Intrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaPhase 2NCT02254681
Low-Dose Radiation Therapy to the Whole Liver With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in IHC
A Phase 2 study testing Gemcitabine, Cisplatin and low dose radiotherapy in people with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, run by Allina Health System at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The overall goal of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of combination treatment of low-dose fractionated radiation therapy with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy for locally advanced mass forming intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- What is being tested?
- Gemcitabine, Cisplatin and low dose radiotherapy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 6 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Sep 2014to Sep 2016
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Histologic diagnosis of mass-forming IHC. OR
- Histologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the liver in setting of negative colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, mammography (females), or cross-sectional imaging for primary disease.
- Patients must have measurable disease, defined as at least one lesion that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension as ≥10 mm (≥1 cm) with spiral CT scan, MRI. See Section 8 for the evaluation of measurable disease.
- Locally advanced disease (portal lymph node disease, multifocal intrahepatic lesions, or major vascular invasion) AND no evidence of omental, peritoneal, or pelvic metastases.
- Other sites of metastatic disease (e.g. lung, distant lymph nodes, bone) are allowed.
- No prior chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgical therapy.
Show all 23Show fewer
- ECOG performance status ≤ 1 (Karnofsky ≥70%). See Appendix A.
- Life expectancy of greater than six months.
- Patients must have normal organ and marrow function as defined below:
- leukocytes≥3,000/mcL
- absolute neutrophil count≥1,500/mcL
- platelets ≥100,000/mcL
- hemoglobin≥9.0 g/dL
- total bilirubin≤2.0 mg/dL
- AST(SGOT)/ALT(SGPT)≤3 × institutional upper limit of normal
- creatinine within normal institutional limits OR
- creatinine clearance≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 for patients with creatinine levels above institutional normal
- int'l normalized ratio<1.8
- systolic blood pressure≤160 mmHg
- diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg
- For women of child-bearing potential, negative serum pregnancy test within 14 days prior to registration.
- Women of childbearing age and male participants.
- Ability to understand and the willingness to sign a written informed consent document.
Who cannot join
- Prior chemotherapy, surgical therapy, or radiotherapy for IHC.
- Patients who are receiving any other investigational agents or have been treated with any other therapeutic clinical protocols within 30 days prior to study entry or during participation in the study.
- Patients with known brain metastases will be excluded from this clinical trial because of their poor prognosis and because they often develop progressive neurologic dysfunction that would confound the evaluation of neurologic and other adverse events.
- History of allergic reactions attributed to compounds of similar chemical or biologic composition to gemcitabine or cisplatin.
- Prior invasive malignancy (except for non-melanomatous skin cancer, low grade prostate cancer, and in situ cervical cancer) unless disease free for ≥ two years.
- Periductal infiltrating, intraductal, or poorly differentiated neuroendocrine (e.g. high grade, small, or large cell) tumor histology.
Show all 12Show fewer
- Prior abdominal radiotherapy.
- Cirrhosis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, hepatitis viral infection (documented by positive serology and antigen serologic testing), or other background liver diseases.
- Uncontrolled intercurrent illness including, but not limited to, ongoing or active infection; unstable angina and/or congestive heart failure within the last 6 months; transmural myocardial infarction within the last 6 months; New York Heart Association grade II or greater congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization within 12 months prior to registration; history of stroke, cerebral vascular accident or transient ischemic attack within 6 months; serious and inadequately controlled cardiac arrhythmia; significant vascular disease (e.g.;, high risk aortic aneurysm, history of aortic dissection) or clinically significant peripheral vascular disease; evidence of bleeding diathesis or coagulopathy; serious or non-healing wound, ulcer, or bone fracture or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation or intra-abdominal abscess, major surgical procedure or significant traumatic injury within 28 days prior to registration; bacterial or fungal infection requiring intravenous antibiotics at the time of registration; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation or other respiratory illness requiring hospitalization or precluding study therapy at the time of registration; active connective tissue disorders, such as lupus or scleroderma, that in the opinion of the treating physician may put the patient at high risk for radiation toxicity; any other major medical illnesses or psychiatric impairments that in the investigator's opinion will prevent administration or completion of protocol therapy; cognitive impairment that precludes a patient from acting as his or her own agent to provide informed consent.
- Pregnant or breast feeding women.
- Men and women of childbearing potential who are sexually active and not willing/able to use medically acceptable forms of contraception.
- Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) based upon current CDC definition. Note, however, that HIV testing is not required for entry into this protocol. The need to exclude patients with AIDS from this protocol is necessary because the treatments involved in this protocol are significantly immunosuppressive.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Virginia Piper Cancer Institute
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55407
About this study
Official title: A Phase 2 Study of Low-Dose Fractionated Radiation Therapy to the Whole Liver in Combination With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Locally Advanced Mass-Forming Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
The overall goal of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of combination treatment of low-dose fractionated radiation therapy with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy for locally advanced mass forming intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Read the detailed description
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) are cancers with pathologic features of biliary tract differentiation which arise from intrahepatic bile ducts and/or trans-differentiation of hepatocytes. IHC is the second most common primary liver cancer and its incidence and mortality rates are increasing both worldwide and in the United States. Approximately 80% of IHC in the Western hemisphere is the mass-forming type. Liver disease represents the major obstacle to long-term survival among patients with IHC. While partial hepatectomy offers the only hope of cure, less than 30% of IHC are resectable at initial presentation.2 Most patients have locally advanced disease (e.g. multi-focal tumors, major vascular invasion, local invasion of surrounding organs, and/or regional lymph node metastasis). Each of these factors portends poor 5-year survival (~20%) after surgical extirpation and are thus considered unresectable disease by most surgeons in the current era. Moreover, the liver is the most common site of disease recurrence after resection of IHC as 60-80% of initial disease recurrence occurs in the liver remnant.
Published response rates to preoperative or definitive radiation therapy (RT) for cholangiocarcinoma appear to be relatively high. For instance, a complete response proportion of 48% was recently reported for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients who received preoperative chemoradiation followed by liver transplant. Moreover, small series have demonstrated superior progression free and overall survival with the combination of external beam RT and chemotherapy compared to that derived from chemotherapy alone for many unresectable hepatic malignancies, including IHC, colorectal cancer liver metastases, and hepatocellular carcinoma. For example, addition of external beam RT to cisplatin chemotherapy was associated with prolonged progression free (median 4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p=0.001) and overall (median 9.3 vs. 6.2 months, p=0.048) survival compared to cisplatin alone among 92 total patients with unresectable IHC. Traditional thoughts in radiation biology of tumors suggested that doses of at least 1.2 Gy were required to overcome the initial shoulder of the cell survival curve. In practice, the standard dose per fraction is considered to be 0.015-0.022 Gy per fraction although the vast majority of patients are treated with either 1.8 Gy or 2 Gy fractions.
Laboratory and clinical data suggest that a new paradigm using LDFRT as a chemopotentiator may allow full-dose drug therapy with improved efficacy without adding to the toxicity of the systemic treatment. This chemopotentiating effect is possible through a phenomenon known as hyper-radiation sensitivity (HRS) by which there is more effective tumor cell killing than would be predicted when using doses per fraction below 1 Gy. This is followed by a change in slope of the survival response with increasing doses per fraction, indicating increased radioresistance (IRR). This HRS phenomenon was first described by Joiner and colleagues in the Gray Laboratory in 1986 and has since been well described by a number of other laboratories. It also has been documented in the clinical setting; in a study by Harney et al., patients with paired cutaneous metastases from sarcoma and melanoma had longer time to tumor regrowth after LDFRT than with conventional radiation. In vitro studies have established a link between HRS/IRR and evasion of the early G2/M cell cycle checkpoint. Exaggerated HRS/IRR responses were found for enriched populations of G2 phase cells in one study, indicating that the mechanism likely involved events in the G2 phase of the cell cycle. Two G2 checkpoints have been described, and the more recently discovered "early" checkpoint is rapidly activated after radiation exposure. It is believed to prevent cell cycle progression through G2 of cells with unrepaired radiation-induced DNA damage. The signaling cascade regulating the early G2/M checkpoint is initiated through ATM activity. Joiner and colleagues have shown that inhibition of ChK1 and Chk2, two proteins integral to the G2/M transition, can influence the cell-cycle response to low-dose radiation. It is believed that failure of the cell to repair DNA damage in G2-phase cells leads to increased apoptosis. Nonetheless, inhibition of ChK1 and ChK2 also lead to IRR at radiation doses > 0.2 Gy. This is consistent with reports indicating that low dose radiation can stimulate repair of DNA damage. Interestingly, low dose radiation can also stimulate antioxidant capacity, apoptosis, and induction of immune responses, which collectively may provide effective local tumor control. In addition, hypoxia and nitric oxide levels can also affect cells sensitivity to radiation. Reduction of nitric oxide level enhances the radiosensitivity of hypoxic non-small cell lung cancer. Therefore, the identification of cellular pathways that are responsive to low dose radiation and their contribution to chemopotentiation is highly significant because this will provide a better measurement of the therapeutic response and contribute to the rational design of mechanism-based clinical trials.
Based on promising preclinical data, clinical studies have been performed in a variety of cancer types with LDFRT in addition to standard chemotherapy. Investigators at the University of Kentucky published their experience using carboplatin and paclitaxel with 4 fractions of 0.8 Gy each in locally advanced head and neck cancer patients. They observed toxicities similar to those expected from chemotherapy alone and concluded that the addition of LDFRT was "extremely well tolerated." Moreover, they reported excellent response rates. Regine et al. conducted a phase I trial of low dose abdominal RT (0.6 vs. 0.7 Gy fractions, total 8 fractions) and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 among patients with unresectable pancreatic/small bowel carcinomas. The authors concluded that abdominal LDFRT using 0.6 Gy fractions was well tolerated when given concurrently with full-dose gemcitabine. A multi-institutional phase II trial using this regimen suggested improved efficacy of the combined regimen in improving overall survival. Sixty-one percent of enrolled patients experienced at least stable disease, and median survival in this poor prognosis population was 13 months. More importantly, no additional toxicity was observed with LDFRT other than that expected from the high dose of gemcitabine (personal communication, manuscript in preparation). More recently, Wrenn et al. demonstrated tolerability of concomitant low-dose whole-abdominal RT and full-dose cisplatin in optimally debulked stage III/IV endometrial cancer patients.
Currently, there are no prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of concomitant gem-cis and RT for locally advanced IHC regarding disease response or post-operative intrahepatic disease recurrence. Prior full dose external beam RT is an accepted contraindication to liver resection due to development of advanced fibrosis and intrahepatic biliary sclerosis. However, no studies have evaluated the influence of preoperative LDFRT on outcomes after partial hepatectomy. Case reports of safe liver resection after antecedent radioembolization suggest that LDFRT may not adversely affect postoperative outcomes. LDFRT to the entire liver and portal lymph node basin is advantageous compared to tumor directed therapy as the former treats occult disease representing the most common site of disease recurrence after partial hepatectomy and progression after chemotherapy.
Based on data from the ABC trial establishing gem-cis as the standard of care for locally advanced and/or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, the primary goal of this phase II study is to explore the safety and efficacy of using a combination of LDFRT as a chemopotentiator and concurrent gem-cis for mass-forming IHC.
The pivotal Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC) Trial established combination gemcitabine-cisplatin (gem-cis) therapy as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic IHC. While the majority of patients experience initial disease stabilization after therapy (e.g. stable disease, partial response, or complete response) partial or complete response occurs in only approximately 20% of patients. Smaller trials comprising other chemotherapeutics with or without anti-biologic agents report similar results. Moreover, disease stabilization is short lived with median progression free survival of only six-eight months. Thus, there is a pressing need for more effective liver directed therapy for locally advanced disease.
- Conditions
- Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- Being tested
- Gemcitabine, Cisplatin, low dose radiotherapy
- Keywords
- low-dose radiotherapy, gemcitabine, cisplatin, cholangiocarcinoma
- Medical subject headings
- Cholangiocarcinoma
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
GemcitabineDrug
Also called Gemzar
CisplatinDrug
Also called Platinol
low dose radiotherapyRadiation
Whole liver and portal lymph node basin low dose radiotherapy
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Experimental | Four three-week treatment cycles. Gemcitabine (1000 gm/m^2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m^2) administered on days one and eight of each cycle. Whole liver and portal lymph node basin low dose radiotherapy on days one, two, eight, and nine of each cycle. Receives: Drug: Gemcitabine; Drug: Cisplatin; Radiation: low dose radiotherapy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Participants With Radiographic Disease Response After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors Criteria (RECIST v1.1) for target lesions and assessed by CT/MRI: Complete Response (CR), Disappearance of all target lesions; Partial Response (PR), >=30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions; Progressive Disease (PD), At least a 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study).
Measured: 16 weeks after treatment start
Number of Participants With Adverse Events.
Number of participants with adverse events during combined low-dose radiotherapy and gemcitabine-cisplatin treatment.
Measured: up to 16 weeks after treatment start
Secondary outcomes (5)
Number of Participants With Post-operative Complications After Partial Hepatectomy After Antecedent Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Measured post-operative complications include (but not limited to) bile leak, liver failure, ascites, infection, any organ failure or insufficiency, venous thromboembolism, and mortality.
Measured: up to 90 days after partial hepatectomy
Number of Participants With Histologic Disease Response After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Tumor tissue will be obtained by either biopsy or liver resection after combination chemoradiotherapy. Histologic response will be determined by extent of viable tumor, tumor necrosis, and surrounding fibrosis.
Measured: 16 weeks after start of first treatment
Number of Participants With Injury to the Background Liver After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Background (non-tumor bearing) liver tissue will be obtained by either biopsy or liver resection after combination chemoradiotherapy. Histologic markers of Radiation Induced Liver disease will be measured.
Measured: 16 weeks after start of first treatment.
Number of Participants With Intrahepatic Recurrence After Partial Hepatectomy With Antecedent Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
To determine the number of participants with Intrahepatic recurrence assessed by RECIST criteria using MRI of the abdomen with intravenous gadolinium contrast.
Measured: From date of partial hepatectomy until date of first documented recurrence or date of death from any cause, assessed up to 24 months.
Number of Participants With Intrahepatic Disease Progression After Treatment With Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
To determine the number of participants with Intrahepatic disease progression assessed by MRI of the abdomen with intravenous gadolinium contrast using RECIST criteria.
Measured: From date of first treatment until date of first documented progression or date of death from any cause, which ever comes first, assessed up to 24 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Oct 2014 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2014
- Primary completionSep 2016
- Study completionSep 2016
Why it stopped: lack of funding
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (33)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Intrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 6 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Allina Health System
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Srinevas K Reddy, MD, Principal investigator, Allina Health System
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02254681
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- VPSR-1401
- Status last verified
- Oct 2018
- First submitted
- 30 Sep 2014
- Last updated
- 3 Oct 2018
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Bridgewater J, Galle PR, Khan SA, Llovet JM, Park JW, Patel T, Pawlik TM, Gores GJ. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2014 Jun;60(6):1268-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.01.021. Epub 2014 Mar 27. No abstract available.
PubMed 24681130Ilyas SI, Gores GJ. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2013 Dec;145(6):1215-29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.013. Epub 2013 Oct 15.
PubMed 24140396de Jong MC, Nathan H, Sotiropoulos GC, Paul A, Alexandrescu S, Marques H, Pulitano C, Barroso E, Clary BM, Aldrighetti L, Ferrone CR, Zhu AX, Bauer TW, Walters DM, Gamblin TC, Nguyen KT, Turley R, Popescu I, Hubert C, Meyer S, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Gigot JF, Mentha G, Pawlik TM. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 10;29(23):3140-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.6519. Epub 2011 Jul 5.
PubMed 21730269Endo I, Gonen M, Yopp AC, Dalal KM, Zhou Q, Klimstra D, D'Angelica M, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Schwartz L, Kemeny N, O'Reilly E, Abou-Alfa GK, Shimada H, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: rising frequency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):84-96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176c4d3.
PubMed 18580211Lang H, Sotiropoulos GC, Sgourakis G, Schmitz KJ, Paul A, Hilgard P, Zopf T, Trarbach T, Malago M, Baba HA, Broelsch CE. Operations for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: single-institution experience of 158 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Feb;208(2):218-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.017.
PubMed 19228533Choi SB, Kim KS, Choi JY, Park SW, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Chung JB. The prognosis and survival outcome of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma following surgical resection: association of lymph node metastasis and lymph node dissection with survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Nov;16(11):3048-56. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0631-1. Epub 2009 Jul 22.
PubMed 19626372Paik KY, Jung JC, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Kim YI. What prognostic factors are important for resected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 May;23(5):766-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05040.x. Epub 2007 Sep 12.
PubMed 17868336Nakagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Takahashi S, Gotohda N. Surgical outcome and prognostic factors in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12):2675-80. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9778-3.
PubMed 18843437Tamandl D, Herberger B, Gruenberger B, Puhalla H, Klinger M, Gruenberger T. Influence of hepatic resection margin on recurrence and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Oct;15(10):2787-94. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0081-1. Epub 2008 Aug 7.
PubMed 18685896Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, Cunningham D, Anthoney A, Maraveyas A, Madhusudan S, Iveson T, Hughes S, Pereira SP, Roughton M, Bridgewater J; ABC-02 Trial Investigators. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 8;362(14):1273-81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908721.
PubMed 20375404Woo SM, Lee WJ, Kim JH, Kim DH, Han SS, Park SJ, Kim TH, Lee JH, Koh YH, Hong EK. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Chemotherapy. 2013;59(3):232-8. doi: 10.1159/000354539. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
PubMed 24356333Alberts SR, Al-Khatib H, Mahoney MR, Burgart L, Cera PJ, Flynn PJ, Finch TR, Levitt R, Windschitl HE, Knost JA, Tschetter LK. Gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin in advanced biliary tract and gallbladder carcinoma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II trial. Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):111-8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20753.
PubMed 15558814Jensen LH, Lindebjerg J, Ploen J, Hansen TF, Jakobsen A. Phase II marker-driven trial of panitumumab and chemotherapy in KRAS wild-type biliary tract cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23(9):2341-2346. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds008. Epub 2012 Feb 23.
PubMed 22367707Lubner SJ, Mahoney MR, Kolesar JL, Loconte NK, Kim GP, Pitot HC, Philip PA, Picus J, Yong WP, Horvath L, Van Hazel G, Erlichman CE, Holen KD. Report of a multicenter phase II trial testing a combination of biweekly bevacizumab and daily erlotinib in patients with unresectable biliary cancer: a phase II Consortium study. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jul 20;28(21):3491-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.4075. Epub 2010 Jun 7.
PubMed 20530271Darwish Murad S, Kim WR, Harnois DM, Douglas DD, Burton J, Kulik LM, Botha JF, Mezrich JD, Chapman WC, Schwartz JJ, Hong JC, Emond JC, Jeon H, Rosen CB, Gores GJ, Heimbach JK. Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, followed by liver transplantation, for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at 12 US centers. Gastroenterology. 2012 Jul;143(1):88-98.e3; quiz e14. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.04.008. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
PubMed 22504095
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Oct 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Phase 2 Study of Low-Dose Fractionated Radiation Therapy to the Whole Liver in Combination With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Locally Advanced Mass-Forming Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02254681
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VPSR-1401
- Conditions
- Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- Keywords
- low-dose radiotherapy, gemcitabine, cisplatin, cholangiocarcinoma
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- TerminatedReason stopped: lack of funding
- Enrolment
- 6 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Allina Health SystemUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2014
- Primary completion
- Sep 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Oct 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 3 Oct 2018
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The overall goal of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of combination treatment of low-dose fractionated radiation therapy with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy for locally advanced mass forming intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Detailed description
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) are cancers with pathologic features of biliary tract differentiation which arise from intrahepatic bile ducts and/or trans-differentiation of hepatocytes. IHC is the second most common primary liver cancer and its incidence and mortality rates are increasing both worldwide and in the United States. Approximately 80% of IHC in the Western hemisphere is the mass-forming type. Liver disease represents the major obstacle to long-term survival among patients with IHC. While partial hepatectomy offers the only hope of cure, less than 30% of IHC are resectable at initial presentation.2 Most patients have locally advanced disease (e.g. multi-focal tumors, major vascular invasion, local invasion of surrounding organs, and/or regional lymph node metastasis). Each of these factors portends poor 5-year survival (~20%) after surgical extirpation and are thus considered unresectable disease by most surgeons in the current era. Moreover, the liver is the most common site of disease recurrence after resection of IHC as 60-80% of initial disease recurrence occurs in the liver remnant.
Published response rates to preoperative or definitive radiation therapy (RT) for cholangiocarcinoma appear to be relatively high. For instance, a complete response proportion of 48% was recently reported for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma patients who received preoperative chemoradiation followed by liver transplant. Moreover, small series have demonstrated superior progression free and overall survival with the combination of external beam RT and chemotherapy compared to that derived from chemotherapy alone for many unresectable hepatic malignancies, including IHC, colorectal cancer liver metastases, and hepatocellular carcinoma. For example, addition of external beam RT to cisplatin chemotherapy was associated with prolonged progression free (median 4.3 vs. 1.9 months, p=0.001) and overall (median 9.3 vs. 6.2 months, p=0.048) survival compared to cisplatin alone among 92 total patients with unresectable IHC. Traditional thoughts in radiation biology of tumors suggested that doses of at least 1.2 Gy were required to overcome the initial shoulder of the cell survival curve. In practice, the standard dose per fraction is considered to be 0.015-0.022 Gy per fraction although the vast majority of patients are treated with either 1.8 Gy or 2 Gy fractions.
Laboratory and clinical data suggest that a new paradigm using LDFRT as a chemopotentiator may allow full-dose drug therapy with improved efficacy without adding to the toxicity of the systemic treatment. This chemopotentiating effect is possible through a phenomenon known as hyper-radiation sensitivity (HRS) by which there is more effective tumor cell killing than would be predicted when using doses per fraction below 1 Gy. This is followed by a change in slope of the survival response with increasing doses per fraction, indicating increased radioresistance (IRR). This HRS phenomenon was first described by Joiner and colleagues in the Gray Laboratory in 1986 and has since been well described by a number of other laboratories. It also has been documented in the clinical setting; in a study by Harney et al., patients with paired cutaneous metastases from sarcoma and melanoma had longer time to tumor regrowth after LDFRT than with conventional radiation. In vitro studies have established a link between HRS/IRR and evasion of the early G2/M cell cycle checkpoint. Exaggerated HRS/IRR responses were found for enriched populations of G2 phase cells in one study, indicating that the mechanism likely involved events in the G2 phase of the cell cycle. Two G2 checkpoints have been described, and the more recently discovered "early" checkpoint is rapidly activated after radiation exposure. It is believed to prevent cell cycle progression through G2 of cells with unrepaired radiation-induced DNA damage. The signaling cascade regulating the early G2/M checkpoint is initiated through ATM activity. Joiner and colleagues have shown that inhibition of ChK1 and Chk2, two proteins integral to the G2/M transition, can influence the cell-cycle response to low-dose radiation. It is believed that failure of the cell to repair DNA damage in G2-phase cells leads to increased apoptosis. Nonetheless, inhibition of ChK1 and ChK2 also lead to IRR at radiation doses > 0.2 Gy. This is consistent with reports indicating that low dose radiation can stimulate repair of DNA damage. Interestingly, low dose radiation can also stimulate antioxidant capacity, apoptosis, and induction of immune responses, which collectively may provide effective local tumor control. In addition, hypoxia and nitric oxide levels can also affect cells sensitivity to radiation. Reduction of nitric oxide level enhances the radiosensitivity of hypoxic non-small cell lung cancer. Therefore, the identification of cellular pathways that are responsive to low dose radiation and their contribution to chemopotentiation is highly significant because this will provide a better measurement of the therapeutic response and contribute to the rational design of mechanism-based clinical trials.
Based on promising preclinical data, clinical studies have been performed in a variety of cancer types with LDFRT in addition to standard chemotherapy. Investigators at the University of Kentucky published their experience using carboplatin and paclitaxel with 4 fractions of 0.8 Gy each in locally advanced head and neck cancer patients. They observed toxicities similar to those expected from chemotherapy alone and concluded that the addition of LDFRT was "extremely well tolerated." Moreover, they reported excellent response rates. Regine et al. conducted a phase I trial of low dose abdominal RT (0.6 vs. 0.7 Gy fractions, total 8 fractions) and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 among patients with unresectable pancreatic/small bowel carcinomas. The authors concluded that abdominal LDFRT using 0.6 Gy fractions was well tolerated when given concurrently with full-dose gemcitabine. A multi-institutional phase II trial using this regimen suggested improved efficacy of the combined regimen in improving overall survival. Sixty-one percent of enrolled patients experienced at least stable disease, and median survival in this poor prognosis population was 13 months. More importantly, no additional toxicity was observed with LDFRT other than that expected from the high dose of gemcitabine (personal communication, manuscript in preparation). More recently, Wrenn et al. demonstrated tolerability of concomitant low-dose whole-abdominal RT and full-dose cisplatin in optimally debulked stage III/IV endometrial cancer patients.
Currently, there are no prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of concomitant gem-cis and RT for locally advanced IHC regarding disease response or post-operative intrahepatic disease recurrence. Prior full dose external beam RT is an accepted contraindication to liver resection due to development of advanced fibrosis and intrahepatic biliary sclerosis. However, no studies have evaluated the influence of preoperative LDFRT on outcomes after partial hepatectomy. Case reports of safe liver resection after antecedent radioembolization suggest that LDFRT may not adversely affect postoperative outcomes. LDFRT to the entire liver and portal lymph node basin is advantageous compared to tumor directed therapy as the former treats occult disease representing the most common site of disease recurrence after partial hepatectomy and progression after chemotherapy.
Based on data from the ABC trial establishing gem-cis as the standard of care for locally advanced and/or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, the primary goal of this phase II study is to explore the safety and efficacy of using a combination of LDFRT as a chemopotentiator and concurrent gem-cis for mass-forming IHC.
The pivotal Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC) Trial established combination gemcitabine-cisplatin (gem-cis) therapy as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic IHC. While the majority of patients experience initial disease stabilization after therapy (e.g. stable disease, partial response, or complete response) partial or complete response occurs in only approximately 20% of patients. Smaller trials comprising other chemotherapeutics with or without anti-biologic agents report similar results. Moreover, disease stabilization is short lived with median progression free survival of only six-eight months. Thus, there is a pressing need for more effective liver directed therapy for locally advanced disease.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Experimental | Drug: Gemcitabine, Drug: Cisplatin, Radiation: low dose radiotherapyFour three-week treatment cycles. Gemcitabine (1000 gm/m^2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m^2) administered on days one and eight of each cycle. Whole liver and portal lymph node basin low dose radiotherapy on days one, two, eight, and nine of each cycle. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (23 listed)
- Histologic diagnosis of mass-forming IHC. OR
- Histologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the liver in setting of negative colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, mammography (females), or cross-sectional imaging for primary disease.
- Patients must have measurable disease, defined as at least one lesion that can be accurately measured in at least one dimension as ≥10 mm (≥1 cm) with spiral CT scan, MRI. See Section 8 for the evaluation of measurable disease.
- Locally advanced disease (portal lymph node disease, multifocal intrahepatic lesions, or major vascular invasion) AND no evidence of omental, peritoneal, or pelvic metastases.
- Other sites of metastatic disease (e.g. lung, distant lymph nodes, bone) are allowed.
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Prior chemotherapy, surgical therapy, or radiotherapy for IHC.
- Patients who are receiving any other investigational agents or have been treated with any other therapeutic clinical protocols within 30 days prior to study entry or during participation in the study.
- Patients with known brain metastases will be excluded from this clinical trial because of their poor prognosis and because they often develop progressive neurologic dysfunction that would confound the evaluation of neurologic and other adverse events.
- History of allergic reactions attributed to compounds of similar chemical or biologic composition to gemcitabine or cisplatin.
- Prior invasive malignancy (except for non-melanomatous skin cancer, low grade prostate cancer, and in situ cervical cancer) unless disease free for ≥ two years.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| GemcitabineAlso: Gemzar | Drug | Treatment |
| CisplatinAlso: Platinol | Drug | Treatment |
| low dose radiotherapyWhole liver and portal lymph node basin low dose radiotherapy | Radiation | Treatment |
Primary outcome
Number of Participants With Radiographic Disease Response After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: 16 weeks after treatment start
Per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors Criteria (RECIST v1.1) for target lesions and assessed by CT/MRI: Complete Response (CR), Disappearance of all target lesions; Partial Response (PR), >=30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions; Progressive Disease (PD), At least a 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum on study (this includes the baseline sum if that is the smallest on study).
Number of Participants With Adverse Events.
Time frame: up to 16 weeks after treatment start
Number of participants with adverse events during combined low-dose radiotherapy and gemcitabine-cisplatin treatment.
5 secondary outcomes
Number of Participants With Post-operative Complications After Partial Hepatectomy After Antecedent Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: up to 90 days after partial hepatectomy
Number of Participants With Histologic Disease Response After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: 16 weeks after start of first treatment
Number of Participants With Injury to the Background Liver After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: 16 weeks after start of first treatment.
Number of Participants With Intrahepatic Recurrence After Partial Hepatectomy With Antecedent Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: From date of partial hepatectomy until date of first documented recurrence or date of death from any cause, assessed up to 24 months.
Number of Participants With Intrahepatic Disease Progression After Treatment With Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin.
Time frame: From date of first treatment until date of first documented progression or date of death from any cause, which ever comes first, assessed up to 24 months.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Oct 2018.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 24681130Bridgewater J, Galle PR, Khan SA, Llovet JM, Park JW, Patel T, Pawlik TM, Gores GJ. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2014 Jun;60(6):1268-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.01.021. Epub 2014 Mar 27. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 24140396Ilyas SI, Gores GJ. Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2013 Dec;145(6):1215-29. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.013. Epub 2013 Oct 15.
- Background: PubMed 21730269de Jong MC, Nathan H, Sotiropoulos GC, Paul A, Alexandrescu S, Marques H, Pulitano C, Barroso E, Clary BM, Aldrighetti L, Ferrone CR, Zhu AX, Bauer TW, Walters DM, Gamblin TC, Nguyen KT, Turley R, Popescu I, Hubert C, Meyer S, Schulick RD, Choti MA, Gigot JF, Mentha G, Pawlik TM. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 10;29(23):3140-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.6519. Epub 2011 Jul 5.
- Background: PubMed 18580211Endo I, Gonen M, Yopp AC, Dalal KM, Zhou Q, Klimstra D, D'Angelica M, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Schwartz L, Kemeny N, O'Reilly E, Abou-Alfa GK, Shimada H, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: rising frequency, improved survival, and determinants of outcome after resection. Ann Surg. 2008 Jul;248(1):84-96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176c4d3.
- Background: PubMed 19228533Lang H, Sotiropoulos GC, Sgourakis G, Schmitz KJ, Paul A, Hilgard P, Zopf T, Trarbach T, Malago M, Baba HA, Broelsch CE. Operations for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: single-institution experience of 158 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2009 Feb;208(2):218-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.017.
- Background: PubMed 19626372Choi SB, Kim KS, Choi JY, Park SW, Choi JS, Lee WJ, Chung JB. The prognosis and survival outcome of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma following surgical resection: association of lymph node metastasis and lymph node dissection with survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Nov;16(11):3048-56. doi: 10.1245/s10434-009-0631-1. Epub 2009 Jul 22.
- Background: PubMed 17868336Paik KY, Jung JC, Heo JS, Choi SH, Choi DW, Kim YI. What prognostic factors are important for resected intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 May;23(5):766-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05040.x. Epub 2007 Sep 12.
- Background: PubMed 18843437Nakagohri T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Takahashi S, Gotohda N. Surgical outcome and prognostic factors in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12):2675-80. doi: 10.1007/s00268-008-9778-3.
- Background: PubMed 18685896Tamandl D, Herberger B, Gruenberger B, Puhalla H, Klinger M, Gruenberger T. Influence of hepatic resection margin on recurrence and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Oct;15(10):2787-94. doi: 10.1245/s10434-008-0081-1. Epub 2008 Aug 7.
- Background: PubMed 20375404Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, Cunningham D, Anthoney A, Maraveyas A, Madhusudan S, Iveson T, Hughes S, Pereira SP, Roughton M, Bridgewater J; ABC-02 Trial Investigators. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 8;362(14):1273-81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908721.
- Background: PubMed 24356333Woo SM, Lee WJ, Kim JH, Kim DH, Han SS, Park SJ, Kim TH, Lee JH, Koh YH, Hong EK. Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Chemotherapy. 2013;59(3):232-8. doi: 10.1159/000354539. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
- Background: PubMed 15558814Alberts SR, Al-Khatib H, Mahoney MR, Burgart L, Cera PJ, Flynn PJ, Finch TR, Levitt R, Windschitl HE, Knost JA, Tschetter LK. Gemcitabine, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin in advanced biliary tract and gallbladder carcinoma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II trial. Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):111-8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20753.
Related trials for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
RecruitingPhase 2
Combination Therapy Using Durvalumab and Histotripsy for Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
RecruitingPhase 3
Efficacy and Safety of Zanidatamab With Standard-of-care Therapy Against Standard-of-care Therapy for Advanced HER2-positive Biliary Tract Cancer
Biliary Tract Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
Perioperative Retlirafusp Alfa(Anti-PD-L1/TGF-β Bifunctional Fusion Protein) Plus Famitinib and GEMOX-Based Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Exploratory Phase II Trial
Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (Icc), Neoadjuvant Therapy
RecruitingPhase 2
REGULUS: MRI-guided Adaptive SABR for Liver Cancers
Liver Cancer, Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Srinevas K Reddy, MD principal investigator
Allina Health System
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Gemcitabine, Cisplatin and low dose radiotherapy in people with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, run by Allina Health System at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 23 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: stopped early, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Oct 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 3 Oct 2018). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of Participants With Radiographic Disease Response After Combination Low-dose Radiotherapy and Gemcitabine-cisplatin. (time frame: 16 weeks after treatment start). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02254681, which also lists 33 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Oct 2018.