CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 561Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchHedgehog Signaling Pathway StudiesCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Phase Ib/II Study of Gemcitabine Plus Placebo or Vismodegib, a Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor, in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Open access
Catenacci, Daniel V.T., Junttila, Melissa R., Karrison, Theodore, Bahary, Nathan, Horiba, Margit N., Nattam, Sreenivasa R., Marsh, Robert, Wallace, James, Kozloff, Mark, Rajdev, Lakshmi, Cohen, Deirdre, Wade, James, Sleckman, Bethany, Lenz, Heinz-Josef, Stiff, Patrick, Kumar, Pankaj, Xu, Peng, Henderson, Les, Takebe, Naoko, Salgia, Ravi, Wang, Xi, Stadler, Walter M., de Sauvage, Frederic J., Kindler, Hedy L.·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2015.62.8719PMC PMC4678179
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: Sonic hedgehog (SHH), an activating ligand of smoothened (SMO), is overexpressed in > 70% of pancreatic cancers (PCs). We investigated the impact of vismodegib, an SHH antagonist, plus gemcitabine (GV) or gemcitabine plus placebo (GP) in a multicenter phase Ib/randomized phase II trial and preclinical PC models. Patients and Methods: Patients with PC not amenable to curative therapy who had received no prior therapy for metastatic disease and had Karnofsky performance score ≥ 80 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to GV or GP. The primary end point was progression-free-survival (PFS). Exploratory correlative studies included serial SHH serum levels and contrast perfusion computed tomography imaging. To further investigate putative biologic mechanisms of SMO inhibition, two autochthonous pancreatic cancer models (Kras G12D; p16/p19 fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre and Kras G12D; p53 R270H/wt; Pdx1-Cre) were studied. Results: No safety issues were identified in the phase Ib portion (n = 7), and the phase II study enrolled 106 evaluable patients (n = 53 in each arm). Median PFS was 4.0 and 2.5 months for GV and GP arms, respectively (95% CI, 2.5 to 5.3 and 1.9 to 3.8, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.21; P = .30). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 and 6.1 months for GV and GP arms, respectively (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.0 and 5.0 to 8.0, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.58; P = .84). Response rates were not significantly different. There were no significant associations between correlative markers and overall response rate, PFS, or OS. Preclinical trials revealed no significant differences with vismodegib in drug delivery, tumor growth rate, or OS in either model. Conclusion: The addition of vismodegib to gemcitabine in an unselected cohort did not improve overall response rate, PFS, or OS in patients with metastatic PC. Our preclinical and clinical results revealed no statistically significant differences with respect to drug delivery or treatment efficacy using vismodegib.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2015.62.8719

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT diagram of clinical trial enrollment and treatment in phase II trial. gem, gemcitabine.
Fig 1. CONSORT diagram of clinical trial enrollment and treatment in phase II trial. gem, gemcitabine.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig 2. (A) Progression-free and (B) overall survival by treatment arm. Blue, gemcitabine plus vismodegib; gold, gemcitabine plus placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) after adjusting (adj) for Karnofsky performance score and disease status (newly diagnosed v recurrent).
Fig 2. (A) Progression-free and (B) overall survival by treatment arm. Blue, gemcitabine plus vismodegib; gold, gemcitabine plus placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) after adjusting (adj) for Karnofsky performance score and disease status (newly diagnosed v recurrent).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig 3. Clinical trial translational correlatives. Serum SHH levels (A) comparing controls (n = 40) with patients with pancreatic cancer enrolled onto trial (n = 89), (B) by treatment group (gemcitabine plus vismodegib [GV] or gemcitabine plus placebo [GP]) with increasing treatment (TX) cycle, and association with age in (C) patients with cancer and (D) controls. (E) Radiologic correlatives evaluating association of baseline tumor perfusion with tumor response to therapy.
Fig 3. Clinical trial translational correlatives. Serum SHH levels (A) comparing controls (n = 40) with patients with pancreatic cancer enrolled onto trial (n = 89), (B) by treatment group (gemcitabine plus vismodegib [GV] or gemcitabine plus placebo [GP]) with increasing treatment (TX) cycle, and association with age in (C) patients with cancer and (D) controls. (E) Radiologic correlatives evaluating association of baseline tumor perfusion with tumor response to therapy.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig 4. Effects of hedgehog pathway antagonism (HhAntag) on vasculature, stromal content, and intratumoral gemcitabine metabolites in KrasG12D; p16/p19fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre (KPP) tumors. (A) Quantitation of immunohistochemical staining for meca-32 expression in pancreatic tumors of KPP mice treated with vehicle (circles; n = 13) or smoothened (SMO) inhibitor (squares; n = 13) for 10 days. Data presented as percentages of meca-32–positive areas over analyzed tumor areas for each tumor (Mann-Whitney P = .54; scale bar, 200 um). (B) Quantitative analysis of stromal content by trichromatic stain in pancreatic tumors of KPP mice treated with vehicle or SMO inhibitor for 10 days. Data presented as percentages of positive stain areas over analyzed tissue areas (Mann-Whitney P = .29). (C) Mass spectromic quantitation of intratumoral concentration of 2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine triphosphate (dFdCTP; active form of gemcitabine) from each tumor after treatment for 10 consecutive days with vehicle or SMO inhibitor and gemcitabine 50 mg/kg 30 minutes before tumor collection (Mann-Whitney P = 1.000). (D) Ratios of 2′,2′-difluoro 2′-deoxycytidine (dFdC) to diflurodeoxyuridine (dFdU) in pancreatic tumors from each tumor (Mann-Whitney P = .48). NS, not significant.
