Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29069279›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2018

Phase II study of nab-paclitaxel in refractory small bowel adenocarcinoma and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)-high colorectal cancer.

M J Overman, L Adam, K Raghav, J Wang, B Kee, D Fogelman, C Eng, E Vilar, R Shroff, A Dasari and 6 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Progress in the Treatment of Small Intestine Cancer.Current treatment options in oncology · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J OvermanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
L AdamDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
K RaghavDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
J WangInstitute for NanoBioTechnology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, USA.
B KeeDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
D FogelmanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
C EngDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
E VilarDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
R ShroffDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
A DasariDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
R WolffDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
J MorrisDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
E KarunasenaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, USA.
T R PisanicInstitute for NanoBioTechnology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, USA.
N AzadDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, USA.
S KopetzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hypermethylation of promoter CpG islands [CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)] represents a unique pathway for the development of colorectal cancer (CRC), characterized by lack of chromosomal instability and a low rate of adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) mutations, which have both been correlated with taxane resistance. Similarly, small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA), a rare tumor, also has a low rate of APC mutations. This phase II study evaluated taxane sensitivity in SBA and CIMP-high CRC. Patients and methods: The primary objective was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 response rate. Eligibility included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, refractory disease, and SBA or CIMP-high metastatic CRC. Nab-paclitaxel was initially administered at a dose of 260 mg/m2 every 3 weeks but was reduced to 220 mg/m2 owing to toxicity. Results: A total of 21 patients with CIMP-high CRC and 13 with SBA were enrolled from November 2012 to October 2014. The efficacy-assessable population (patients who received at least three doses of the treatment) comprised 15 CIMP-high CRC patients and 10 SBA patients. Common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were fatigue (12%), neutropenia (9%), febrile neutropenia (9%), dehydration (6%), and thrombocytopenia (6%). No responses were seen in the CIMP-high CRC cohort and two partial responses were seen in the SBA cohort. Median progression-free survival was significantly greater in the SBA cohort than in the CIMP-high CRC cohort (3.2 months compared with 2.1 months, P = 0.03). Neither APC mutation status nor CHFR methylation status correlated with efficacy in the CIMP-high CRC cohort. In vivo testing of paclitaxel in an SBA patient-derived xenograft validated the activity of taxanes in this disease type. Conclusion: Although preclinical studies suggested taxane sensitivity was associated with chromosomal stability and wild-type APC, we found that nab-paclitaxel was inactive in CIMP-high metastatic CRC. Nab-paclitaxel may represent a novel therapeutic option for SBA.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAlbuminsAnimalsCell Cycle ProteinsColorectal NeoplasmsCpG IslandsDNA MethylationDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleHumansIntestine, SmallMaleMice, Inbred NODMice, SCID130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxelAlbuminsCell Cycle ProteinsCHFR protein, humanNeoplasm ProteinsPaclitaxelPoly-ADP-Ribose Binding ProteinsUbiquitin-Protein LigasesCIMPcolorectal cancernab-paclitaxelsmall bowel adenosscarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID29069279
PMCPMC5834085
OpenAlexW2766630611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.