An open-label, multicentre biomarker-oriented AIO phase II trial of sunitinib for patients with chemo-refractory advanced gastric cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.04.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Sunitinib monotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) was investigated. Preplanned analyses of tumour biomarkers on treatment outcome were performed.

Patients and methods

Patients received sunitinib 50 mg/day for 4 weeks with 2 weeks rest until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety.

Results

Fifty-two patients were enrolled and treated (safety population, SP). In the intention to treat population (n = 51); the ORR was 3.9%, median PFS was 1.28 months [95% CI, 1.18–1.90], median OS was 5.81 months [95% CI, 3.48–12.32], the estimated one-year survival rate was 23.7% [95%CI: 12.8–36.5]. In subgroup analyses, tumour VEGF-C expression compared with no expression was associated with significantly shorter median PFS (1.23 versus 2.86 months, logrank p = 0.0119) but there was no difference in tumour control rate (p = 0.142). In the SP, serious adverse events occurred in 26 patients, leading to 13 deaths, all sunitinib unrelated. Thirty-eight patients died from progressive disease, nine died <60 days after treatment start.

Conclusion

Sunitinib monotherapy was associated with limited tumour response and good/moderate tolerability in this setting.

Introduction

Worldwide gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most common malignancy and annually the second most common cause of cancer death. In Europe the incidence of GC in 2008 was approximately 150,000 cases.1, 2 Although GC mortality has markedly declined, the 5-year survival rate for patients with locally advanced disease is <20%, and approximately 30% for those undergoing surgery. Many chemotherapeutic agents demonstrate activity in advanced GC (AGC) with combination therapies reported to prolong survival and improve quality of life over single-agent therapy.3 Currently cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapeutic regimens are the mainstay of treatment for metastatic disease.3 In recent phase III trials, oxaliplatin, docetaxel, capecitabine and irinotecan demonstrated activity, increasing first-line treatment options,4, 5, 6, 7 with irinotecan also improving patient quality of life8 for AGC patients. Median survival currently ranges from 8 to 11 months.4, 7 However, the efficacy data reported from a number of phase II and III studies are disappointing for AGC patients receiving second-line treatment with median survival ranging from 5 to 6 months.9, 10 The identification of less toxic and more effective treatment strategies is needed to improve the survival of AGC patients, particularly those whose disease has progressed during or after chemotherapy.

Tumour angiogenesis, growth and metastasis can be inhibited by blocking receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) overexpressed in GC, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs).11, 12, 13 VEGF, EGFR and PDGF-A tumour expression is reportedly associated with progression and poor survival in GC patients.14, 15, 16 Therapies that specifically target RTK signalling through a single receptor pathway have been investigated in phase II studies in AGC including gefitinib17 and erlotinib18 as single-agents, and bevacizumab19 and cetuximab,20, 21 both in combination with chemotherapy. However, many tumours co-express several RTKs11 and drugs targeting multiple RTKs involved in angiogenesis growth and metastasis may provide additional benefits relative to single receptor targeted inhibition.

Sunitinib malate (SUTENT®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY) is an oral, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1, -2 and -3, PDGFR-α and -β, and several other related RTKs.22, 23, 24 In a murine xenograft model of GC, sunitinib exhibited antiangiogenic and antitumour activity at 40 mg/day (Pfizer Inc., Data on file). Single agent sunitinib (50 mg/day) for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off treatment, demonstrated superior efficacy to standard treatment with acceptable toxicity in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (refractory or intolerant to imatinib), and in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.25, 26

In this trial we investigated single agent sunitinib for objective response, safety and survival in patients with previously treated AGC. Pre-planned exploratory analyses of the influence of selected molecular biomarkers on trial end-points were also performed.

Section snippets

Patient population

Inclusion criteria were: male or female patients aged ⩾18 years old with histologically proven metastatic adenocarcinoma of stomach or 0esophagogastric junction or lower oesophagus (Barrett carcinoma); measurable metastatic disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST-criteria, version 1.0); failure of at least one prior irinotecan- or cisplatin-based palliative chemotherapy (progression of disease or unacceptable toxicity). Further inclusion criteria included:

Patients

Fifty-two patients were enrolled and treated with sunitinib and comprised the SP. The ITT population contained 51 patients as tumour diagnosis could not be confirmed in one patient. Fourteen patients were excluded (because no tumour assessment under study treatment had been documented), giving rise to the EPP (n = 38). Non-evaluable patients terminated study treatment before tumour staging in cycle 1 could be assessed, this was due to death, clinical/symptomatic deterioration, toxicity related to

