Cargando…

Randomised, open-label, phase II study of gemcitabine with and without IMM-101 for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dalgleish, Angus G, Stebbing, Justin, Adamson, Douglas JA, Arif, Seema Safia, Bidoli, Paolo, Chang, David, Cheeseman, Sue, Diaz-Beveridge, Robert, Fernandez-Martos, Carlos, Glynne-Jones, Rob, Granetto, Cristina, Massuti, Bartomeu, McAdam, Karen, McDermott, Raymond, Martín, Andrés J Muñoz, Papamichael, Demetris, Pazo-Cid, Roberto, Vieitez, Jose M, Zaniboni, Alberto, Carroll, Kevin J, Wagle, Shama, Gaya, Andrew, Mudan, Satvinder S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5046215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27599039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.271
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml(−l) intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m(−2) intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. RESULTS: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study.