Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28301350›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of clinical oncology2018

A Phase II Study of Ganetespib as Second-line or Third-line Therapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

Dana B Cardin, Ramya Thota, Laura W Goff, Jordan D Berlin, Clyde M Jones, Gregory D Ayers, Jennifer G Whisenant, Emily Chan

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Advances in chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2015
    Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dana B CardinDepartment of Medicine.
Ramya ThotaDepartment of Medicine.
Laura W GoffDepartment of Medicine.
Jordan D BerlinDepartment of Medicine.
Clyde M JonesThe Jones Clinic, Germantown, TN.
Gregory D AyersDepartment of Cancer Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville.
Jennifer G WhisenantVanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Emily ChanDepartment of Medicine.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USJones Institute · US

Funding

Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment Research ProgramP30CA068485 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI MATTHEW J TYSKA · 1995 to 2026
$172.8M
NCI NIH HHS L30 CA162282NCI NIH HHS P30 CA068485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHeat shock protein 90 regulates multiple signaling proteins involved in key pathways of pancreatic cancer pathogenesis. Ganetespib binds to heat shock protein 90 and interferes with its binding to client proteins thus leading to inactivation and degradation of the signaling proteins that promote cancer progression. This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ganetespib in patients with refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer (rMPC).

methodsPatients with rMPC received 175 mg/m ganetespib intravenously once weekly for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles. Primary endpoint was disease control rate at 8 weeks, with a goal of 70%. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Simon's 2-stage design was used to assess futility and efficacy. Ganetespib was considered inactive if ≤8 patients among the first 15 treated had disease control after 8 weeks of treatment.

resultsFourteen patients were treated on study. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities were diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and hyponatremia. Disease control rate at 8 weeks was 28.6%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.58 months and 4.57 months, respectively. Early stopping rules for lack of clinical efficacy led to study closure.

conclusionsSingle-agent ganetespib was tolerable with only modest disease control in rMPC. This disease is resistant to chemotherapy, and given the emerging data in lung and rectal cancers, as well as in pancreatic cancer cell lines, suggesting improved activity of ganetespib in combination with cytotoxic agents, studies combining this agent with chemotherapy in rMPC are more likely to yield success.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, NeoplasmSalvage TherapyAdultAgedCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisSurvival RateTriazolesSTA 9090Triazoles

Identifiers

PMID28301350
PMCPMC5599313
OpenAlexW2595664339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.