Fig 4. Effects of hedgehog pathway antagonism (HhAntag) on vasculature, stromal content, and intratumoral gemcitabine metabolites in KrasG12D; p16/p19fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre (KPP) tumors. (A) Quantitation of immunohistochemical staining for meca-32 expression in pancreatic tumors of KPP mice treated with vehicle (circles; n = 13) or smoothened (SMO) inhibitor (squares; n = 13) for 10 days. Data presented as percentages of meca-32–positive areas over analyzed tumor areas for each tumor (Mann-Whitney P = .54; scale bar, 200 um). (B) Quantitative analysis of stromal content by trichromatic stain in pancreatic tumors of KPP mice treated with vehicle or SMO inhibitor for 10 days. Data presented as percentages of positive stain areas over analyzed tissue areas (Mann-Whitney P = .29). (C) Mass spectromic quantitation of intratumoral concentration of 2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine triphosphate (dFdCTP; active form of gemcitabine) from each tumor after treatment for 10 consecutive days with vehicle or SMO inhibitor and gemcitabine 50 mg/kg 30 minutes before tumor collection (Mann-Whitney P = 1.000). (D) Ratios of 2′,2′-difluoro 2′-deoxycytidine (dFdC) to diflurodeoxyuridine (dFdU) in pancreatic tumors from each tumor (Mann-Whitney P = .48). NS, not significant.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig 5. Smoothened (SMO) inhibitor does not affect tumor progression or overall survival in Kras LSL-G12D; p16/p19 fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre (KPP) mice. (A) Individual tumor growth rates plotted by from serial ultrasound images as volumes depicted longitudinally by animal within each regimen. (B) Antilogged values of slopes in each longitudinal plot are graphed, and average tumor burden fold changes per day in each study group of KPP mice are shown, with approximate 95% CIs (vehicle v SMO inhibitor, P = .86; vehicle v combination, P = .0156; gemcitabine v combination, P = .18) (C) Kaplan-Meier plots of KPP mice treated with vehicle (blue, n = 15; median, 1.9 weeks), SMO inhibitor (gold, n = 16; median, 1.2 weeks), gemcitabine (gray, n = 14; median, 3.8 weeks), and gemcitabine plus SMO inhibitor combination (red, n = 12; median, 3.4 weeks; gemcitabine v vehicle, P = .0059; combination v vehicle, P = .0179; gemcitabine v combination, P = .10 [all P values from log-rank test]). HhAntag, hedgehog pathway antagonism.
Fig 5. Smoothened (SMO) inhibitor does not affect tumor progression or overall survival in Kras LSL-G12D; p16/p19 fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre (KPP) mice. (A) Individual tumor growth rates plotted by from serial ultrasound images as volumes depicted longitudinally by animal within each regimen. (B) Antilogged values of slopes in each longitudinal plot are graphed, and average tumor burden fold changes per day in each study group of KPP mice are shown, with approximate 95% CIs (vehicle v SMO inhibitor, P = .86; vehicle v combination, P = .0156; gemcitabine v combination, P = .18) (C) Kaplan-Meier plots of KPP mice treated with vehicle (blue, n = 15; median, 1.9 weeks), SMO inhibitor (gold, n = 16; median, 1.2 weeks), gemcitabine (gray, n = 14; median, 3.8 weeks), and gemcitabine plus SMO inhibitor combination (red, n = 12; median, 3.4 weeks; gemcitabine v vehicle, P = .0059; combination v vehicle, P = .0179; gemcitabine v combination, P = .10 [all P values from log-rank test]). HhAntag, hedgehog pathway antagonism.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Abe H, 2005, Radiat Med, 23, 364
  2. Jesus-Acosta A, 2014, J Clin Oncol, 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 560

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Catenacci, D. V. T., Junttila, M. R., Karrison, T., Bahary, N., Horiba, M. N., Nattam, S. R., Marsh, R., Wallace, J., Kozloff, M., Rajdev, L., Cohen, D., Wade, J., Sleckman, B., Lenz, H.-J., Stiff, P., Kumar, P., Xu, P., Henderson, L., Takebe, N., Salgia, R., Wang, X., Stadler, W. M., de Sauvage, F. J., & Kindler, H. L.
Affiliations
  • Loyola University Medical Center (US)
  • Daniel V.T. Catenacci, Theodore Karrison, James Wallace, Mark Kozloff, Peng Xu, Les Henderson, Ravi Salgia, Walter M. Stadler, Hedy L. Kindler, University of Chicago Medical Center; Patrick Stiff, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago; Robert Marsh, Northshore University Health System, Evanston; James Wallace, Mark Kozloff, Ingalls Hospital, Harvey; James Wade, Decatur Memorial Hospital, Decatur; Pankaj Kumar, Oncology/Hematology Associates, Peoria, IL; Melissa R. Junttila, Xi Wang, and Frederic J....
Corresponding author
Catenacci, Daniel V.T.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2015-12-20
Volume
33
Issue
36
Pages
4284-4292
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2015.62.8719
PMC
PMC4678179
OpenAlex
W2137357003
Cited by
561
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 3
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Society for Medical Oncology
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000430, n01cm62201-16-0-1)
  • Genentech
  • National Cancer Institute (N01 CM062201, N01 CM-62201)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Hedgehog Signaling Pathway Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Keywords
metastatic pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine, vismodegib, sonic hedgehog pathway, Smoothened inhibition, Hedgehog pathway inhibitors, progression-free survival, overall survival, KRAS G12D, p53, drug safety, combination therapy
MeSH terms
Gemcitabine, Adult, Aged, Anilides, Animals, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Deoxycytidine, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Pyridines, Signal Transduction, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Karnofsky Performance Status, Disease-Free Survival, Mice, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Hedgehog Proteins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review