Regorafenib in Combination with First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Esophagogastric Cancer.
Angiogenesis
Esophagogastric cancer
Regorafenib
Targeted therapy
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
27
06
2019
accepted:
09
08
2019
pubmed:
2
10
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
2
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Angiogenesis is critical to gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma growth and metastasis. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic and stromal receptor tyrosine kinases. We evaluated whether regorafenib augments the antitumor effect of first-line chemotherapy in metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Patients with previously untreated metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) every 14 days and regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 4 to 10 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). To identify predictive biomarkers of outcome, we examined correlations between genomic characteristics of sequenced pretreatment tumors and PFS. Between August 2013 and November 2014, 36 patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer were accrued to this single-center phase II study (NCT01913639). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (36%), leucopenia (11%) and hypertension (8%). The 6-month PFS was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-71%), the objective response rate was 54% (95% CI, 37%-70%), and the disease control rate was 77% (95% CI, 67%-94%). Next-generation sequencing did not identify any genomic alterations significantly correlated with response, and there was no association between homologous recombination deficiency and PFS with platinum-based chemotherapy. Regorafenib (one week on-one week off schedule) is well tolerated in combination with first-line FOLFOX but does not improve 6-month PFS relative to historical control. Prognosis for metastatic esophagogastric cancer remains poor despite modern systemic therapy regimens. This phase II trial indicates that the combination of regorafenib and FOLFOX is well tolerated but does not add to the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy in metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Notably, recently reported data suggest potential synergy between regorafenib and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab. As this study demonstrates that regorafenib plus FOLFOX is safe, and combined chemotherapy and immunotherapy show favorable toxicity profiles, future studies combining immunotherapy with regorafenib and chemotherapy may be feasible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Angiogenesis is critical to gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma growth and metastasis. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic and stromal receptor tyrosine kinases. We evaluated whether regorafenib augments the antitumor effect of first-line chemotherapy in metastatic esophagogastric cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients with previously untreated metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) every 14 days and regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 4 to 10 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). To identify predictive biomarkers of outcome, we examined correlations between genomic characteristics of sequenced pretreatment tumors and PFS.
RESULTS
Between August 2013 and November 2014, 36 patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer were accrued to this single-center phase II study (NCT01913639). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (36%), leucopenia (11%) and hypertension (8%). The 6-month PFS was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-71%), the objective response rate was 54% (95% CI, 37%-70%), and the disease control rate was 77% (95% CI, 67%-94%). Next-generation sequencing did not identify any genomic alterations significantly correlated with response, and there was no association between homologous recombination deficiency and PFS with platinum-based chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Regorafenib (one week on-one week off schedule) is well tolerated in combination with first-line FOLFOX but does not improve 6-month PFS relative to historical control.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Prognosis for metastatic esophagogastric cancer remains poor despite modern systemic therapy regimens. This phase II trial indicates that the combination of regorafenib and FOLFOX is well tolerated but does not add to the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy in metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Notably, recently reported data suggest potential synergy between regorafenib and the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab. As this study demonstrates that regorafenib plus FOLFOX is safe, and combined chemotherapy and immunotherapy show favorable toxicity profiles, future studies combining immunotherapy with regorafenib and chemotherapy may be feasible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31570517
pii: theoncologist.2019-0492
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0492
pmc: PMC6964136
doi:
Substances chimiques
Phenylurea Compounds
0
Pyridines
0
regorafenib
24T2A1DOYB
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e68-e74Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : KL2 TR002385
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R25 CA020449
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA009207
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2019.
Références
Lancet. 2010 Aug 28;376(9742):687-97
pubmed: 20728210
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1448-54
pubmed: 26884585
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Mar;20(3):420-435
pubmed: 30718072
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2728-35
pubmed: 27325864
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):56-66
pubmed: 27932229
Ann Oncol. 2016 Dec;27(12):2196-2203
pubmed: 27765757
Angiogenesis. 2013 Jul;16(3):481-92
pubmed: 23389639
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Oct 1;17(19):6130-9
pubmed: 21953501
Lancet. 2017 Dec 2;390(10111):2461-2471
pubmed: 28993052
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Cancer. 1996 Mar 1;77(5):858-63
pubmed: 8608475
Cancer Cell. 2008 Sep 9;14(3):263-73
pubmed: 18772115
Oncotarget. 2010 Aug;1(4):309-314
pubmed: 20871734
Int J Cancer. 2014 Oct 1;135(7):1553-63
pubmed: 24585459
Oncogene. 2011 Mar 10;30(10):1147-58
pubmed: 21151176
Nature. 2017 Jan 12;541(7636):169-175
pubmed: 28052061
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug 10;34(23):2736-42
pubmed: 27382098
Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 1;72(21):5454-62
pubmed: 22933060
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun 20;34(18):2141-7
pubmed: 27022117
Lancet. 2014 Jan 4;383(9911):31-39
pubmed: 24094768
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1553-1568
pubmed: 29860482
Lancet. 2013 Jan 26;381(9863):303-12
pubmed: 23177514
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Feb 1;20(3):764-75
pubmed: 24240112
Nat Med. 2017 Jun;23(6):703-713
pubmed: 28481359
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Jun 1;20(11):2831-7
pubmed: 24879823
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e198243
pubmed: 31373648
Nature. 2014 Sep 11;513(7517):202-9
pubmed: 25079317
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Dec 15;23(24):7521-7530
pubmed: 29246904
Oncogene. 2010 Jan 28;29(4):482-91
pubmed: 19881547
Br J Cancer. 2011 Oct 25;105(9):1331-7
pubmed: 21970881
Oncol Rep. 2016 Sep;36(3):1403-10
pubmed: 27460845
Gastric Cancer. 2015 Jan;18(1):168-76
pubmed: 24557418
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Oct;15(11):1224-35
pubmed: 25240821
Cancer Discov. 2018 Jan;8(1):49-58
pubmed: 29122777
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jun 20;38(18):2053-2061
pubmed: 32343640
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Oct 20;29(30):3968-76
pubmed: 21844504
Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 1;30(7):1015-6
pubmed: 24371154