Targeting drug efflux in pancreatic cancer: what the PANTAX trial teaches us about resisting resistance

Despite incremental advances in combination chemotherapy, metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains defined by rapid therapeutic resistance and poor long-term survival, with median overall survival (OS) rarely exceeding 11–12 months despite the availability of FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (1,2). A defining feature of PDAC biology is its profound, multifactorial chemoresistance - both intrinsic and rapidly acquired—which limits the durability of all currently available regimens (1). Against this backdrop, the PANTAX trial by Susy Shim, Anke Reinacher-Schick, Anna-Lena Kraeft, and colleagues evaluated a strategy aimed at overcoming one important mechanism of therapeutic resistance: ABC transporter-mediated drug efflux.

PANTAX was a phase Ib trial enrolling 22 patients with non-resectable or metastatic PDAC to evaluate SCO-101, an oral compound targeting the ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (ABCG2) drug transporter, the splicing kinase serine-arginine protein kinase 1 (SRPK1), and the hepatic enzyme UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1), combined with 80% dose gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (3). The trial established a maximum tolerated dose of 200 mg daily for 6 days biweekly, with dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and manageable toxicity. The most notable adverse effect was transient hyperbilirubinemia in 55% of patients—attributable to UGT1A1 inhibition—a particularly relevant observation in PDAC, where biliary obstruction frequently complicates bilirubin interpretation and treatment decisions (3). However, the trial’s central finding was the absence of a clear efficacy signal, with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.3 months and median OS of 9.5 months, without demonstrating outcomes clearly exceeding established benchmarks from gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel alone (2,3).

The preclinical rationale supporting SCO-101 was compelling. SCO-101 demonstrated synergistic cytotoxicity with paclitaxel in resistant PDAC cell lines, and ABCG2 has been identified through genome-wide Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) screens as a consistent mediator of resistance to multiple chemotherapeutic agents used in pancreatic cancer (3-5). In addition, SRPK1, which is overexpressed in pancreatic carcinoma, has been implicated in tumor survival pathways, and its inhibition may sensitize tumor cells to cytotoxic therapy (6,7). However, these encouraging preclinical findings did not translate into improved clinical outcomes, a challenge that has been observed repeatedly in the history of ABC transporter inhibition in oncology.

Several factors likely contributed to this disconnect between mechanistic rationale and clinical outcome. First, preclinical resistance models frequently employ cell lines with artificially selected, high-level transporter overexpression that may inadequately reflect the heterogeneity of transporter expression observed in patient tumors (5). Second, PANTAX enrolled some treatment-naïve patients, in whom acquired efflux pump upregulation may not yet represent the dominant mechanism of resistance. The rationale for transporter inhibition may be strongest in previously treated tumors that have undergone selective pressure from prior chemotherapy exposure. Third, the use of an 80% dose chemotherapy backbone—necessary in the context of dose escalation and safety evaluation—may itself have limited efficacy, potentially obscuring any incremental contribution from SCO-101. And lastly, the trial was low powered with only 22 evaluable patients enrolled limiting any significant clinical conclusion. However, yet an objective response rate (ORR) of 6.7% is underwhelming despite promising in vitro data.

The PANTAX results should also be interpreted within the broader historical context of ABC transporter inhibition in oncology, a field marked by repeated translational disappointment despite strong biologic rationale. Early-generation inhibitors such as verapamil were limited by dose-limiting toxicity, while later agents including valspodar introduced clinically problematic pharmacokinetic interactions requiring chemotherapy dose reductions (8-11). Even third-generation inhibitors capable of achieving more potent and selective transporter inhibition ultimately failed to produce meaningful clinical benefit (9,10) These failures have been attributed to the redundancy and adaptability of resistance pathways, challenges in achieving sustained intratumoral target inhibition, and the essential physiologic roles of ABC transporters in normal tissues (5,12).

SCO-101 represents a conceptual evolution within this therapeutic space through its multi-target mechanism and focus on ABCG2 rather than the more extensively studied ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 (ABCB1) pathway. However, the PANTAX findings suggest that these refinements alone may be insufficient to overcome the fundamental biologic complexity of chemoresistance in PDAC. The history of pancreatic cancer drug development suggests that biologically plausible single-pathway interventions rarely overcome the layered redundancy of PDAC resistance biology.

Perhaps the most important limitation of PANTAX was the absence of biomarker-driven patient selection. No assessment of baseline ABCG2 or SRPK1 expression was reported, nor was there pharmacodynamic evidence confirming target engagement within the tumor microenvironment. Without enrichment for tumors dependent on these resistance pathways, any potential therapeutic signal would likely be diluted within an unselected population. Furthermore, the dense desmoplastic stroma characteristic of PDAC impairs drug delivery at multiple levels, potentially limiting not only chemotherapy penetration but also the effective intratumoral activity of resistance-modifying agents (1). Future studies incorporating paired tumor biopsies and pharmacodynamic endpoints will be essential to establish whether SCO-101 achieves biologically meaningful target inhibition in vivo.