Discussion

In this study, sunitinib monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with AGC led to RECIST defined PRs in 4% of patients and SD was recorded in 16% of patients. In support similar ORR were recorded in the EPP (5.3%) and PPP (6.7%) compared with the ITT population, therefore classifying patients without any tumour assessment as non-responders had no impact on ORR. These data are comparable to a recent phase II study of sunitinib monotherapy in 78 Korean patients with AGC, the ORR rate was 2.6%

Funding

The trial was conducted in cooperation with IZKS Mainz. IZKS Mainz is the central clinical trial management of the University Medical Center (UMC) Mainz supported by grant “Clinical Trial Centers, funding number FKN 01KN1103, IZKS Mainz” of German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Conflict of interest statement

M. Moehler has received research funding from company Pfizer. M. Moehler and T.Trarbach have reported honoraria or a consultancy role with Pfizer. All other authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to all investigators and patients who participated in the trial. The trial was co-ordinated by the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Trials (IZKS) of the University Medical Center Mainz. The authors would like to thank Annette Weissmann (IZKS Mainz) for study coordination and Anne Ehrlich (IZKS Mainz) for pharmacovigilance. Additional financial support was provided by Pfizer. Editorial services were provided by Cancer Communications and Consultancy Ltd. funded by

References (52)

  • A.D. Wagner et al.

    Chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data

    J Clin Oncol

    (2006)
  • D. Cunningham et al.

    Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2008)
  • E. Van Cutsem et al.

    Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study Group

    J Clin Oncol

    (2006)
  • D. Curran et al.

    Quality of life of palliative chemotherapy naive patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction treated with irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid: results of a randomised phase III trial

    Qual Life Res

    (2009)
  • M. Moehler et al.

    Weekly treatment with irinotecan, folinic acid and infusional 5-fluorouracil (ILF) in patients with advanced gastric cancer

    Anticancer Drugs

    (2003)
  • D. Drescher et al.

    Coexpression of receptor-tyrosine-kinases in gastric adenocarcinoma – a rationale for a molecular targeting strategy?

    World J Gastroenterol

    (2007)
  • H. Zhang et al.

    Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors KDR and Flt-1 in gastric cancer cells

    World J Gastroenterol

    (2002)
  • J.C. Becker et al.

    Role of receptor tyrosine kinases in gastric cancer: new targets for a selective therapy

    World J Gastroenterol

    (2006)
  • K. Maeda et al.

    Prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in gastric carcinoma

    Cancer

    (1996)
  • M. Katano et al.

    Prognostic value of platelet-derived growth factor-A (PDGF-A) in gastric carcinoma

    Ann Surg

    (1998)
  • Y. Takahashi et al.

    Significance of vessel count and vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptor (KDR) in intestinal-type gastric cancer

    Clin Cancer Res

    (1996)
  • Doi T, Koizumi W, Siena S, et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of gefitinib (ZD1839) in pretreated...
  • T. Dragovich et al.

    Phase II trial of erlotinib in gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinomas: SWOG 0127

    J Clin Oncol

    (2006)
  • M.A. Shah et al.

    Multicenter phase II study of irinotecan, cisplatin, and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

    J Clin Oncol

    (2006)
  • S.W. Han et al.

    Phase II study and biomarker analysis of cetuximab combined with modified FOLFOX6 in advanced gastric cancer

    Br J Cancer

    (2009)
  • T.J. Abrams et al.

    SU11248 inhibits KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta in preclinical models of human small cell lung cancer

    Mol Cancer Ther

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    k

    Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 1333369; fax: +49 (0) 6131 176472.

    l

    Tel.: +49 (0) 431 597 2484; fax: +49 (0) 431 597 3590.

    m

    Tel.: +49 (0) 621 383 3359; fax: +49 (0) 621 383 3805.

    n

    Tel.: +49 (0) 69 7601 4420; fax: +49 (0) 69 7601 3655.

    o

    Tel.: +49 (0) 931 201 40001; fax: +49(0) 931 201 64001.

    p

    Tel.: +49 (0) 221 478 4004; fax: +49 (0) 221 478 6459.

    q

    Tel.: +49 (0) 531 595 3224; fax: +49 (0) 531 595 3757.

    r

    Tel.: +49 (0) 201 723 2039; fax: +49 (0) 201 723 3114.

    s

    Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 173266; fax: +49 (0) 6131 17473226.

    t

    Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 179922; fax: +49 (0) 6131 179925.

    u

    Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 179921; fax: +49 (0) 6131 179925.

    v

    Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 177276; fax: +49 (0) 6131 175595.

    View full text