A previously treated patients. denocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal
junction comprise
adenocarcinomas of the
esophagus and gastric cardia. The cancers
are quite similar histologically
and epidemiologically, and they are
different from either squamous cell
carcinoma of the esophagus or the
more frequent distal adenocarcinoma
of the stomach. The etiology of these
malignancies remains obscure, but
they appear to be related to chronic
gastroesophageal reflux and intestinal
metaplasia.[1] The epidemiology
and natural history of adenocarcinomas
of the gastric cardia appear to be
much more similar to that of adenocarcinoma
of the esophagus than that
of the distal stomach. In large tumors
of the gastroesophageal junction, it is
difficult to distinguish between esophageal
and gastric origin.
Once quite rare, these cancers are
the most rapidly increasing solid tumors
in the United States and Western
Europe,[2] and now account for
more than 50% of esophageal carcinomas
and an increasing number of
gastric malignancies. Unfortunately,
most patients' cancers are not resectable
at the time of diagnosis or relapse
after surgery. The standard of
care has historically consisted of combinations
of fluorouracil(Drug information on fluorouracil) (5-FU) and cisplatin(Drug information on cisplatin).[3,4] Although response rates
are reasonable in the 20% to 30%
range survival remains relatively limited
(6 to 11 months), and the toxicity
of treatment, particularly from the cisplatin,
can be severe in these fragile
patients.
The limitations of standard therapy
has led to the study of newer agents
in adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal
junction, including taxanes
and topoisomerase I inhibitors. Paclitaxel(Drug information on paclitaxel)
may be the most active single
agent in gastroesophageal malignancies,
with Ajani et al reporting a response
rate of 34% in adenocarcinoma
of the esophagus.[5] Combinations of
paclitaxel with cisplatin and 5-FU
have also resulted in significant response rates of 48% to 51%.[6,7] The
topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan(Drug information on irinotecan)
(CPT-11, Camptosar) possesses activity
in a number of adenocarcinomas,
including those of the colon and
lung. Single-agent response rates of
14% in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus[
8] and 15% in esophageal and
gastric carcinomas[9] have lead it to
be used in combination with 5-FU/
leucovorin[10] and cisplatin,[11]
where respective response rates of
22% in gastric adenocarcinoma and
57% in advanced esophageal cancer
(52% adenocarcinoma, 66% squamous
carcinoma) were reported.
The mostly nonoverlapping toxicities
and different mechanisms of action
of irinotecan and paclitaxel led to
the examination of this combination
in a phase I setting by Rosen et al.[12]
No significant drug interactions were
seen and the combination was quite
tolerable, with neutropenia being the
dose-limiting toxicity with some activity
seen in upper gastrointestinal
tract cancers. Therefore, the regimen
was taken forward into a phase II trial
in adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal
junction.
Study Design and
Patient Population
The protocol was approved by the
UCLA, OHSU, Northwestern University,
and USC institutional review
boards. The study was a single-arm
multicenter phase II study. The primary
end point was response rate and
secondary end points were safety and
survival. A two-stage Simon design
was used to calculate sample size.[13]
If one response in the first 13 patients
was seen then the study was to accrue
an additional 14 patients. Patients with
histologically proven adenocarcinoma
of the esophagus or gastric cardia
were eligible for the trial. Documentation
of the location of the tumor by
endoscopy or radiologic study was
required. The patients had to have bidimensionally
measurable disease and
adequate hematologic, liver, and renal
function. Patients required an Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group
performance status of > 2. Patients
who had received more than one prior
treatment regimen for metastatic disease,
were receiving antiepileptic
medication, and had known Gilbert's
syndrome were excluded. Patients had
screening laboratories, computed tomography
(CT) of the chest, abdomen,
and pelvis, and a history and
physical prior to the start of treatment.
Methods
Patients received pretreatment with dexamethasone(Drug information on dexamethasone) at 20 mg IV, diphenhydramine(Drug information on diphenhydramine)
at 50 mg IV, famotidine(Drug information on famotidine) at
20 mg IV (or similar H2 receptor antagonist),
and granisetron(Drug information on granisetron) (Kytril) at
1 mg IV (or similar 5HT3 antagonist).
After pretreatment, patients were treated
with irinotecan at 225 mg/m2 over
90 minutes followed by paclitaxel at
100 mg/m2 over 3 hours every 3
weeks. Atropine(Drug information on atropine) was administered as
needed for cholinergic symptoms. Patients
were counseled on the use of,
and provided with, high-dose loperamide(Drug information on loperamide)
in case of diarrhea.
Response was determined every
three cycles (9 weeks) using CT or
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scans using the World Health Organization
criteria. Responses had to be
verified on another radiologic study at
least 4 weeks later, though there was
no provision for early scans as part of
the protocol. Toxicity was graded using
the National Cancer Institute Common
Toxicity Criteria version 2.0.
Results
A total of 27 patients were enrolled
onto the study; see Table 1 for
the demographics. Median age was
62 years (range: 45-82 years). The
striking male predominance (85%) is
consistent with the epidemiology of
adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal
junction. Eight patients had prior
treatment for their cancer,
including some receiving more than
one treatment modality. At this time,
22 patients are evaluable for response.
The median number of treatment cycles
was 3 (range: 3-20 cycles) and
median survival was 8.6 months
(range: 2-24+ months). The documented
partial response rate was 27%,
with 27% of patients having stable
disease (Table 2). Half of the pretreated
patients were evaluable had
partial responses (3 of 6).
Toxicity was manageable, with
three admissions for neutropenic fevers.
In the 16 patients with complete
toxicity data representing 110 cycles,
only nine grade 3 and one grade 4
neutropenia were reported. Diarrhea
was uncommon with only three reports
of grade 3 and none of grade 4.
Discussion
The proper treatment of advanced
carcinoma of the gastroesophageal
junction remains unclear. Clearly,
irinotecan and paclitaxel are both active
agents in this disease, and their
combination appears to have significant
activity, even in previously treated
patients. While single-agent
paclitaxel possesses activity, this is at
the cost of significant neutropenia that
may require the use of growth factors.[
5] Other combinations using
these drugs may have gastrointestinal
and bone marrow toxicity.[7] This regimen
is convenient and well tolerated
with minimal neutropenia and diarrhea.
In addition to collecting clinical
data, we plan to examine molecular correlates including UDP-glucuronosyltransferase
(UGT) 1A1 polymorphisms[
14] and beta-tubulin III
isoform levels[15] potentially to help
identify, respectively, both patients at
increased risk of toxicity, and tumors
less likely to respond to taxanes.
