Hurwitz Herbert I, Uppal Nikhil, Wagner Stephanie A, Bendell Johanna C, Beck J Thaddeus, Wade Seaborn M, Nemunaitis John J, Stella Philip J, Pipas J Marc, Wainberg Zev A, Manges Robert, Garrett William M, Hunter Deborah S, Clark Jason, Leopold Lance, Sandor Victor, Levy Richard S
Herbert I. Hurwitz, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Nikhil Uppal, New York University Langone Arena Oncology, Lake Success, NY; Stephanie A. Wagner, Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Robert Manges, Investigative Clinical Research of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN; Johanna C. Bendell, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; J. Thaddeus Beck, Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, AR; Seaborn M. Wade III, Virginia Cancer Institute, Richmond, VA; John J. Nemunaitis, Mary Crowley Medical Research Center, Dallas, TX; Philip J. Stella, St Joseph Mercy Health System, Alexander Cancer Care Center, Ann Arbor, MI; J. Marc Pipas, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center/Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH; Zev A. Wainberg, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; and William M. Garrett, Deborah S. Hunter, Jason Clark, Lance Leopold, Victor Sandor, and Richard S. Levy, Incyte Corporation, Wilmington, DE.
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec 1;33(34):4039-47. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.4578. Epub 2015 Sep 8.
PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a poor prognosis and limited second-line treatment options. Evidence suggests a role for the Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway in the pathogenesis and clinical course of pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, phase II study, patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who had experienced treatment failure with gemcitabine were randomly assigned 1:1 to the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (15 mg twice daily) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily) or placebo plus capecitabine. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival, clinical benefit response, objective response rate, and safety. Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated treatment heterogeneity and efficacy in patients with evidence of inflammation. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (ruxolitinib, n = 64; placebo, n = 63), the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.18; P = .25) for OS and was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.10; P = .14) for progression-free survival. In a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with inflammation, defined by serum C-reactive protein levels greater than the study population median (ie, 13 mg/L), OS was significantly greater with ruxolitinib than with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.85; P = .011). Prolonged survival in this subgroup was supported by post hoc analyses of OS that categorized patients by the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, a systemic inflammation-based prognostic system. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were observed with similar frequency in the ruxolitinib (74.6%) and placebo (81.7%) groups. Grade 3 or greater anemia was more frequent with ruxolitinib (15.3%; placebo, 1.7%). CONCLUSION: Ruxolitinib plus capecitabine was generally well tolerated and may improve survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and evidence of systemic inflammation.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015-1-31
J Clin Oncol. 2007-10-20
Brief Bioinform. 2025-7-2
Cancers (Basel). 2025-7-15
J Hematol Oncol. 2025-3-28
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2025-2
JCO Oncol Adv. 2024-12-18
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-12-5
Cancers (Basel). 2024-10-23
Lancet Oncol. 2014-10
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014
JAKSTAT. 2013-10-1
Nat Rev Cancer. 2013-11
N Engl J Med. 2013-10-16
JAKSTAT. 2013-1-1