: a GOIRC randomised Phase II trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 154 (Abstr 612).
30. Rocha Lima CM, Sherman CA, Brescia FJ et al. Irinotecan/gemcitabine combination chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Oncology 2001; 15: 4651.
31. Cascinu S, Frontini L, Labianca R et al. A combination of fixed dose rate infusion gemcitabine associated with bolus 5-fluorouracil in advanced pancreatic cancer: a report of the Italian group for the study of digestive tract cancer (GISCAD). Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 13091311.[Abstract]
32. Shepard DC, Levy D, Stuart K et al. Pancreatic cancer: biweekly gemcitabine docetaxel chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 154 (Abstr 614).
33. Lersch C, Van Custem E, Amado G et al. Randomised Phase II study of SCH66336 and gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001; 20: 153 (Abstr 608).
34. Dimery W, Hong W. An overview of combined modality therapies for head and neck cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 95111.[Abstract]
35. Takizawa K, Kamijo R, Ito D et al. Synergistic induction of ICAM-1 expression by cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in a cancer cell line via a NF-B independent pathway. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 954963. [CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
36. Ross P, Norman A, Cunningham D et al. A prospective randomised trial of protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil with or without mitomycin C in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 9951001. [Abstract]
37. Macdonald AG, Nicolson MC, Samuel LM et al. A phase II study of mitomycin C, cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (MCF) in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 12381242.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
38. Cascinu S, Baldelli AM, Catalano V et al. Infusional 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin and mitomycin C in advanced gastric cancer: a low cost effective regimen. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 213217.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
39. Ballard RB, Hoffman JP, Guttman MC et al. How accurate is size measurement of pancreas cancer masses by computed axial tomography (CT) scanning? Am Surg 1995; 61: 686691.[ISI][Medline]
40. Twelves C. Vision of the future: capecitabine. Oncologist 2001; 6 (Suppl 4): 3539.