Importantly, the negative efficacy signal from PANTAX does not invalidate the broader rationale for targeting chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer. Rather, it underscores the need for a fundamentally more refined strategy. Several directions merit consideration. First, future studies should incorporate biomarker enrichment strategies, prospectively selecting tumors with elevated ABCG2 or SRPK1 expression. Second, efflux pump inhibition may be biologically more rational in the second-line or later setting, after chemotherapy exposure has selected for resistant cellular clones. In this regard, ongoing studies evaluating SCO-101 in chemotherapy-refractory malignancies may provide more informative assessments of its therapeutic potential (3). Third, emerging approaches such as nanomedicine-based drug delivery systems, stromal modulation, and combinatorial targeting of multiple resistance pathways may ultimately prove more effective than isolated transporter inhibition (5).

More broadly, these findings raise the possibility that chemoresistance reversal through transporter inhibition alone may be inherently limited by the multifactorial nature of resistance in PDAC, which encompasses not only drug efflux but also altered apoptotic signaling, enhanced DNA repair, metabolic reprogramming, stromal exclusion, and immune suppression (1,12). Overcoming resistance in pancreatic cancer will likely require integrated therapeutic strategies capable of simultaneously addressing several of these biologic barriers.

In conclusion, the PANTAX trial provides an important and rigorous early clinical evaluation of SCO-101 in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced PDAC. The demonstration of manageable toxicity and definable pharmacokinetics represents a meaningful contribution to the field. At the same time, the absence of a clear efficacy signal highlights the persistent challenges associated with translating compelling resistance biology into clinically meaningful benefit. Rather than diminishing the importance of targeting chemoresistance, the study reinforces the need for biomarker-driven development, pharmacodynamic validation, and more biologically integrated trial designs. The challenge of overcoming therapeutic resistance in PDAC remains one of the central unresolved problems in oncology, and meeting it will require not only novel agents, but also a deeper understanding of the complex and adaptive biology underlying treatment failure.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Annals of Pancreatic Cancer. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Funding: This work was supported by the K-12 NCI grant program (No. K12CA090628 to H.B.).

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://apc.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apc-26-0044/coif). H.B. serves as an unpaid section editor of Annals of Pancreatic Cancer from January 2026 to December 2027. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Stoop TF, Javed AA, Oba A, et al. Pancreatic cancer. The Lancet 2025;405:1182-202.
2. Wainberg ZA, Melisi D, Macarulla T, et al. NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023;402:1272-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Shim S, Reinacher-Schick A, Kraeft AL, et al. PANTAX: a phase Ib clinical trial of the efflux pump inhibitor SCO-101 in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in non-resectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Invest New Drugs 2025;43:337-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Pfeiffer A, Di Leo L, Bechmann MB, et al. Inhibition of ABCG2 by SCO-101 Enhances Chemotherapy Efficacy in Cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2025;26:3790. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Sajid A, Rahman H, Ambudkar SV. Advances in the structure, mechanism and targeting of chemoresistance-linked ABC transporters. Nat Rev Cancer 2023;23:762-79. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Hayes GM, Carrigan PE, Beck AM, et al. Targeting the RNA splicing machinery as a novel treatment strategy for pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Res 2006;66:3819-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Hayes GM, Carrigan PE, Miller LJ. Serine-arginine protein kinase 1 overexpression is associated with tumorigenic imbalance in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways in breast, colonic, and pancreatic carcinomas. Cancer Res 2007;67:2072-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Pusztai L, Wagner P, Ibrahim N, et al. Phase II study of tariquidar, a selective P-glycoprotein inhibitor, in patients with chemotherapy-resistant advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 2005;104:682-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Falasca M, Linton KJ. Investigational ABC transporter inhibitors. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2012;21:657-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Yu M, Ocana A, Tannock IF. Reversal of ATP-binding cassette drug transporter activity to modulate chemoresistance: why has it failed to provide clinical benefit? Cancer Metastasis Rev 2013;32:211-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Milroy R. A randomised clinical study of verapamil in addition to combination chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer. West of Scotland Lung Cancer Research Group, and the Aberdeen Oncology Group. Br J Cancer 1993;68:813-8.
12. Adamska A, Falasca M. ATP-binding cassette transporters in progression and clinical outcome of pancreatic cancer: What is the way forward? World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:3222-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]