17 research outputs found
Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus FOLFIRINOX for palliative first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: a propensity score analysis
Expression of V1A and GRP receptors leads to cellular transformation and increased sensitivity to substance-P analogue-induced growth inhibition.
Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is a particularly aggressive cancer, which metastasises early. Despite initial sensitivity to radio- and chemo-therapy, it invariably relapses, so that the 2-year survival remains less than 5%. Neuropeptides particularly arginine vasopressin (AVP) and gastrin-releasing peptide (GRP) act as autocrine and paracrine growth factors and the expression of these and their receptors are a hallmark of the disease. Substance-P analogues including [D-Arg1,D-Phe5,D-Trp7,9,Leu11]-substance-P (SP-D) and [Arg6,D-Trp7,9,NmePhe8]-substance-P (6-11) (SP-G) inhibit the growth of SCLC cells by modulating neuropeptide signalling. We show that GRP and V1A receptors expression leads to the development of a transformed phenotype. Addition of neuropeptide provides some protection from etoposide-induced cytotoxicity. Receptor expression also leads to an increased sensitivity to substance-P analogue-induced growth inhibition. We show that SP-D and SP-G act as biased agonists at GRP and V1A receptors causing blockade of Gq-mediated Ca2+ release while directing signalling to activate ERK via a pertussis toxin-sensitive pathway. This is the first description of biased agonism at V1A receptors. This unique pharmacology governs the antiproliferative properties of these agents and highlights their potential therapeutic potential for the treatment of SCLC and particularly in tumours, which have developed resistance to chemotherapy
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma
BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line.
METHODS: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events.
RESULTS: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials.
IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy
Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus (modified) FOLFIRINOX for palliative first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: A propensity score analysis [Poster]
FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitaxel as palliative first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: an Austrian observational Tri-Center comparative effectiveness analysis [Abstract]
Incidence, prediction and outcome of venous and arterial thromboembolism in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with palliative first line chemotherapy of Gemcitabine/nab-Paclitxel or FOLFIRINOX [Poster]
Patterns of venous and arterial thromboembolism in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with palliative first line chemotherapy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitxel or FOLFIRINOX
Patterns of thromboembolism in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma
Background & Aims: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. Methods: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. Results: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. Impact and implications: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy