Skip Navigation


British Medical Bulletin Advance Access originally published online on August 27, 2008
British Medical Bulletin 2008 87(1):97-130; doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn027
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
87/1/97    most recent
ldn027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Danovi, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lemoine, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Danovi, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lemoine, N. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Oncology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Targeted therapies for pancreatic cancer

S. A. Danovi, H. H. Wong and N. R. Lemoine*

Centre for Molecular Oncology and Imaging, Institute of Cancer, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

* Correspondence to: Prof. N. R. Lemoine Centre for Molecular Oncology and Imaging Institute of Cancer, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London Charterhouse Square London EC1M 6BQ, UK. E-mail: nick.lemoine{at}cancer.org.uk


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Diagnosis and current treatment
 Introduction to targeted...
 References
 
Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is a devastating malignancy and a leading cause of cancer mortality. Furthermore, early diagnosis represents a serious hurdle for clinicians, as symptoms are non-specific and usually manifest in advanced, treatment-resistant stages of the disease.

Sources of data: Here, we review the rationale and progress of targeted therapies currently under investigation.

Areas of agreement: At present, chemoradiation regimes are administered palliatively, and produce only marginal survival benefits, underscoring a desperate need for more effective treatment modalities.

Areas of controversy: Questions have been raised as to whether erlotinib, the only targeted therapy to attain a statistically significant increase in median survival, is cost-effective.

Growing points: The last decade of research has provided us with a wealth of information regarding the molecular nature of pancreatic cancer, leading to the identification of signalling pathways and their respective components which are critical for the maintenance of the malignant phenotype.

Areas timely for developing research: These proteins thus represent ideal targets for novel molecular therapies which embody an urgently needed novel treatment strategy.

Keywords: pancreatic cancer • targeted therapy • novel therapy • clinical trials


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Diagnosis and current treatment
 Introduction to targeted...
 References
 
With mortality rates almost identical to incidence rates, a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer represents a particularly bleak prognosis for patients and their families. The factors that contribute towards this poor outcome include our current inability to diagnose pancreatic cancer at early stages due to the non-specific presenting symptoms, the inaccessibility of the pancreas and the early occurrence of metastasis. At present, surgical resection represents the only curative option for patients with pancreatic cancer, but at present, only 20% of patients present with early-stage operable tumours.1 Patients with unresectable disease consequently make up the overwhelming majority of pancreatic cancer diagnoses and receive palliative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which do not result in significant long-term survival.2 The paucity of curative therapies has translated into an overall 5-year survival rate of less than 5%,3 underscoring a desperate need for improved therapeutic options and diagnostic tools. Recent work has led to significant advances in the understanding of the genetic changes characteristic to pancreatic cancer in the hope of identifying molecules for the development of targeted therapies, although progress towards translating this knowledge into effective diagnostic tools and therapeutic agents has been slow. Here, we review the rationale for new therapies currently being developed.


   Diagnosis and current treatment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Diagnosis and current treatment
Introduction to targeted...
 References
 
At present, the anti-metabolite gemcitabine (2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine) is the standard treatment for patients with pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is a fluorinated analogue of deoxycytidine which, when incorporated into DNA, inhibits DNA synthesis and repair, culminating in apoptosis. A landmark study of 126 patients in 1997 demonstrated that gemcitabine produces significant benefits over its predecessor 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with respect to overall survival and disease-related symptoms.4 Overall however, gemcitabine produces only marginal survival benefits and modest improvements in quality of life, representing a necessity for the identification of combination partners in order to improve the clinical outcome.5,6 To this end, several clinical trials using gemcitabine in combination with 5-FU, cisplatin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin and pemetrexed have been conducted, but none of these phase III trials have reported statistically significant improvements in survival over gemcitabine monotherapy.1 Thus, novel therapeutic strategies are urgently needed. As locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancers are currently incurable with standard therapies, experimental therapy is an acceptable first-line strategy.7 To this end, researchers are currently focusing their attentions on targeting the molecular defects characteristic to the malignancy itself, which represents a particularly promising avenue for future research (Tables 1 and 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Molecular targets for pancreatic cancer therapy.

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Phase III pancreatic cancer clinical trials with targeted and standard therapies.

 

   Introduction to targeted therapies
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Diagnosis and current treatment
 Introduction to targeted...
References
 
The recent success of novel cancer therapeutics based on the specific inhibition of tumour-associated pathways has breathed new life into the area of cancer drug discovery. As these agents have been designed to inhibit specific pathways, they are commonly referred to as targeted agents. Conventional therapies also target cellular processes, but fail to distinguish tumour cells from their normal counterparts. This lack of discrimination subsequently manifests in unavoidable, often unacceptable side-effects which can be as devastating to the patient as the disease itself. In contrast, targeted therapies disable specific cellular pathways that are absolutely required for the maintenance of cancer. As a consequence, normal cells are left relatively unharmed, leading to a different and generally less severe repertoire of drug-related toxicities. A further requirement of targeted therapies is that their effects should be quantifiable, with a correlation between target inhibition and clinical outcome,8 although this does not always occur due to the complexity of the living organisms.

Telomerase

Unlimited proliferation is an acquired trait intrinsic to the survival of cancer cells,9 and mammalian cells have evolved sophisticated, cell-autonomous mechanisms to limit their replicative potential. In vitro, human cells undergo a certain number of population doublings (PD) before entering an irreversible post-mitotic state known as replicative senescence. Senescence represents the first of two checkpoints that serve as barriers against limitless proliferation and is dependent on the p53 and retinoblastoma tumour suppressor pathways and can thus be abrogated through either genetic mutation or the expression of viral oncoproteins such as the SV40 T-antigen. Such events allow cells to proliferate for a further 20–40 PD, although the population eventually enters replicative crisis, the second checkpoint, characterized by chromosome instability and a decline of the cell population as apoptosis exceeds proliferation. The rampant genomic instability observed during crisis can be attributed to the attrition of telomeres, which are specialized, tandemly repeated sequences (TTAGGG in humans), located at the ends of chromosomes. The inability of DNA polymerase to replicate the extreme 5' termini of chromosomes results in progressive telomere shortening with each replicative cycle. Once telomeres become critically short, the cell loses the ability to protect the ends of its chromosomes and enters crisis. Thus, telomere erosion poses a finite lifespan on the cell and represents a serious hurdle for any cell with malignant aspirations. Tellingly however, almost all immortal cells express telomerase, a unique ribonucleoprotein which catalyses the addition of de novo telomeric sequences to the ends of chromosomes and are consequently able to bypass crisis. In contrast to healthy somatic cells, most malignant cells show detectable telomerase activity.10 Furthermore, the inhibition of telomerase in tumour cells leads to rapid telomere shortening and apoptosis.11 Taken together, these data provide a rationale for the development of anti-telomerase therapies for the treatment of cancer.

Several groups have demonstrated the up-regulation of telomerase in pancreatic malignancies but not in normal tissues or in benign disease.12,13 These in vitro studies thus argued in favour of the development of telomerase inhibition for pancreatic cancer treatment.

One strategy currently in development is the use of immune recognition technology to target and destroy telomerase-positive cells. hTERT, the telomerase reverse transcriptase catalytic subunit, is degraded into short peptides by tumour cells of different histological origins and types and is presented on the cell surface on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, leading to the activation of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTLs), resulting in the elimination of tumour cells bearing the same peptide-MHC complex on their surfaces.14 A significant concern regarding telomerase-based therapies is the possibility of adverse effects of telomere inhibition on the small number of tissue types that do express telomerase such as germline cells, haematopoietic cells and those in stem cell compartments of the skin and intestine.15 Importantly, no CTL effect was observed towards CD34-positive haematopoietic cells,16,17 suggesting that the high expression of telomerase in malignant tissue compared with normal tissue does indeed provide the required therapeutic window for the immune system to distinguish between healthy and tumour cells.

The telomerase-derived 16-mer peptide GV1001 (Pharmexa A/S) has previously been demonstrated to elicit T-cell responses in non-small cell lung cancer patients without exhibiting cytotoxicity towards telomerase-positive bone marrow stem cells.18 GV1001 was recently subjected to a phase I/II study to investigate its safety and tolerability in patients with non-resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.19 A rapid and significant immune response was observed in 75% of the group receiving an intermediate dose of the peptide. There was no overall increase in immune response in the patient group receiving high peptide doses, possibly due to high local concentration of peptide leading to leakage into surrounding tissue, uptake and presentation of vaccine by non-professional antigen-presenting cells and the subsequent selection of T-cells with low-affinity T-cell receptors or anergy. Importantly, the vaccine was well-tolerated, with no serious adverse side effects or withdrawals due to treatment-related events. Furthermore, although survival was not the primary endpoint of the study, a significant correlation was observed between overall survival and immune response with a median survival of 8.6 months for patients receiving intermediate doses compared with 4.5 months for those receiving high or low doses. Accordingly, after 300 days, all surviving patients were those who had demonstrated an immune response to the peptide. These encouraging results suggest that GV1001 is immunogenic, safe and may offer a new therapeutic option for the treatment of pancreatic cancer either alone, or in conjunction with current conventional therapies. The large (>1000 patients) phase III TeloVac trial is currently ongoing. It aims to examine gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy with concurrent or sequential GV1001 in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancers.

Inhibition of angiogenesis

Angiogenesis, the establishment of new vasculature, is essential during embryogenesis, wound healing and normal reproductive function in the female.20 Inappropriate angiogenesis however contributes towards several diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, age-related macular degeneration and cancer.21 Research over the last three decades has provided a body of evidence demonstrating that the requirement for vasculature to provide oxygen, nutrients and to remove waste products at both primary and secondary sites obliges tumour cells to reside within 100–200 µm of a capillary blood vessel or face apoptosis and necrosis.9

The transition between vascular quiescence and angiogenesis, known as the ‘angiogenic switch’, results from dominance of pro-angiogenic over anti-angiogenic signals and represents a significant obstacle for the growing tumour.22 The angiogenic switch is activated in tumours by the over-production of angiogenic inducers, and by neutralizing inhibitors.23 Although the development of vessel walls is an extremely complex process, requiring a tightly choreographed series of receptor-ligand interactions and the participation of several signalling pathways, the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is generally accepted to represent a critical rate-limiting step24 and has thus far become a focus in the quest for anti-angiogenic agents.

The VEGF family consists of six dimeric glycoproteins: VEGF-A, -B, -C, -D, -E and placental growth factor (PGF). VEGF-A is the most extensively studied member of the family and comprises five isoforms, generated by alternative splicing of 121, 145, 165, 189 and 206 amino acids.

VEGF activity is a potent mitogen for micro- and macro-vascular endothelial cells derived from arteries, veins and lymphatics,20 and an effective activator of angiogenesis in vivo.25–27 Additionally, VEGF is a regulator of vascular permeability, vasodilatation, endothelial migration and gene expression.20 VEGF-A mediates these biological effects through binding to two VEGF receptors: VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-1 and VEGFR-2.28–31

Although pancreatic tumours are not grossly vascular, VEGF-A, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2 are often co-expressed implying an autocrine effect of VEGF on pancreatic cells expressing VEGF receptors, and paracrine effects on microvascular endothelial cells.32–34 Studies in animal models have shown that perturbation of the VEGF signalling pathway inhibits pancreatic tumour growth and angiogenesis.35–38 Finally, several studies have demonstrated a correlation between tumour VEGF-A levels, blood vessel density, tumour size and local metastasis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.39–41 Taken together, these studies indicate that VEGF-A promotes tumour growth and metastasis in pancreatic cancer by encouraging angiogenesis, and thus provide a rationale for the targeting of VEGF in pancreatic cancer.

The humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (Avastin®, Genentech) targets all known isoforms of VEGF-A.42 In preclinical studies, bevacizumab showed encouraging inhibition of tumour cell line growth in nude mice42,43 and was deemed to be non-toxic when either used alone, or in combination with standard chemotherapy in early-phase clinical trials.44,45 Based on exciting phase III results,46 bevacizumab, in combination with standard therapeutic regimes, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a first-line therapy for colorectal cancer, demonstrating that VEGF inhibition is a clinically effective strategy to treat at least one type of human cancer. Consequently, a non-randomized phase II study involving 52 patients to assess the efficacy of bevacizumab with gemcitibine as a first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer was initiated.47 Gemcitabine was administered at 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 out of 4 weeks and bevacizumab at 10 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 in a 28-day treatment cycle. Results of this study demonstrated that combination therapy resulted in a superior objective response rate, progression-free survival (5.4 months), median survival (8.8.months) as well as 1-year survival rate (29%) when compared with gemcitabine alone, warranting further clinical assessment. The combination of gemcitabine and bevacizumab was relatively well-tolerated, although 4 out of the 52 patients developed severe gastrointestinal complications including bowel perforations and oesophageal tears. In response to these encouraging data, a phase III trial involving 602 patients receiving either gemcitabine with placebo or bevacizumab was conducted.48 Disappointingly however, preliminary results have indicated that the combination therapy has no significant clinical benefit over gemcitabine alone.

As VEGF inhibition can overcome radioresistance, possibly by attenuating the protection afforded to endothelial cells by VEGF following radiation,49,50 a phase I study was initiated to evaluate the safety of bevacizumab in combination with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.7 As bevacizumab did not significantly increase the toxicity of chemoradiation therapy, further studies are justified and indeed trials are currently being conducted to investigate the benefit of bevacizumab in pancreatic cancer in a number of clinical contexts such as combination therapy with other chemotherapeutic agents and as an adjuvant therapy following surgical resection.

Inhibition of RAS

The 21 kDa RAS family proteins were first identified as cellular homologues of oncoproteins encoded by the genomes of the Harvey and Kirsten murine sarcoma retroviruses. Four oncogenic RAS proteins have been described thus far, HRAS, NRAS, KRAS-4A and KRAS-4B, with the two KRAS proteins arising from alternative splicing of a single gene transcript. All family members exert their biological functions by assembling signalling complexes at the cell membrane that activate intracellular signalling cascades, altered transcriptional profiles and changes in diverse cellular processes such as migration, survival, proliferation, endocytosis, differentiation, senescence and more.51 As RAS proteins are anchored to the cell membrane and toggle between an inactive guanosine diphosphate (GDP)-bound and an active guanosine triphosphate (GTP)-bound state, they act as molecular switches in the cell, transmitting signals from the cell membrane to the nucleus. In quiescent cells, RAS is usually found in the ‘OFF’ state, until activation by upstream signalling components such as the binding of epidermal growth factor (EGF) to its cognate receptor tyrosine kinase, the EGF receptor (EGFR). Such events initiate signalling cascades resulting in a conformational change in RAS, the disassociation of GDP and the binding of GTP, thereby switching RAS into its ‘ON’ state. In this state, RAS induces activation of distinct effector signalling cascades such as the RAF serine/threonine kinase, the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) or the three RAL exchange proteins: RAL guanine nucleotide disassociation stimulator (RALGDS), RALGDS-like gene (RGL/RSB2) and RGL2/RLF. The signalling cascades elicited by RAS are transient and short-lived by virtue of RAS' own intrinsic GTPase activity which is stimulated by cytosolic GTPase activating proteins (GAPs).

In tumours, RAS proteins are frequently found in the constitutively ‘ON’ states. This is often due to activating mutations in RAS genes themselves which abolish GAP-induced GTPase activity and hence render RAS unable to switch back to the ‘OFF’ state. De-regulated RAS signalling can lead to uncontrolled proliferation, enhanced migration and invasion, resistance to apoptosis and angiogenesis,52 and it is thus unsurprising that RAS mutations, which almost always occur at codons 12, 13 and 61, are found in about 30% of all human tumours.53 KRAS mutations are exceptionally frequent events in pancreatic cancers and predominantly occur at codon 12.54 Inhibition of RAS activity is thus an appealing anti-cancer endeavour, and several approaches have been developed to achieve this goal.

Much attention has been given to the inhibition of post-translational events that are absolutely required for RAS activation and functional specificity. Newly synthesized RAS and RHO proteins are cytosolic, and require further processing in order to associate with the lipid membrane. A pivotal step in this pathway is the covalent addition of a hydrophobic 15-carbon farnesyl to the cysteine residue within the CAAX motif (C, cysteine; A, any aliphatic amino acid; X, typically methionine or serine) at the extreme C-terminus of the protein. This event, known as farnesylation, is mediated by farnesyltransferase (FT). The -AAX amino acids are cleaved off by RAS-converting enzyme I, and the farnesylated cysteine is carboxymethylated by isoprenylcysteine carboxy methyl transferase. Finally, HRAS, NRAS and KRAS-4A are palmitoylated by palmitoyltransferase, which facilitates the addition of two long-chain fatty-acid groups to their C-terminal cysteine residue and anchors the proteins to the cell membrane. KRAS-4B is not a substrate for palmitoylation but its interaction with the cell membrane is stabilized by the presence of a polybasic domain. The absolute requirement for these modifications was demonstrated by the fact that mutant RAS proteins which lack the isoprenylated cysteine could not associate with the membrane and could not transform fibroblasts.55 These results prompted the search for farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs) for use as anti-cancer agents. The first generation FTIs were largely peptides designed to mimic the CAAX motif and thus compete for binding to farnesyltransferase (CAAX peptidomimetics). Newer compounds were designed to compete with the farnesyl pyrophosphate or share characteristics of both farnesyl pyrophosphate and the CAAX motif (bisubstrate analogues). Given the necessity for RAS signalling in normal growth factor signalling and proliferation, it was somewhat surprising that FTIs displayed negligible toxicity and did not appear to interfere with normal cell proliferation in early in vitro studies.56 Preclinical studies using these compounds produced very encouraging data and FTIs demonstrated impressive anti-proliferative effects against several different tumour cell lines including those of pancreatic origin.57 Moreover, the FTI R115777 (tipifarnib/Zarnestra®, Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development) demonstrated anti-proliferative effects in pancreatic cancer cell lines at clinically relevant concentrations, and also showed significant tumour growth inhibition and anti-angiogenic activity in a pancreatic xenograft model.58 Critically, the CAAX analogue L-744,832 potently reversed mammary tumour development in transgenic mice expressing oncogenic H-Ras under the control of the MMTV promoter.59 FTIs also showed promise in early-phase clinical trials. Prolonged administration of single-agent R115777 was deemed to be non-toxic and well-tolerated.60–62 However, these promising results were not recapitulated in later-stage trials. R115777 was found to be ineffective as first-line monotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.63 The phase II study, conducted by the South West Oncology Group, reported that administration of R115777 resulted in a median time to progression of 1.4 months and a median survival of 2.6 months. As these data were inferior to those obtained with gemcitabine, the study concluded that R115777 was not an active agent in pancreatic cancer.

A recent phase III study involving 688 patients also deemed R115777 ineffective when used in combination with gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer.64 Although the combination of R115777 and gemcitabine was well-tolerated, no statistically significant improvement in overall survival was observed when compared with gemcitabine monotherapy (median survival of 193 versus 182 days, respectively).

The unimpressive clinical trial data of FTIs may in part be attributed to the fact that KRAS and NRAS proteins are alternatively prenylated by the addition of a 20-carbon geranylgeranyl isoprenoid moiety by geranylgeranyltransferase I (GGT).65 Given that the majority of RAS mutations in human cancers occur in the KRAS gene,66 the lack of toxicity and clinical efficacy of FTIs is thus unsurprising. Subsequent preclinical studies of concomitant FT and GGT inhibition have demonstrated efficacy in pancreatic cancer cell lines, but revealed high levels of toxicity.67 In spite of this, a phase I study of the dual FT and GGT inhibitor L-778,123 in combination with radiotherapy was conducted in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.68 Although the combination of radiation and L-778,123 displayed acceptable toxicity at low doses, further development of this compound has been halted due to adverse cardiac effects observed in other studies.69,70 Despite their debatable mode of action, and their largely disappointing results in clinical trials to date, FTIs have shown some early potential in the treatment of leukaemias.71 If shown to be useful, at least in certain clinical settings, FTIs will not only benefit patients, but will also strengthen the premise that targeting signalling molecules represents an exciting strategy for future cancer drug development. Clearly, further work is needed to ascertain whether this will indeed be the case.

A further strategy to inhibit RAS function has been through the use of antisense technology. This method utilizes antisense oligonucleotides which are typically 13–25 nucleotides long and have been designed to hybridize with the target mRNA. Subsequent gene silencing occurs when protein translation is blocked by RNAse H-mediated cleavage of the mRNA-oligonucleotide duplex.72,73

Despite the predominance of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer, the selective targeting of HRAS has also been explored as a therapeutic option. ISIS-2503 is a 20-base antisense oligonucleotide that prevents translation initiation of HRAS mRNA. In vitro studies have shown ISIS-2503 to be a potent and selective inhibitor of HRAS,74 which, in a phase I study, was deemed to be safe and non-toxic when combined with gemcitabine and used against advanced pancreatic cancer.75 This was followed by a phase II study involving 48 patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease.76 ISIS-2503 combined with gemcitabine produced a response rate of 10.4%, including one complete response, and median survival of 6.6 months. In agreement with the phase I data, the combination treatment was relatively well-tolerated with an acceptable toxicity profile. Given that these results are superior to those obtained by FTI inhibition, this antisense technology currently represents the RAS-targeting strategy with the most promise.

MEK inhibition

The mitogen-activated extracellular kinase (MEK) is a principal component of the RAS-RAF-MEK-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) which plays a core role in several cellular processes including proliferation, apoptosis, differentiation and angiogenesis.77 The pathway is also known to be de-regulated in a number of cancers including those of the breast, lung, colon and pancreas,78 and thus represents an appealing target for the development of novel therapies.

CI-1040 is a low-molecular weight inhibitor of MEK1/2 which demonstrated impressive anti-proliferative activity against pancreatic cancer xenografts.79 Unsurprisingly, the efficacy of CI-1040 is dependent on constitutive activation of the MEK–ERK pathway, making pancreatic cancer an ideal clinical setting for application of CI-1040 due to the high frequency of RAS mutations.80 In a phase I study of 77 patients with advanced malignancies including those of colorectal, lung, kidney, skin and pancreas, CI-1040 was well-tolerated with a satisfactory safety profile.81 The most common treatment-associated toxicities were low-grade diarrhoea, acneiform rash, nausea and vomiting. Even more encouraging was the fact that one pancreatic cancer patient demonstrated a partial response, with improvements in pain, fatigue and anorexia. Testing of CI-1040 progressed to a phase II study of 67 patients with advanced colorectal, lung, breast or pancreatic cancer.82 In this setting, CI-1040 failed to demonstrate sufficient anti-tumoral activity and development was thus discontinued.

Inhibition of RAF has also been investigated in the context of pancreatic cancer. The small molecule MEK inhibitor sorafenib (BAY 43-9006, Bayer) also inhibits VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β,83 and was tested in a phase II trial for the treatment of advanced solid tumours in combination with gemcitabine.84 The combination of 400 mg sorafenib bi-daily with 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine was found to be relatively well-tolerated and 13 pancreatic cancer patients (56.5%) showed evidence of disease stabilization. However, a more recent phase II trial of 17 patients failed to show any objective response in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.85 A phase III trial is currently in progress.

EGFR inhibition

The EGFR is a member of the ErbB family of transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinases which comprises four members: ErbB1/HER1/EGFR, ErbB2/HER2/neu, ErbB3/HER3 and ErbB4/HER4. Structurally, ErbB receptors consist of an extracellular ligand-binding domain, a transmembrane domain and an intracellular protein kinase domain containing a regulatory carboxyl terminal segment. Engagement of receptor with cognate ligands such as EGF, transforming growth factor-alpha (TGF-{alpha}), heparin-binding growth factor, amphiregulin, betacellulin or epiregulin results in homo- or hetero-dimerization among the ErbB family, leading to activation of intrinsic protein kinase activity, followed by tyrosine trans-auto-phosphorylation, accompanied by the recruitment of intra-cellular protein substrates. Phosphorylated tyrosine residues on the receptor also create binding sites for various adaptor and docking proteins.

Receptor tyrosine kinases play pivotal roles in the regulation of a number of cellular processes such as survival, proliferation, migration, apoptosis, invasion and metastasis. The first indication of a role for the EGFR gene in cellular transformation came from the finding that EGFR is the cellular homologue of the avian erythroblastosis virus v-erbB oncogene.86 Since this landmark discovery, several studies have shown that inappropriate EGFR signalling arising from gene amplification, receptor or ligand over-expression, activating mutations or inactivation of negative regulatory pathways, is a feature of several human tumour types including pancreatic cancer.87–89 Co-expression of EGFR (found in 69% of pancreatic adenocarcinoma90) and its ligands is frequently observed in pancreatic cancer and functions as an autocrine loop, constitutively stimulating pancreatic cancer cell proliferation.91 A correlation between co-expression of EGFR and TGF-{alpha} with increased tumour size, advanced clinical stage and poor prognosis has been reported, and thus may represent a molecular signature of a more aggressive disease.92,93 Studies have also suggested an association between EGFR expression and metastasis, particularly to the liver.94 Moreover, EGFR and TGF-{alpha} have also been implicated in tumour angiogenesis by virtue of their ability to induce VEGF secretion.95

Taken together, these data suggest that attenuation of the EGFR pathway may not only block tumour cell proliferation, but may also inhibit both angiogenesis and metastasis. In the first preclinical studies of EGFR inhibition, a panel of monoclonal antibodies directed against the EGF-binding site on EGFR inhibited the growth of cancer cells expressing high levels of EGFR in both cell culture and xenograft models.96–98 These data were the first to demonstrate a potent anti-proliferative effect of EGFR inhibition and paved the way for a serious effort to develop EGFR inhibitors for use as anti-cancer agents. To date, two main classes of EGFR inhibitors have been developed, the first being small molecule inhibitors which interfere with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) binding and the second being monoclonal antibodies which prevent association with ligands.

Cetuximab (IMC-C225/Erbitux®, ImClone Systems/Merck KGaA) is a chimeric human–mouse monoclonal antibody directed against EGFR. In May 2004, cetuximab received FDA approval for the treatment of irinotecan-resistant or -intolerant colorectal cancer. Cetuximab has been tested against pancreatic cancer in a number of preclinical settings, both as single-agent monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine. Cetuximab potently inhibited EGFR auto-phosphorylation in human pancreatic cancer cell lines and orthotopic tumour models.99 The observed anti-proliferative effect of cetuximab alone was modest (only 20%), but was enhanced upon addition of gemcitabine. In the same study of murine orthotopic pancreatic tumour models, cetuximab reduced tumour volume and liver metastasis either alone or with gemcitabine. Systemic administration of cetuximab also resulted in decreased VEGF and interleukin-8 (IL-8) expression, accompanied by increased apoptosis in endothelial cells and a concomitant decrease in microvessel density, suggesting that cetuximab was also exerting an anti-angiogenic effect. Other groups have reported similar findings.100–102 These results prompted a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with gemcitabine in locally advanced and recurrent pancreatic cancers.103 Patients received weekly 1000 mg/m2 gemictabine initially for 7 out of 8 weeks and 3 out of 4 weeks thereafter. Cetuximab was administered at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2.

In keeping with the results of previous studies, cetuximab was well-tolerated with the most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events being neutropaenia, abdominal pain and asthenia. In agreement with previous data, patients also developed an acne-like rash, which was only severe in 12% of cases, and has been attributed to the inhibition of EGFR in the skin. Significantly, the median survival was 7.1 months and 31.7% of patients were alive after one year, suggesting that the combination of gemcitabine and cetuximab may be more effective than gemcitabine monotherapy. These encouraging results led the design of two further trials. The first, conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group, was a phase III trial to study cetuximab alone or in combination with gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer.104 Disappointingly however, this study failed to show any significant benefit of cetuximab addition for response, progression-free survival and overall survival. The second study, conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, is currently ongoing and aims to investigate the combination of docetaxel and irinotecan with or without cetuximab.

Matuzumab (EMD72000, Merck KGaA) is also a humanized monoclonal antibody, which binds EGFR with high specificity and affinity. Preclinical trials using orthotopic tumour models showed that matuzumab administration resulted in significantly decreased tumour progression and angiogenesis.105 A subsequent phase I trial was launched to assess the safety and benefit of using matuzumab in combination with gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Results of this study demonstrated that the combination was relatively well-tolerated at the biologically active dose of 800 mg matuzumab per week, with stable disease observed in 65% of patients.106 Further clinical trials with this compound are being planned.

Trastuzumab (Herceptin®, Genentech) is a recombinant humanized antibody against ErbB2 (HER2/neu) and received FDA approval for breast cancer treatment in 1998. Encouraged by the success of trastuzumab in the treatment of breast cancer, researchers began to explore the benefit of using this compound for the treatment of other malignancies, including pancreatic cancer where ErbB2 is over-expressed in about 50% of cases.107,108 However, in a phase II clinical trial the combination of gemcitabine and trastuzumab was not significantly superior to gemcitabine alone.109 A second trial to study trastuzumab in combination with chemoradiation has recently been completed and results are awaited.

Small molecule inhibitors of EGFR were developed on the basis of the observation that mutation of the ATP-binding site of EGFR potently attenuated its receptor tyrosine kinase activity.110 These findings led to the large-scale screening of compound libraries for molecules able to compete for the ATP-binding pocket of the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR. One such molecule is erlotinib (OSI-774/Tarceva®, Genentech) which received FDA approval in 2004 for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and is being increasingly tested for use in other cancers including colorectal, ovarian and pancreatic cancers.

In a recently published, landmark phase III trial, 569 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were randomized to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2/week for 7 out of 8 weeks) with placebo or 100 mg erlotinib daily, although a small cohort of patient received a higher dose of 150 mg.111 The results of this study demonstrated that erlotinib and gemcitabine combination therapy resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in median survival (6.24 versus 5.91 months, respectively) and 1-year overall survival (23 versus 17%). Response rates and quality of life analysis gave similar results for both patient groups. Importantly, the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib was well-tolerated with diarrhoea and rash being the most commonly observed toxicities associated with the addition of erlotinib. Interestingly, patients with grade 2 or higher skin rash experienced statistically significant survival. This study was the first to show a statistically significant benefit of combination therapy over gemcitabine monotherapy, and consequently, erlotinib became the first targeted therapy approved by the FDA for use in pancreatic cancer in 2005. Recently however, Grubbs et al.112 have questioned whether this combination is in fact cost-effective. Although the increase in median survival gained by the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine was statistically significant, it was modest (an increase of 0.4 months over gemcitabine alone), and is therefore not cost-effective even at the highest year-per life gained parameters. Thus, the overall clinical impact of erlotinib with gemcitabine therapy on the treatment of pancreatic cancer remains to be seen.

In addition, erlotinib has been investigated in combination with capecitabine in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.113 Patients were administered 1000 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily for 14 out of 21 days, and 150 mg erlotinib daily. The regimen was well-tolerated with rash and diarrhoea being the most frequently observed toxicities. Given that the study reported an overall response rate of 10% and a median survival of 6.5 months, it was concluded that this combination may represent an appropriate treatment for patients for whom gemcitabine is either ineffective or inappropriate, and further analysis is required to establish whether this is indeed the case.

Preclinical studies have revealed a role for erlotinib as a potent radiosensitizing agent.114 Thus, the feasibility of using the novel combination of erlotinib, gemcitabine, paclitaxel and concomitant radiotherapy followed by maintenance erlotinib for locally advanced pancreatic cancer was the subject of a phase I trial conducted by Iannitti et al.115 Here, the maximum tolerated dose of erlotinib during chemoradiation therapy was 50 mg daily due to dose-limiting diarrhoea. Given that this trial reported an encouraging partial response rate of 46% and median survival of 14 months, this treatment regimen merits further investigation.

Gefitinib (ZD1839/Iressa,® AstraZeneca) is a low molecular weight EGFR inhibitor. It was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor to receive FDA approval for the treatment of advanced lung cancer in 2003, and is currently under investigation as treatment for several other tumour types including pancreatic cancer. In early-phase clinical trials, gefitinib used in combination with capecitabine and radiation therapy resulted in significant toxicity even at the lowest administered doses.116 A phase II trial of gefitinib and gemcitabine in patients with inoperable or metastatic pancreatic cancer has shown results similar to those of erlotinib with gemcitabine.117 However, results from phase II trials of gefitinib and docetaxel as second-line therapy were unremarkable.118,119

Gastrin inhibition

The peptide hormone gastrin is produced in large amounts by G cells of the gastric antrum, and in smaller amounts by the upper small intestine, colon and pancreas, and mediates the secretion of pancreatic juice.120

Expression of cholecystokinin (CCK)/gastrin receptor and the gastrin precursors progastrin, glycine-extended gastrin (Ggly) and amidated gastrin (Gamide) has been observed by immunohistochemistry in 95, 91, 55 and 23% of pancreatic tumours, respectively.121 Gastrin stimulates the proliferation of pancreatic carcinoma122 which, conversely can be blocked by the administration of antisense oligonucleotides to gastrin.123 Further experimentation revealed that the over-expression of CCK-2 in transgenic mice increased pancreatic weight by 40% and resulted in a 15% rate of malignant transformation when these mice were crossed with mice expressing Gamide in pancreatic β-cells.124 Together, these data provided the rationale for the development of anti-gastrin therapy to treat pancreatic cancer.

The gastrin receptor antagonist gastrazole (JB95008, James Black Foundation) was recently the subject of two trials involving pancreatic cancer. The first study recruited 18 patients and compared gastrazole with placebo.125 Overall, gastrazole resulted in a significant improvement in median survival (7.9 versus 4.5 months) and 1-year survival (33 versus 11%), while displaying minimal toxicity. The second study compared gastrazole with 5-FU but failed to demonstrate meaningful difference between the two patient groups, although gastrazole was associated with fewer toxicities.125

An alternative strategy is the use of immunogens to stimulate the production of neutralizing antibodies against the serum- and tumour-associated forms of gastrin-17. One such immunogen is G17DT (gastrimmune/Insegia®, Aphton Corporation) which is administered by intramuscular injection and was the subject of a phase II trial with 30 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.126 While the majority (82.4%) of patients mounted an antibody response to the immungen, G17DT resulted in severe adverse reaction in three patients, although interestingly these patients survived for longer than the median survival of the group (244 days). Furthermore, the median survival of responders (217 days) was significantly longer than that of non-responders (121 days) indicating that G17DT does in fact possess anti-tumoral properties. Nevertheless, a subsequent phase III trial of G17DT in combination with gemcitabine failed to improve overall survival or secondary endpoints (e.g. response rate, time to progression).127

Proteinase inhibition

The aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer is partly attributed to its early and frequent invasion of local structures, neural invasion and metastasis to the liver and lymph nodes, all of which preclude surgical resection and contribute towards the lethality of the disease.128–130 Metastasis, which is a multi-step process during which cells within a primary tumour disengage and migrate to secondary organs, can only occur once cells are endowed with the ability to escape the primary tumour, invade surrounding tissue, enter and exit blood vessels and extravasate and establish metastatic foci at secondary sites. During the metastatic process, cells require the ability to degrade their surrounding matrix.9,131,132

The matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a family of zinc-dependent proteolytic enzymes that are involved in the degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM). The family can broadly be sub-classified on the basis of substrate specificity: collagenases (MMP-1, -8 and -13), gelatinases (MMP-2 and -9), stromelysins (MMP-3, -7, -10) membrane types (MMP-14/MT-MMP1, MMP-15/MT-MMP2, MMP-16/MT-MMP3, MMP-17/MT-MMP4, MMP-24/MT-MMP5) and others (MMP-18, MMP-19, MMP-20/enamelysin). Based on this ability to destroy the ECM, MMPs were immediately implicated in tumour progression and a strong association between MMP expression patterns with tumour progression is now widely accepted.133 Studies in pancreatic cancer have shown that MMP-2, -7, -8, -9 and -11 are over-expressed in malignant tissue, with high MMP-7 levels correlating with shortened survival.134,135 Of note, MMP-7 expression is also increased during metaplastic transition in a murine model of pancreatic acinar-to-ductal metaplasia.136 Taken together, these observations supported the development of MMP inhibitors (MPIs) for use as therapeutic agents in pancreatic cancer.

Preclinical results for MPIs were encouraging. The MPI SC44463 proved to be effective in blocking metastasis in an early mouse model.137 Moreover, in orthotopic murine models of pancreatic cancer, administration of the MPI batimastat (BB-94, British Biotech) reduced metastases and also significantly prolonged overall survival with or without gemcitabine therapy.138,139

Unfortunately clinical trials with MPIs have not lived up to the initial high expectations. Of particular concern was the fact that one trial of the MPI tanomastat (BAY 12-9566, Bayer) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was terminated early as patients receiving tanomastat showed significantly poorer survival than those receiving placebo.140 However, these negative effects on survival were not recapitulated in subsequent studies of another MPI, marimastat (BB2516, British Biotech), indicating that the adverse effects of tanomastat were probably mediated by an as yet unclear mechanism. Marimastat has in fact been the subject of several clinical trials in pancreatic cancer patients. Early-phase trials demonstrated that marimastat administration was associated with a decrease or stabilization in pain, mobility and analgesia scores in 51% of patients and was relatively well-tolerated, with the major toxicity being musculoskeletal.141 Based on these findings, two randomized phase III trials were conducted with the aim of comparing marimastat with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. A total of 414 patients received marimastat (5, 10 or 25 mg twice daily) or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine.142 No significant difference in 1-year survival was observed between patients receiving marimastat and those on the standard gemcitabine therapy. Furthermore, a subsequent study failed to show any significant clinical benefit of using marimastat in combination with gemcitabine over gemcitabine monotherapy.143

It has however been argued that the failure of marimastat and other MPIs to demonstrate clinical efficacy in advanced pancreatic cancer may be attributed to an inherent flaw in design of the clinical trials. Critics argue that trials of marimastat have included large numbers of patients with metastatic disease, yet the cytostatic nature of these agents suggests that MPIs decrease the rate of tumour progression, and this would be of maximum therapeutic benefit in early stages of the disease.131 In agreement with this notion, it has been noted in pancreatic cancer patients that marimastat increased overall survival time in patients without overt metastatic disease compared with those with metastases at trial entry.142,143

A further problem is the failure of phase II trials to define adequately the biologically active dose of MPIs, due to the lack of a suitable endpoint measurement. As MPIs are cytostatic and not cytotoxic agents, reduction in tumour size is unlikely and therefore an inappropriate parameter. Several studies have used changes in serum concentrations of the tumour antigen CA 19-9 as a measure of MPI efficacy, but has attracted criticisms, as alterations in biomarker levels do not always represent tumour regression.144 Supporters of MPI therefore maintain that the true potential of these compounds can only be fairly assessed once these limitations have been addressed. Until then, the role of MMP inhibition in the clinic remains uncertain.

COX-2 inhibition

An association between inflammation and cancer has been demonstrated by several epidemiological studies although the molecular nature of this relationship is yet to be completely understood. It is known however that mediators of the inflammatory process such as growth factors, cytokines and chemokines can contribute towards the development and progression of tumours.145

The last decade of research has highlighted the importance of cyclooxygenases (COXs) in cancer. Two isoforms have been identified thus far; COX-1, which is required for the supply of prostaglandins to organs and COX-2, which is dramatically up-regulated following inflammation and exposure to cytokines, tumour promoters and growth factors. COX-2 plays a principal role in the metabolism of arachidonic acid to prostaglandins and thromboxanes, and thus mediates resistance to apoptosis, adhesion, motility, immunosuppression and angiogenesis.146,147 Several lines of evidence have implicated COX-2, but not COX-1 in pancreatic cancer including the observation that its over-expression at both mRNA and protein levels has been observed in both pancreatic cancer cell lines and primary tumours, with one study finding COX-2 protein expression in 90% of pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases.148–150 Significantly, inhibition of COX-2 activity by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and COX-2-specific inhibitors such as celecoxib and rofecoxib all exert anti-proliferative effects on pancreatic cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo,149,151,152 and a recently published study showed that administration of the COX-2 inhibitor nimesulide delayed pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia progression in a murine model of pancreatic cancer.153 Taken together, these data suggested that COX-2 inhibition represents a rational strategy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. In a phase I study of patients with locally advanced disease, celecoxib (Celebrex®, Pfizer) increased the efficacy of a gemcitabine-radiation regimen, but significantly augmented its toxicity.154 Another study reported minimal toxicities, but failed to demonstrate any clinical benefit when combining celecoxib with 5-FU in gemcitabine-refractory disease.155 Similarly, celecoxib failed to increase the sensitivity of tumours to the chemotherapy combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine.156 However, other studies yielded more promising data. Preliminary results from a phase II trial using celecoxib and gemcitabine reported a median survival of 6.2 months, 3-month survival rate of 72% and an acceptable toxicity profile.103 A second phase II trial involving 42 patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease found that the combination of gemcitabine and celecoxib (400 mg bi-daily) produced an encouraging median survival rate of 9.1 months, with an overall clinical benefit response of 54.7%.157 Overall, the treatment was well-tolerated, with renal toxicity, heartburn and anaemia (all grade 1) being the most common adverse events associated with celecoxib. Importantly however, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Celecoxib has also been tested in combination with gemcitabine and irinotecan, resulting in a median survival of 13 months, an 8-month median time to progression and a 1-year overall survival of 64%.158 Additionally, 76% of patients reported an improvement on overall quality of life.

Taken together, these data suggest that this class of inhibitors does display biological activity against pancreatic cancer and thus warrants further clinical investigation.

Novel targets

Novel drugs against newly identified targets are slowly entering the clinical trial pipeline following exciting preclinical evaluation. Taking centre stage are inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT and NF{kappa}B pathways which are emerging as critical to chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer.

The serine/threonine kinase AKT is up-regulated through gene amplification in several tumour types including pancreatic cancer.159,160 De-regulation of the AKT pathway can also be achieved through inactivation of the lipid phosphatase PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome 10), which is also frequently observed in pancreatic cancer cell lines and tumours.161 The requirement of the AKT pathway in pancreatic cancer is demonstrated by the observation that its inhibition abrogates pancreatic cancer cell proliferation, induces apoptosis and restores gemcitabine-mediated chemosensitivity in several, but not all pancreatic cancer cell lines.162–165 Thus, AKT inhibition may represent an exciting therapeutic strategy, although no specific compounds have commenced clinical development thus far.

The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) lies downstream of AKT and regulates cell growth by exerting effects on protein synthesis, metabolism, autophagy and ribosome biogenesis.166 An investigation of surgically resected tumours showed detectable levels of activated mTOR and its downstream kinase S6K1 in 55 and 65% of samples, respectively,167 providing the rationale for mTOR inhibition as a therapeutic avenue for pancreatic cancer. In preclinical studies, the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 (temsirolimus/Torisel®, Wyeth) suppressed proliferation and induced apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cell lines, and also enhanced gemcitabine-dependent apoptosis in xenograft models.167,168

Studies have also shown that rapamycin (sirolimus/Rapamune®, Wyeth) exhibits potent anti-proliferative activity by blocking not only mTOR, but also the hypoxia-inducible factor 1{alpha} and VEGF,169,170 and was reported to exert significant anti-angiogenic and anti-proliferative effects on orthotopic tumours when used alone, and resulted in profound growth inhibition of tumour growth and local metastasis when combined with gemcitabine.171 Similarly, inhibition of mTOR in pancreatic cancer cell lines with RAD001 (everolimus/Certican®, Novartis) suppressed proliferation, induced apoptosis and sensitized cells to gemcitabine.172,173 Based on these promising results, early-stage clinical trials of mTOR inhibitors for pancreatic cancer treatment are currently in progress and their results are eagerly anticipated.

Under normal conditions, the principal function of the NF{kappa}B transcription factor is to regulate immune and inflammatory responses, although it has become a key target for therapeutic intervention due to its role in promoting proliferation, survival and chemoresistance. De-regulated NF{kappa}B expression has been reported in pancreatic tumours and cancer cell lines, but has not been observed in immortalized, non-tumorigenic pancreatic epithelial cells.174 Indeed, it has been proposed that the differential sensitivities of pancreatic cancer cell lines to gemcitabine may in fact be attributed to the level of NF{kappa}B activation, as NF{kappa}B inhibition restored chemosensitivity.175,176 At present however, no specific NF{kappa}B inhibitors have been developed, although the proteosome antagonist bortezomib (PS-341/Velcade®, Millennium Pharmaceuticals) blocks NF{kappa}B activity by preventing degradation of its regulator I{kappa}B{alpha} and has been granted FDA approval for its use in refractory multiple myeloma. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that bortezomib significantly inhibited tumour growth of pancreatic cancer xenografts in athymic nude mice and displayed impressive anti-proliferative effects on some, but not all, pancreatic cancer cell lines. It also acts as an efficient chemosensitizer,177–179 although sensitivity does not necessarily correlate with the level of NF{kappa}B activation.180 Nevertheless, bortezomib performed well in phase I trials in patients with advanced solid tumours when combined with gemcitabine,181 displaying an acceptable toxicity profile and subsequently quickly progressed to a phase II study. Unexpectedly, this study failed to demonstrate superiority of bortezomib alone or in combination with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, and resulted in an unacceptable toxicity profile.182 It has thus been concluded that this compound is not suitable for use in pancreatic cancer treatment.

Curcumin, a phytochemical derivative of the Curcuma longa plant is an inhibitor of several molecules involved in proliferation, but also blocks NF{kappa}B-dependent transcription and subsequent activation of target genes such as COX-2 and IL-8.183 Administration of curcumin results in growth inhibition and apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells in vitro, and can also potentiate gemcitabine-dependent apoptosis in cancer cell lines and in xenograft models.184–186 These data provided the rationale for a phase II trial in pancreatic cancer patients. Curcumin was relatively well-tolerated and in spite of low bioavailability, a down-regulation of NF{kappa}B, COX-2 and phosphorylated STAT3 was observed in patients' peripheral blood.187 It was thus concluded that curcumin is safe and biologically active, and further trials are currently ongoing.

Other novel targets that are the subjects of intense research include the Hedgehog and Notch signalling pathways, insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R), TGF-β, mesothelin and MUC1 (mucin 1, cell surface associated). Physiologically, Hedgehog and Notch signalling is important in organ development, but abnormal expression and activation could lead to pancreatic tumourigenesis.188,189 Although still in the early developmental stages, treatments such as the Hedgehog pathway inhibitor cyclopamine has shown promising results in vivo.190 IGF-1R has anti-apoptotic and growth-promoting effects, and is found in 64% of pancreatic cancer.191 Its inhibition by the AMG-479 antibody was found to enhance the anti-tumour effects of gemcitabine and erlotinib in xenograft models.192 TGF-β signalling is tumour suppressive in epithelial cells, but it can promote invasion and metastasis during the later stages of cancer progression.193 Early data from an ongoing phase I/II study using AP 12009, an antisense oligonucleotide specific for TGF-β2 in patients with pancreatic carcinoma, malignant melanoma and colorectal carcinoma, has been encouraging.194 The cell membrane proteins mesothelin and MUC1 are over-expressed in the majority of pancreatic cancer.195–198 They have been studied as targets for immunotherapy,197,199,200 but further research is still required.

Outlook and future perspectives

The failure of conventional chemotherapeutic regimes to produce any meaningful impact on survival in patients with pancreatic cancer highlights a desperate need for novel treatment strategies. New-generation, targeted drugs offered an obvious new avenue for hope, owing to their successes in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia and cancers of the breast and colon. However, despite numerous clinical trials involving thousands of patients, these drugs have yet to revolutionize the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

The advent of molecular medicine has transformed the ways in which cancer is approached both clinically and intellectually. Technologies such as high-throughput gene expression profiling using microarray analysis have allowed investigators to identify genes whose expression patterns correlate with drug sensitivity, disease staging and prognosis, as well as molecular targets against which novel drugs may be directed, offering clinicians a greater arsenal of treatment options. This, in the case of several malignancies, has translated successfully into the clinic. The routine genetic profiling of tumour samples for key indicator genes such as HER2/neu in breast cancer provides not only important prognostic information, but also guidance as to whether a patient will respond to a particular treatment regime. Thus, an individualized treatment plan can be tailored to suit the specific profile of the patient. Trastuzumab has transformed the bleak landscape of breast cancer for thousands of women and provides an excellent example of how the successful integration of targeted therapies and tumour profiling can be when applied to the appropriate clinical context. The development of both trastuzumab and bevacizumab also illustrates the importance of appropriate patient selection into clinical trials, as indiscriminate recruitment may potentially mask the efficacy of a particular drug. Tumours are heterogenous and complex, making it extremely unlikely that all tumours within a particular subtype will harbour the same activating mutation, or indeed that the tumour will be entirely dependent on the de-regulation of one particular pathway. Thus, while the pursuit of novel targeted agents is mandatory, this must be coupled with the development of new strategies to allow us to identify patients who will most benefit from these drugs.

Herein perhaps lies the reason behind the failure of targeted therapies to provide any meaningful impact on the management of pancreatic cancer. While our knowledge of the molecular characteristics of this disease has risen exponentially over the past decade, we have been less successful in applying this information in a clinical context. This may in part be due to the unique nature of pancreatic cancer where the majority of patients present with inoperable disease, and tissue samples obtained for diagnosis do not provide enough material for profiling techniques outlined above. This profound lack of tumour material has precluded the retrospective identification of biomarkers associated with clinical response to a particular drug, and the subsequent selection of appropriate patients into a clinical trial, as well as the limited identification of a gene-expression pattern present in individuals predisposed to the disease. The development of improved methods to readily obtain tumour material sufficient for genetic analyses must therefore be a high priority.

Future trials may also benefit from a shift away from conventional chemotherapy combinations and instead focus on combining targeted therapies. Some studies have been performed on the basis of this hypothesis, both combining EGFR and VEGF inhibitors. A phase II trial, conducted by the University of Chicago, aimed to evaluate gemcitabine and bevacizumab in combination with either erlotinib or cetuximab in 139 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.201 Results, however, were far from impressive, although there was a trend for improved overall survival in patients who developed grade 2 or higher skin rash after treatment with gemcitabine, bevacizumab and erlotinib. The AVITA/BO17706 trial, sponsored by Roche, is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study examining the benefit of adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine and erlotinib in 607 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.202 Preliminary results indicated that the addition of bevacizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival, but there was a trend towards improved survival. Significant improvement in progression-free survival was noted. A recent phase II study of bevacizumab and erlotinib in 26 patients with gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer has demonstrated modest benefit.203

Despite these failures, our collective effort has not only created a substantial platform of knowledge from which future studies can spring, but has also moulded a robust clinical trial framework which will allow us to better address these issues in the future. It is hoped that the next decade will bring improved diagnostic tools and newer, more effective therapies to patients who will benefit the most. Together, this may finally allow us to improve the currently gloomy outlook for pancreatic cancer patients.

Accepted for publication July 28, 2008.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Diagnosis and current treatment
 Introduction to targeted...
 References
 

  1. Li D, Xie K, Wolff R, Abbruzzese JL. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet (2004) 363:1049–1057.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Bardeesy N, DePinho RA. Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics. Nat Rev Cancer (2002) 2:897–909.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Warshaw AL, Fernandez-del Castillo C. Pancreatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med (1992) 326:455–465.[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Burris HA III, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol (1997) 15:2403–2413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Kleespies A, Jauch KW, Bruns CJ. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and gemcitabine: new treatment options in pancreatic cancer? Drug Resist Updat (2006) 9:1–18.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Saif MW, Karapanagiotou L, Syrigos K. Genetic alterations in pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol (2007) 13:4423–4430.[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Crane CH, Ellis LM, Abbruzzese JL, et al. Phase I trial evaluating the safety of bevacizumab with concurrent radiotherapy and capecitabine in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2006) 24:1145–1151.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Sledge GW Jr. What is targeted therapy? J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:1614–1615.[Free Full Text]
  9. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell (2000) 100:57–70.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Shay JW, Bacchetti S. A survey of telomerase activity in human cancer. Eur J Cancer (1997) 33:787–791.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Zhang X, Mar V, Zhou W, Harrington L, Robinson MO. Telomere shortening and apoptosis in telomerase-inhibited human tumor cells. Genes Dev (1999) 13:2388–2399.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Hiyama E, Kodama T, Shinbara K, et al. Telomerase activity is detected in pancreatic cancer but not in benign tumors. Cancer Res (1997) 57:326–331.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Suehara N, Mizumoto K, Muta T, et al. Telomerase elevation in pancreatic ductal carcinoma compared to nonmalignant pathological states. Clin Cancer Res (1997) 3:993–998.[Abstract]
  14. Nguyen B, Elmore LW, Holt SE. Telomerase as a target for cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Biol Ther (2003) 2:131–136.[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Forsyth NR, Wright WE, Shay JW. Telomerase and differentiation in multicellular organisms: turn it off, turn it on, and turn it off again. Differentiation (2002) 69:188–197.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Vonderheide RH, Hahn WC, Schultze JL, Nadler LM. The telomerase catalytic subunit is a widely expressed tumor-associated antigen recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Immunity (1999) 10:673–679.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Minev B, Hipp J, Firat H, Schmidt JD, Langlade-Demoyen P, Zanetti M. Cytotoxic T cell immunity against telomerase reverse transcriptase in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97:4796–4801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Brunsvig PF, Aamdal S, Gjertsen MK, et al. Telomerase peptide vaccination: a phase I/II study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2006) 55:1553–1564.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Bernhardt SL, Gjertsen MK, Trachsel S, et al. Telomerase peptide vaccination of patients with non-resectable pancreatic cancer: A dose escalating phase I/II study. Br J Cancer (2006) 95:1474–1482.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Ferrara N, Davis-Smyth T. The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor. Endocr Rev (1997) 18:4–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Roy H, Bhardwaj S, Yla-Herttuala S. Biology of vascular endothelial growth factors. FEBS Lett (2006) 580:2879–2887.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Bergers G, Benjamin LE. Tumorigenesis and the angiogenic switch. Nat Rev Cancer (2003) 3:401–410.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  23. Hanahan D, Folkman J. Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell (1996) 86:353–364.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Ferrara N. VEGF and the quest for tumour angiogenesis factors. Nat Rev Cancer (2002) 2:795–803.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Leung DW, Cachianes G, Kuang WJ, Goeddel DV, Ferrara N. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a secreted angiogenic mitogen. Science (1989) 246:1306–1309.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Plouet J, Schilling J, Gospodarowicz D. Isolation and characterization of a newly identified endothelial cell mitogen produced by AtT-20 cells. EMBO J (1989) 8:3801–3806.[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Tolentino MJ, Miller JW, Gragoudas ES, Chatzistefanou K, Ferrara N, Adamis AP. Vascular endothelial growth factor is sufficient to produce iris neovascularization and neovascular glaucoma in a nonhuman primate. Arch Ophthalmol (1996) 114:964–970.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. de Vries C, Escobedo JA, Ueno H, Houck K, Ferrara N, Williams LT. The fms-like tyrosine kinase, a receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor. Science (1992) 255:989–991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Terman BI, Dougher-Vermazen M, Carrion ME, et al. Identification of the KDR tyrosine kinase as a receptor for vascular endothelial cell growth factor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (1992) 187:1579–1586.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Millauer B, Wizigmann-Voos S, Schnurch H, et al. High affinity VEGF binding and developmental expression suggest Flk-1 as a major regulator of vasculogenesis and angiogenesis. Cell (1993) 72:835–846.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Quinn TP, Peters KG, De Vries C, Ferrara N, Williams LT. Fetal liver kinase 1 is a receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor and is selectively expressed in vascular endothelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1993) 90:7533–7537.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Itakura J, Ishiwata T, Shen B, Kornmann M, Korc M. Concomitant over-expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors in pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer (2000) 85:27–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. von Marschall Z, Cramer T, Hocker M, et al. De novo expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in human pancreatic cancer: evidence for an autocrine mitogenic loop. Gastroenterology (2000) 119:1358–1372.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Luo J, Guo P, Matsuda K, et al. Pancreatic cancer cell-derived vascular endothelial growth factor is biologically active in vitro and enhances tumorigenicity in vivo. Int J Cancer (2001) 92:361–369.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Tsuzuki Y, Mouta Carreira C, Bockhorn M, Xu L, Jain RK, Fukumura D. Pancreas microenvironment promotes VEGF expression and tumor growth: novel window models for pancreatic tumor angiogenesis and microcirculation. Lab Invest (2001) 81:1439–1451.[Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Solorzano CC, Baker CH, Bruns CJ, et al. Inhibition of growth and metastasis of human pancreatic cancer growing in nude mice by PTK 787/ZK222584, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases. Cancer Biother Radiopharm (2001) 16:359–370.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Baker CH, Solorzano CC, Fidler IJ. Blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling for therapy of metastatic human pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res (2002) 62:1996–2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Bockhorn M, Tsuzuki Y, Xu L, Frilling A, Broelsch CE, Fukumura D. Differential vascular and transcriptional responses to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody in orthotopic human pancreatic cancer xenografts. Clin Cancer Res (2003) 9:4221–4226.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Itakura J, Ishiwata T, Friess H, Fujii H, Matsumoto Y, Buchler MW, Korc M. Enhanced expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in human pancreatic cancer correlates with local disease progression. Clin Cancer Res (1997) 3:1309–1316.[Abstract]
  40. Ikeda N, Adachi M, Taki T, et al. Prognostic significance of angiogenesis in human pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer (1999) 79:1553–1563.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  41. Seo Y, Baba H, Fukuda T, Takashima M, Sugimachi K. High expression of vascular endothelial growth factor is associated with liver metastasis and a poor prognosis for patients with ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer (2000) 88:2239–2245.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Presta LG, Chen H, O'Connor SJ, et al. Humanization of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody for the therapy of solid tumors and other disorders. Cancer Res (1997) 57:4593–4599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Kim KJ, Li B, Houck K, Winer J, Ferrara N. The vascular endothelial growth factor proteins: identification of biologically relevant regions by neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Growth Factors (1992) 7:53–64.[Medline]
  44. Gordon MS, Margolin K, Talpaz M, et al. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of recombinant human anti-vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol (2001) 19:843–850.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Margolin K, Gordon MS, Holmgren E, et al. Phase Ib trial of intravenous recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor in combination with chemotherapy in patients with advanced cancer: pharmacologic and long-term safety data. J Clin Oncol (2001) 19:851–856.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med (2004) 350:2335–2342.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Kindler HL, Friberg G, Singh DA, et al. Phase II trial of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:8033–8040.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Kindler HL, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, et al. Cancer and Leukemia Group B. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine (G) plus bevacizumab (B) versus gemcitabine plus placebo (P) in patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): A preliminary analysis of Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:4508.
  49. Gorski DH, Beckett MA, Jaskowiak NT, et al. Blockage of the vascular endothelial growth factor stress response increases the antitumor effects of ionizing radiation. Cancer Res (1999) 59:3374–3378.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Geng L, Donnelly E, McMahon G, et al. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signaling leads to reversal of tumor resistance to radiotherapy. Cancer Res (2001) 61:2413–2419.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Rajalingam K, Schreck R, Rapp UR, Albert S. Ras oncogenes and their downstream targets. Biochim Biophys Acta (2007) 1773:1177–1195.[Medline]
  52. Shields JM, Pruitt K, McFall A, Shaub A, Der CJ. Understanding Ras: ‘it ain't over ‘til it's over. Trends Cell Biol (2000) 10:147–154.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  53. Bos JL. ras oncogenes in human cancer: a review. Cancer Res (1989) 49:4682–4689.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Almoguera C, Shibata D, Forrester K, Martin J, Arnheim N, Perucho M. Most human carcinomas of the exocrine pancreas contain mutant c-K-ras genes. Cell (1988) 53:549–554.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  55. Willumsen BM, Norris K, Papageorge AG, Hubbert NL, Lowy DR. Harvey murine sarcoma virus p21 ras protein: biological and biochemical significance of the cysteine nearest the carboxy terminus. EMBO J (1984) 3:2581–2585.[Web of Science][Medline]
  56. James GL, Brown MS, Cobb MH, Goldstein JL. Benzodiazepine peptidomimetic BZA-5B interrupts the MAP kinase activation pathway in H-Ras-transformed Rat-1 cells, but not in untransformed cells. J Biol Chem (1994) 269:27705–27714.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Sepp-Lorenzino L, Ma Z, Rands E, et al. A peptidomimetic inhibitor of farnesyl: protein transferase blocks the anchorage-dependent and -independent growth of human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res (1995) 55:5302–5309.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. End DW, Smets G, Todd AV, et al. Characterization of the antitumor effects of the selective farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor R115777 in vivo and in vitro. Cancer Res (2001) 61:131–137.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Kohl NE, Omer CA, Conner MW, et al. Inhibition of farnesyltransferase induces regression of mammary and salivary carcinomas in ras transgenic mice. Nat Med (1995) 1:792–797.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  60. Zujewski J, Horak ID, Bol CJ, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor R115777 in advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol (2000) 18:927–941.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Crul M, de Klerk GJ, Swart M, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacologic study of chronic oral administration of the farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor R115777 in advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:2726–2735.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Johnston SR, Hickish T, Ellis P, et al. Phase II study of the efficacy and tolerability of two dosing regimens of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor, R115777, in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol (2003) 21:2492–2499.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Macdonald JS, McCoy S, Whitehead RP, et al. A phase II study of farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in pancreatic cancer: a Southwest oncology group (SWOG 9924) study. Invest New Drugs (2005) 23:485–487.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  64. Van Cutsem E, van de Velde H, Karasek P, et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus tipifarnib compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2004) 22:1430–1438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Walker K, Olson MF. Targeting Ras and Rho GTPases as opportunities for cancer therapeutics. Curr Opin Genet Dev (2005) 15:62–68.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Downward J. Targeting RAS signalling pathways in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2003) 3:11–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  67. Lobell RB, Omer CA, Abrams MT, et al. Evaluation of farnesyl:protein transferase and geranylgeranyl:protein transferase inhibitor combinations in preclinical models. Cancer Res (2001) 61:8758–8768.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Martin NE, Brunner TB, Kiel KD, et al. A phase I trial of the dual farnesyltransferase and geranylgeranyltransferase inhibitor L-778,123 and radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2004) 10:5447–5454.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Britten CD, Rowinsky EK, Soignet S, et al. A phase I and pharmacological study of the farnesyl protein transferase inhibitor L-778,123 in patients with solid malignancies. Clin Cancer Res (2001) 7:3894–3903.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Lobell RB, Liu D, Buser CA, et al. Preclinical and clinical pharmacodynamic assessment of L-778,123, a dual inhibitor of farnesyl:protein transferase and geranylgeranyl: protein transferase type-I. Mol Cancer Ther (2002) 1:747–758.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Cortes J, Albitar M, Thomas D, et al. Efficacy of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor R115777 in chronic myeloid leukemia and other hematologic malignancies. Blood (2003) 101:1692–1697.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  72. Crooke ST. Molecular mechanisms of action of antisense drugs. Biochim Biophys Acta (1999) 1489:31–44.[Medline]
  73. Tamm I, Dorken B, Hartmann G. Antisense therapy in oncology: new hope for an old idea? Lancet (2001) 358:489–497.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  74. Monia BP, Johnston JF, Ecker DJ, Zounes MA, Lima WF, Freier SM. Selective inhibition of mutant Ha-ras mRNA expression by antisense oligonucleotides. J Biol Chem (1992) 267:19954–19962.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Adjei AA, Dy GK, Erlichman C, et al. A phase I trial of ISIS 2503, an antisense inhibitor of H-ras, in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2003) 9:115–123.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Alberts SR, Schroeder M, Erlichman C, et al. Gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II trial. J Clin Oncol (2004) 22:4944–4950.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. McCubrey JA, Steelman LS, Chappell WH, et al. Roles of the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in cell growth, malignant transformation and drug resistance. Biochim Biophys Acta (2007) 1773:1263–1284.[Medline]
  78. Hoshino R, Chatani Y, Yamori T, et al. Constitutive activation of the 41-/43-kDa mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway in human tumors. Oncogene (1999) 18:813–822.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  79. Allen LF, Sebolt-Leopold J, Meyer MB. CI-1040 (PD184352), a targeted signal transduction inhibitor of MEK (MAPKK). Semin Oncol (2003) 30:105–116.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  80. Sebolt-Leopold JS, Herrera R. Targeting the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade to treat cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2004) 4:937–947.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  81. Lorusso PM, Adjei AA, Varterasian M, et al. Phase I and pharmacodynamic study of the oral MEK inhibitor CI-1040 in patients with advanced malignancies. J Clin Oncol (2005) 23:5281–5293.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  82. Rinehart J, Adjei AA, Lorusso PM, et al. Multicenter phase II study of the oral MEK inhibitor, CI-1040, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2004) 22:4456–4462.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  83. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, et al. Trail PA. BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res (2004) 64:7099–7109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  84. Siu LL, Awada A, Takimoto CH, et al. Phase I trial of sorafenib and gemcitabine in advanced solid tumors with an expanded cohort in advanced pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2006) 12:144–151.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  85. Wallace JA, Locker G, Nattam S, et al. Sorafenib (S) plus gemcitabine (G) for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): A phase II trial of the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:4608.
  86. Downward J, Yarden Y, Mayes E, et al. Close similarity of epidermal growth factor receptor and v-erb-B oncogene protein sequences. Nature (1984) 307:521–527.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  87. Barton CM, Hall PA, Hughes CM, Gullick WJ, Lemoine NR. Transforming growth factor alpha and epidermal growth factor in human pancreatic cancer. J Pathol (1991) 163:111–116.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  88. Lemoine NR, Hughes CM, Barton CM, et al. The epidermal growth factor receptor in human pancreatic cancer. J Pathol (1992) 166:7–12.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  89. Moscatello DK, Holgado-Madruga M, Godwin AK, et al. Frequent expression of a mutant epidermal growth factor receptor in multiple human tumors. Cancer Res (1995) 55:5536–5539.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  90. Bloomston M, Bhardwaj A, Ellison EC, Frankel WL. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression in pancreatic carcinoma using tissue microarray technique. Dig Surg (2006) 23:74–79.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  91. Funatomi H, Itakura J, Ishiwata T, et al. Amphiregulin antisense oligonucleotide inhibits the growth of T3M4 human pancreatic cancer cells and sensitizes the cells to EGF receptor-targeted therapy. Int J Cancer (1997) 72:512–517.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  92. Yamanaka Y, Friess H, Kobrin MS, Buchler M, Beger HG, Korc M. Coexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor and ligands in human pancreatic cancer is associated with enhanced tumor aggressiveness. Anticancer Res (1993) 13:565–569.[Web of Science][Medline]
  93. Ueda S, Ogata S, Tsuda H, et al. The correlation between cytoplasmic overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor and tumor aggressiveness: poor prognosis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Pancreas (2004) 29:e1–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
  94. Tobita K, Kijima H, Dowaki S, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression in human pancreatic cancer: Significance for liver metastasis. Int J Mol Med (2003) 11:305–309.[Web of Science][Medline]
  95. Goldman CK, Kim J, Wong WL, King V, Brock T, Gillespie GY. Epidermal growth factor stimulates vascular endothelial growth factor production by human malignant glioma cells: a model of glioblastoma multiforme pathophysiology. Mol Biol Cell (1993) 4:121–133.[Abstract]
  96. Sato JD, Kawamoto T, Le AD, Mendelsohn J, Polikoff J, Sato GH. Biological effects in vitro of monoclonal antibodies to human epidermal growth factor receptors. Mol Biol Med (1983) 1:511–529.[Medline]
  97. Masui H, Kawamoto T, Sato JD, Wolf B, Sato G, Mendelsohn J. Growth inhibition of human tumor cells in athymic mice by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res (1984) 44:1002–1007.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  98. Goldstein NI, Prewett M, Zuklys K, Rockwell P, Mendelsohn J. Biological efficacy of a chimeric antibody to the epidermal growth factor receptor in a human tumor xenograft model. Clin Cancer Res (1995) 1:1311–1318.[Abstract]
  99. Bruns CJ, Harbison MT, Davis DW, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade with C225 plus gemcitabine results in regression of human pancreatic carcinoma growing orthotopically in nude mice by antiangiogenic mechanisms. Clin Cancer Res 2000 (2000) 6:1936–1948.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  100. Overholser JP, Prewett MC, Hooper AT, Waksal HW, Hicklin DJ. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade by antibody IMC-C225 inhibits growth of a human pancreatic carcinoma xenograft in nude mice. Cancer (2000) 89:74–82.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  101. Buchsbaum DJ, Bonner JA, Grizzle WE, et al. Treatment of pancreatic cancer xenografts with Erbitux (IMC-C225) anti-EGFR antibody, gemcitabine, and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2002) 54:1180–1193.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  102. Arnoletti JP, Buchsbaum DJ, Huang ZQ, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to Erbitux (anti-epidermal growth factor receptor) combination therapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells. J Gastrointest Surg (2004) 8:960–969. discussion 969–970.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  103. Xiong HQ, Rosenberg A, LoBuglio A, et al. Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, in combination with gemcitabine for advanced pancreatic cancer: a multicenter phase II Trial. J Clin Oncol (2004) 22:2610–2616.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  104. Philip PA, Benedetti J, Fenoglio-Preiser C, et al. Phase III study of gemcitabine [G] plus cetuximab [C] versus gemcitabine in patients [pts] with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PC]: SWOG S0205 study. ASCO Meeting Abstracts (2007) 25:4509.
  105. Bangard C, Gossmann A, Papyan A, Tawadros S, Hellmich M, Bruns CJ. Magnetic resonance imaging in an orthotopic rat model: blockade of epidermal growth factor receptor with EMD72000 inhibits human pancreatic carcinoma growth. Int J Cancer (2005) 114:131–138.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  106. Graeven U, Kremer B, Sudhoff T, et al. Phase I study of the humanised anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody matuzumab (EMD 72000) combined with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer (2006) 94:1293–1299.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  107. Lei S, Appert HE, Nakata B, Domenico DR, Kim K, Howard JM. Overexpression of HER2/neu oncogene in pancreatic cancer correlates with shortened survival. Int J Pancreatol (1995) 17:15–21.[Web of Science][Medline]
  108. Yamanaka Y, Friess H, Kobrin MS, et al. Overexpression of HER2/neu oncogene in human pancreatic carcinoma. Hum Pathol (1993) 24:1127–1134.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  109. Safran H, Iannitti D, Ramanathan R, et al. Herceptin and gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancers that overexpress HER-2/neu. Cancer Invest (2004) 22:706–712.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  110. Redemann N, Holzmann B, von Ruden T, Wagner EF, Schlessinger J, Ullrich A. Anti-oncogenic activity of signalling-defective epidermal growth factor receptor mutants. Mol Cell Biol (1992) 12:491–498.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  111. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, et al. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol (2007) 25:1960–1966.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  112. Grubbs SS, Grusenmeyer PA, Petrelli NJ, Gralla RJ. Is it cost-effective to add erlotinib to gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer? ASCO Meeting Abstracts (2006) 24:6048.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  113. Kulke MH, Blaszkowsky LS, Ryan DP, et al. Capecitabine plus erlotinib in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2007) 25:4787–4792.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  114. Chinnaiyan P, Huang S, Vallabhaneni G, et al. Mechanisms of enhanced radiation response following epidermal growth factor receptor signaling inhibition by erlotinib (Tarceva). Cancer Res (2005) 65:3328–3335.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  115. Iannitti D, Dipetrillo T, Akerman P, et al. Erlotinib and chemoradiation followed by maintenance erlotinib for locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase I study. Am J Clin Oncol (2005) 28:570–575.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  116. Czito BG, Willett CG, Bendell JC, et al. Increased toxicity with gefitinib, capecitabine, and radiation therapy in pancreatic and rectal cancer: phase I trial results. J Clin Oncol (2006) 24:656–662.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  117. Fountzilas G, Murray S, Xiros N, et al. Gemcitabine (G) combined with gefitinib in patients with inoperable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. A phase II trial. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:15016.
  118. Blaszkowsky LS, Ryan DP, Earle C, et al. A phase II study of docetaxel in combination with ZD1839 (gefitinib) in previously treated patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:15080.
  119. Ignatiadis M, Polyzos A, Stathopoulos GP, et al. A multicenter phase II study of docetaxel in combination with gefitinib in gemcitabine-pretreated patients with advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Oncology (2006) 71:159–163.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  120. Aly A, Shulkes A, Baldwin GS. Gastrins, cholecystokinins and gastrointestinal cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta (2004) 1704:1–10.[Medline]
  121. Caplin M, Savage K, Khan K, et al. Expression and processing of gastrin in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Surg (2000) 87:1035–1040.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  122. Smith JP, Fantaskey AP, Liu G, Zagon IS. Identification of gastrin as a growth peptide in human pancreatic cancer. Am J Physiol (1995) 268:R135–R141.[Web of Science][Medline]
  123. Smith JP, Verderame MF, Zagon IS. Antisense oligonucleotides to gastrin inhibit growth of human pancreatic cancer. Cancer Lett (1999) 135:107–112.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  124. Clerc P, Leung-Theung-Long S, Wang TC, et al. Expression of CCK2 receptors in the murine pancreas: proliferation, transdifferentiation of acinar cells, and neoplasia. Gastroenterology (2002) 122:428–437.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  125. Chau I, Cunningham D, Russell C, et al. Gastrazole (JB95008), a novel CCK2/gastrin receptor antagonist, in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: results from two randomised controlled trials. Br J Cancer (2006) 94:1107–1115.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  126. Brett BT, Smith SC, Bouvier CV, et al. Phase II study of anti-gastrin-17 antibodies, raised to G17DT, in advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (2002) 20:4225–4231.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  127. Shapiro J, Marshall J, Karasek P, et al. G17DT + gemcitabine [Gem] versus placebo + Gem in untreated subjects with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: Results of a randomized, double-blind, multinational, multicenter study. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2005) 23:4012.
  128. Mollenhauer J, Roether I, Kern HF. Distribution of extracellular matrix proteins in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and its influence on tumor cell proliferation in vitro. Pancreas (1987) 2:14–24.[Medline]
  129. Nagakawa T, Konishi I, Higashino Y, et al. The spread and prognosis of carcinoma in the region of the pancreatic head. Jpn J Surg (1989) 19:510–518.[CrossRef][Medline]
  130. Nagakawa T, Kayahara M, Ueno K, et al. A clinicopathologic study on neural invasion in cancer of the pancreatic head. Cancer (1992) 69:930–935.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  131. Coussens LM, Fingleton B, Matrisian LM. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors and cancer: trials and tribulations. Science (2002) 295:2387–2392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  132. Deryugina EI, Quigley JP. Matrix metalloproteinases and tumor metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev (2006) 25:9–34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  133. Chambers AF, Matrisian LM. Changing views of the role of matrix metalloproteinases in metastasis. J Natl Cancer Inst (1997) 89:1260–1270.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  134. Bramhall SR, Neoptolemos JP, Stamp GW, Lemoine NR. Imbalance of expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of the matrix metalloproteinases (TIMPs) in human pancreatic carcinoma. J Pathol (1997) 182:347–355.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  135. Jones LE, Humphreys MJ, Campbell F, Neoptolemos JP, Boyd MT. Comprehensive analysis of matrix metalloproteinase and tissue inhibitor expression in pancreatic cancer: increased expression of matrix metalloproteinase-7 predicts poor survival. Clin Cancer Res (2004) 10:2832–2845.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  136. Crawford HC, Scoggins CR, Washington MK, Matrisian LM, Leach SD. Matrix metalloproteinase-7 is expressed by pancreatic cancer precursors and regulates acinar-to-ductal metaplasia in exocrine pancreas. J Clin Invest (2002) 109:1437–1444.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  137. Reich R, Thompson EW, Iwamoto Y, et al. Effects of inhibitors of plasminogen activator, serine proteinases, and collagenase IV on the invasion of basement membranes by metastatic cells. Cancer Res (1988) 48:3307–3312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  138. Zervox EE, Franz MG, Salhab KF, et al. Matrix metalloproteinase inhibition improves survival in an orthotopic model of human pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg (2000) 4:614–619.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  139. Haq M, Shafii A, Zervos EE, Rosemurgy AS. Addition of matrix metalloproteinase inhibition to conventional cytotoxic therapy reduces tumor implantation and prolongs survival in a murine model of human pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res (2000) 60:3207–3211.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  140. Moore MJ, Hamm J, Dancey J, et al. Comparison of gemcitabine versus the matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BAY 12-9566 in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol (2003) 21:3296–3302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  141. Evans JD, Stark A, Johnson CD, et al. A phase II trial of marimastat in advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer (2001) 85:1865–1870.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  142. Bramhall SR, Rosemurgy A, Brown PD, Bowry C, Buckels JA. Marimastat as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol (2001) 19:3447–3455.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  143. Bramhall SR, Schulz J, Nemunaitis J, Brown PD, Baillet M, Buckels JA. A double-blind placebo-controlled, randomised study comparing gemcitabine and marimastat with gemcitabine and placebo as first line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer (2002) 87:161–167.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  144. Gore M, A'Hern R, Stankiewicz M, Slevin M. Tumour marker levels during marimastat therapy. Lancet (1996) 348:263–264.[Web of Science][Medline]
  145. Coussens LM, Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature (2002) 420:860–867.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  146. Fosslien E. Review: molecular pathology of cyclooxygenase-2 in cancer-induced angiogenesis. Ann Clin Lab Sci (2001) 31:325–348.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  147. Trifan OC, Hla T. Cyclooxygenase-2 modulates cellular growth and promotes tumorigenesis. J Cell Mol Med (2003) 7:207–222.[Web of Science][Medline]
  148. Okami J, Yamamoto H, Fujiwara Y, et al. Overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 in carcinoma of the pancreas. Clin Cancer Res (1999) 5:2018–2024.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  149. Molina MA, Sitja-Arnau M, Lemoine MG, Frazier ML, Sinicrope FA. Increased cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human pancreatic carcinomas and cell lines: growth inhibition by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Cancer Res (1999) 59:4356–4362.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  150. Tucker ON, Dannenberg AJ, Yang EK, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression is up-regulated in human pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res (1999) 59:987–990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  151. Ding XZ, Tong WG, Adrian TE. Blockade of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells. Anticancer Res (2000) 20:2625–2631.[Web of Science][Medline]
  152. Tseng WW, Deganutti A, Chen MN, Saxton RE, Liu CD. Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (Vioxx) induces expression of cell cycle arrest genes and slows tumor growth in human pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg (2002) 6:838–843. discussion 844.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  153. Funahashi H, Satake M, Dawson D, et al. Delayed progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia in a conditional Kras(G12D) mouse model by a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor. Cancer Res (2007) 67:7068–7071.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  154. Crane CH, Mason K, Janjan NA, Milas L. Initial experience combining cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition with chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol (2003) 26:S81–S84.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  155. Milella M, Gelibter A, Di Cosimo S, et al. Pilot study of celecoxib and infusional 5-fluorouracil as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer (2004) 101:133–138.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  156. El-Rayes BF, Zalupski MM, Shields AF, et al. A phase II study of celecoxib, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in advanced pancreatic cancer. Invest New Drugs (2005) 23:583–590.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  157. Ferrari V, Valcamonico F, Amoroso V, et al. Gemcitabine plus celecoxib (GECO) in advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase II trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol (2006) 57:185–190.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  158. Kerr S, Campbell C, Legore K, Witters L, Harvey H, Lipton A. Phase II trial of gemcitabine and irinotecan plus celecoxib in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2005) 23:4155.
  159. Cheng JQ, Ruggeri B, Klein WM, et al. Amplification of AKT2 in human pancreatic cells and inhibition of AKT2 expression and tumorigenicity by antisense RNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1996) 93:3636–3641.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  160. Ruggeri BA, Huang L, Wood M, Cheng JQ, Testa JR. Amplification and overexpression of the AKT2 oncogene in a subset of human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. Mol Carcinog (1998) 21:81–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  161. Asano T, Yao Y, Zhu J, Li D, Abbruzzese JL, Reddy SA. The PI 3-kinase/Akt signaling pathway is activated due to aberrant Pten expression and targets transcription factors NF-kappaB and c-Myc in pancreatic cancer cells. Oncogene (2004) 23:8571–8580.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  162. Ng SSW, Tsao MS, Chow S, Hedley DW. Inhibition of phosphatidylinositide 3-kinase enhances gemcitabine-induced apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Res (2000) 60:5451–5455.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  163. Perugini RA, McDade TP, Vittimberga FJ Jr., Callery MP. Pancreatic cancer cell proliferation is phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase dependent. J Surg Res (2000) 90:39–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  164. Ng SS, Tsao MS, Nicklee T, Hedley DW. Wortmannin inhibits pkb/akt phosphorylation and promotes gemcitabine antitumor activity in orthotopic human pancreatic cancer xenografts in immunodeficient mice. Clin Cancer Res (2001) 7:3269–3275.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  165. Bondar VM, Sweeney-Gotsch B, Andreeff M, Mills GB, McConkey DJ. Inhibition of the phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase-AKT pathway induces apoptosis in pancreatic carcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther (2002) 1:989–997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  166. Guertin DA, Sabatini DM. Defining the role of mTOR in cancer. Cancer Cell (2007) 12:9–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  167. Ito D, Fujimoto K, Mori T, et al. In vivo antitumor effect of the mTOR inhibitor CCI-779 and gemcitabine in xenograft models of human pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer (2006) 118:2337–2343.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  168. Asano T, Yao Y, Zhu J, Li D, Abbruzzese JL, Reddy SA. The rapamycin analog CCI-779 is a potent inhibitor of pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun (2005) 331:295–302.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  169. Dormond O, Madsen JC, Briscoe DM. The effects of mTOR-Akt interactions on anti-apoptotic signaling in vascular endothelial cells. J Biol Chem (2007) 282:23679–23686.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  170. Land SC, Tee AR. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha is regulated by the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) via an mTOR signaling motif. J Biol Chem (2007) 282:20534–20543.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  171. Bruns CJ, Koehl GE, Guba M, et al. Rapamycin-induced endothelial cell death and tumor vessel thrombosis potentiate cytotoxic therapy against pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2004) 10:2109–2119.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  172. Tuncyurek P, Mayer JM, Klug F, et al. Everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil sensitize human pancreatic cancer cells to gemcitabine in vitro: a novel adjunct to standard chemotherapy? Eur Surg Res (2007) 39:380–387.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  173. Zitzmann K, De Toni EN, Brand S, et al. The novel mTOR inhibitor RAD001 (everolimus) induces antiproliferative effects in human pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cells. Neuroendocrinology (2007) 85:54–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  174. Wang W, Abbruzzese JL, Evans DB, Larry L, Cleary KR, Chiao PJ. The nuclear factor-kappa B RelA transcription factor is constitutively activated in human pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells. Clin Cancer Res (1999) 5:119–127.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  175. Arlt A, Gehrz A, Muerkoster S, et al. Role of NF-kappaB and Akt/PI3K in the resistance of pancreatic carcinoma cell lines against gemcitabine-induced cell death. Oncogene (2003) 22:3243–3251.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  176. Muerkoster S, Arlt A, Witt M, et al. Usage of the NF-kappaB inhibitor sulfasalazine as sensitizing agent in combined chemotherapy of pancreatic cancer. Int J Cancer (2003) 104:469–476.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  177. Bold RJ, Virudachalam S, McConkey DJ. Chemosensitization of pancreatic cancer by inhibition of the 26S proteasome. J Surg Res (2001) 100:11–17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  178. Nawrocki ST, Sweeney-Gotsch B, Takamori R, McConkey DJ. The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib enhances the activity of docetaxel in orthotopic human pancreatic tumor xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther (2004) 3:59–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  179. Shah SA, Potter MW, McDade TP, et al. 26S proteasome inhibition induces apoptosis and limits growth of human pancreatic cancer. J Cell Biochem (2001) 82:110–122.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  180. Nawrocki ST, Bruns CJ, Harbison MT, et al. Effects of the proteasome inhibitor PS-341 on apoptosis and angiogenesis in orthotopic human pancreatic tumor xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther (2002) 1:1243–1253.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  181. Ryan DP, Appleman LJ, Lynch T, et al. Phase I clinical trial of bortezomib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer (2006) 107:2482–2489.[CrossRef][Medline]
  182. Alberts SR, Foster NR, Morton RF, et al. PS-341 and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) randomized phase II study. Ann Oncol (2005) 16:1654–1661.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  183. Aggarwal BB, Kumar A, Bharti AC. Anticancer potential of curcumin: preclinical and clinical studies. Anticancer Res (2003) 23:363–398.[Web of Science][Medline]
  184. Hidaka H, Ishiko T, Furuhashi T, et al. Curcumin inhibits interleukin 8 production and enhances interleukin 8 receptor expression on the cell surface:impact on human pancreatic carcinoma cell growth by autocrine regulation. Cancer (2002) 95:1206–1214.[CrossRef][Medline]
  185. Kunnumakkara AB, Guha S, Krishnan S, Diagaradjane P, Gelovani J, Aggarwal BB. Curcumin potentiates antitumor activity of gemcitabine in an orthotopic model of pancreatic cancer through suppression of proliferation, angiogenesis, and inhibition of nuclear factor-kappaB-regulated gene products. Cancer Res (2007) 67:3853–3861.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  186. Lev-Ari S, Vexler A, Starr A, et al. Curcumin augments gemcitabine cytotoxic effect on pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines. Cancer Invest (2007) 25:411–418.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  187. Dhillon N, Aggarwal BB, Newman RA, et al. Curcumin and pancreatic cancer: Phase II clinical trial experience. ASCO Meeting Abstracts (2007) 25:4599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  188. Miyamoto Y, Maitra A, Ghosh B, et al. Notch mediates TGF alpha-induced changes in epithelial differentiation during pancreatic tumorigenesis. Cancer Cell (2003) 3:565–576.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  189. Thayer SP, di Magliano MP, Heiser PW, et al. Hedgehog is an early and late mediator of pancreatic cancer tumorigenesis. Nature (2003) 425:851–856.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  190. Feldmann G, Dhara S, Fendrich V, et al. Blockade of hedgehog signaling inhibits pancreatic cancer invasion and metastases: a new paradigm for combination therapy in solid cancers. Cancer Res (2007) 67:2187–2196.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  191. Hakam A, Fang Q, Karl R, Coppola D. Coexpression of IGF-1R and c-Src proteins in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci (2003) 48:1972–1978.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  192. Beltran PJ, Mitchell P, Moody G, et al. Effect of AMG 479 on anti-tumor effects of gemcitabine and erlotinib against pancreatic carcinoma xenograft models. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2008) 26:4617.
  193. Bierie B, Moses HL. Tumour microenvironment: TGFbeta: the molecular Jekyll and Hyde of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer (2006) 6:506–520.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  194. Hilbig A, Seufferlein T, Schmid RM, et al. Preliminary results of a phase I/II study in patients with pancreatic carcinoma, malignant melanoma, or colorectal carcinoma using systemic i.v. administration of AP 12009. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2008) 26:4621.
  195. Argani P, Iacobuzio-Donahue C, Ryu B, et al. Mesothelin is overexpressed in the vast majority of ductal adenocarcinomas of the pancreas: identification of a new pancreatic cancer marker by serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE). Clin Cancer Res (2001) 7:3862–3868.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  196. Hassan R, Laszik ZG, Lerner M, Raffeld M, Postier R, Brackett D. Mesothelin is overexpressed in pancreaticobiliary adenocarcinomas but not in normal pancreas and chronic pancreatitis. Am J Clin Pathol (2005) 124:838–845.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  197. Qu CF, Li Y, Song YJ, et al. MUC1 expression in primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer cells for in vitro treatment by (213)Bi-C595 radioimmunoconjugate. Br J Cancer (2004) 91:2086–2093.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  198. Yamasaki H, Ikeda S, Okajima M, et al. Expression and localization of MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC and small intestinal mucin antigen in pancreatic tumors. Int J Oncol (2004) 24:107–113.[Web of Science][Medline]
  199. Hassan R, Bullock S, Premkumar A, et al. Phase I study of SS1P, a recombinant anti-mesothelin immunotoxin given as a bolus I.V. infusion to patients with mesothelin- expressing mesothelioma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Clin Cancer Res (2007) 13:5144–5149.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  200. Armstrong DK, Laheru D, Ma WW, et al. A phase 1 study of MORAb-009, a monoclonal antibody against mesothelin in pancreatic cancer, mesothelioma and ovarian adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:14041.
  201. Kindler HL, Gangadhar T, Karrison T, et al. Final analysis of a randomized phase II study of bevacizumab (B) and gemcitabine (G) plus cetuximab (C) or erlotinib (E) in patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2008) 26:4502.
  202. Vervenne W, Bennouna J, Humblet Y, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo (P) controlled, multicenter phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab (B) to erlotinib (E) and gemcitabine (G) in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2008) 26:4507.
  203. Ko AH, Dito E, Schillinger B, et al. A phase II study of bevacizumab (BEV) plus erlotinib (ERL) in patients with gemcitabine (GEM)-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2008) 26:4516.
  204. Molina MA, Sitja-Arnau M, Lemoine MG, Frazier ML, Sinicrope FA. Increased Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression in Human Pancreatic Carcinomas and Cell Lines: Growth Inhibition by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. Cancer Res (1999) 59:4356–4362.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  205. Okami J, Yamamoto H, Fujiwara Y, et al. Overexpression of Cyclooxygenase-2 in Carcinoma of the Pancreas. Clin Cancer Res (1999) 5:2018–2024.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  206. Tucker ON, Dannenberg AJ, Yang EK, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression Is Up-Regulated in Human Pancreatic Cancer. Cancer Res (1999) 59:987–990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  207. Doucas H, Mann CD, Sutton CD, et al. Expression of nuclear Notch3 in pancreatic adenocarcinomas is associated with adverse clinical features, and correlates with the expression of STAT3 and phosphorylated Akt. J Surg Oncol (2008) 97:63–68.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  208. Dang T, Vo k, Washington K, Berlin J. The role of Notch3 signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:21049.
  209. Philip PA, Benedetti J, Fenoglio-Preiser C, et al. Phase III study of gemcitabine [G] plus cetuximab [C] versus gemcitabine in patients [pts] with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PC]: SWOG S0205 study. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts) (2007) 25:4509.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
87/1/97    most recent
ldn027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Danovi, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lemoine, N. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Danovi, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Lemoine, N. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Oncology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?