A phase III trial of virulizin plus gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: Results of subgroup analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4116-4116 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Wright ◽  
J. Osterlee ◽  
S. Fekete ◽  
Y. Lee ◽  
A. H. Young
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

4116 Background: Virulizin (V) is a novel antitumor immune modulator that improves survival in pancreatic cancer patients (pts) as monotherapy. A double-blind, multicenter, randomized, phase III study was conducted to evaluate the survival benefits and safety of V in combination with gemcitabine (G) in pts with advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: Chemo-naive pts with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer with ECOG Performance Status (PS) of 0, 1 or 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive intramuscular injections of either V or placebo (P) 3 times weekly + G (1,000 mg/m2 weekly ×7 with 1 week rest, then weekly ×3 q4w). Randomization was stratified according to ECOG PS (0 or 1, and 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced and metastatic). Pts who showed no clinical benefit or were intolerant to G entered 2nd-line therapy (stage 3), in which pts continued to receive either V or P alone or with 5-FU, or best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival, defined as time from baseline/treatment day 1 to time of death from any cause. Results: The intent to treat (ITT) population comprised 434 pts, of which 377 were efficacy evaluable (EE). Median overall survival for V + G was 6.3 months for the ITT population (6.8 months for EE pts) and 6 months for P + G for both ITT and EE pts. While differences in survival times were not statistically significant, exploratory analysis showed encouraging results in specific subgroups treated with V + G ( table ). Importantly, a significant difference was found in stage 3 pts who received V in a salvage setting compared to pts who received P. Conclusions: Pancreatic cancer pts with either low ECOG PS or metastatic cancer showed a survival benefit when treated with V + G, which was significant in pts who continued to receive V as a salvage therapy. Further studies in these targeted patient populations are being considered. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Updated results of the GEST study: Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) versus S-1 versus gemcitabine (GEM) in unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4035-4035 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Fukutomi ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Kazuya Sugimori ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Locally Advanced Disease ◽  
Phase Iii Study

4035 Background: The GEST study (Ioka et al. ASCO 2011, Abstract 4007) demonstrated the non-inferiority of S-1 to GEM with respect to the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We now report the updated results of this study. Methods: The GEST study was a randomized, 3-arm, phase III study. Chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable advanced PC, an ECOG Performance status (PS) of 0-1, and adequate organ functions were randomly assigned to receive GEM (1000 mg/m2, iv, d1, 8 and 15, q4w), S-1 (80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-28, q6w), or GS (GEM 1000 mg/m2, iv, d1 and 8 plus S-1 60/80/100 mg/day based on BSA po, d1-14, q3w). The primary endpoint was OS, used to assess the non-inferiority of S-1 and the superiority of GS to GEM. Patient information was updated in July 2011. Results: At the time of this follow-up analysis, median follow-up was 29.8 months with 795 OS events, compared with 18.4 months with 710 OS events out of 832 patients at the previous analysis. Median OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 8.0–9.7) in the GEM group and 9.7 months (95% CI: 7.6-10.8) in the S-1 group (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.79-1.17, p<0.001 for non-inferiority), which is consistent with prior results (HR=0.96, 97.5% CI: 0.78-1.18, p<0.001). In the GS group, median OS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 9.0-11.2). The HR was 0.91 (97.5%CI: 0.75-1.11, p=0.28 for superiority versus the GEM group). On subgroup analysis, GS was associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward better OS compared with GEM among patients with locally advanced disease and those with a PS of 1. Median OS was 12.7 months (95% CI: 9.7–14.9) in the GEM group and 15.9 months (95% CI: 13.0-19.7) in the GS group (HR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.51-1.03) among patients with locally advanced disease, and 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.9–8.3) in the GEM group and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.0-10.9) in the GS group (HR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.46-0.83) among patients with a PS of 1. Conclusions: The non-inferiority of S-1 to Gem in terms of the primary endpoint of OS was reconfirmed. Monotherapy with S-1 can be used as one of the standard treatments for advanced PC. As for GS therapy, there is room for further investigation.

Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (33) ◽  
pp. 5513-5518 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Ian Chau ◽  
Deborah D. Stocken ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
David Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label

PurposeBoth gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP).Patients and MethodsPatients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted.ResultsBetween May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity.ConclusionOn the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

scholarly journals Digital Detection of Sarcopenia in Pancreatic Cancer: Additional Utilization to Plan Patient Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Jalal ◽  
Jennifer A Campbell ◽  
Jonathan Wadsley ◽  
Andrew D Hopper
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Index ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Cancer Network

Abstract Purpose: The presence of a sarcopenia adversely affects the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. There is an emerging role for using computed tomography (CT) to calculate skeletal muscle index (SMI) and the presence of sarcopenia. The aim of this study was to assess if detecting ‘digital sarcopenia’ is feasible and can contribute to the management of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).Methods: Patients diagnosed with LAPC referred for endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy (EUS-B) by our regional cancer network were identified. Age, body mass index (BMI), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was noted. CT images were analysed for SMI and the presence of sarcopenia. Decision outcomes on receiving chemotherapy or not were collected from the regional oncology database. Results: In total 51/204 (25%) patients with LAPC who underwent EUS-B were not given chemotherapy and received BSC only. The prevalence of sarcopenia (p=0.0003), age ≥ 75 years old (p=0.03) and ECOG-PS 2-3 (p=0.01) were significantly higher in the patents receiving BSC only. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that SMI was the only independent associated factor identifying patients with LAPC who were treated with BSC only and not chemotherapy after adjusting for age and ECOG-PS. Conclusion: Our study has shown that digital skeletal muscle analysis at the time of a diagnostic CT for patients with pancreatic cancer is feasible and can detect sarcopenia and malnourished patients who are much less likely to take up chemotherapy. These patients could be triaged to oncology assessment prior to EUS-B to avoid unnecessary investigations.

scholarly journals Computed Tomographic Sarcopenia in Pancreatic Cancer: Further Utilization to Plan Patient Management

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Jalal ◽  
Jennifer A. Campbell ◽  
Jonathan Wadsley ◽  
Andrew D. Hopper
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Skeletal Muscle Index ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Ecog Ps

Abstract Purpose The presence of a sarcopenia adversely affects the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. There is an emerging role for using computed tomography (CT) to calculate skeletal muscle index (SMI) and the presence of sarcopenia. The aim of this study was to assess if detecting ‘computed tomographic sarcopenia’ is feasible and can contribute to the management of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods Patients diagnosed with LAPC referred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy (EUS-B) by our regional cancer network were identified. Age, body mass index (BMI), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) were noted. CT images were analysed for SMI and the presence of sarcopenia. Decision outcomes on receiving chemotherapy or not were collected from the regional oncology database. Results In total, 51/204 (25%) patients with LAPC who underwent EUS-B were not given chemotherapy and received best supportive care (BSC) only. The prevalence of sarcopenia (p = 0.0003), age ≥ 75 years old (p = 0.03), and ECOG-PS 2–3 (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the patients receiving BSC only. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that SMI was the only independent associated factor identifying patients with LAPC who were treated with BSC only and not chemotherapy after adjusting for age and ECOG-PS. Conclusion Our study has shown that computed tomographic skeletal muscle analysis at the time of a diagnostic CT for patients with pancreatic cancer is feasible and can detect sarcopenia and malnourished patients who are much less likely to take up chemotherapy. These patients could be triaged to oncology assessment prior to EUS-B to avoid unnecessary investigations.

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

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 1960-1966 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm J. Moore ◽  
David Goldstein ◽  
John Hamm ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
Joel R. Hecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

PurposePatients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsA total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

Gemcitabine in Combination With Oxaliplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a GERCOR and GISCAD Phase III Trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (15) ◽  
pp. 3509-3516 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Louvet ◽  
R. Labianca ◽  
P. Hammel ◽  
G. Lledo ◽  
M.G. Zampino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose Gemcitabine (Gem) is the standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Given the promising phase II results obtained with the Gem-oxaliplatin (GemOx) combination, we conducted a phase III study comparing GemOx with Gem alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were stratified according to center, performance status, and type of disease (locally advanced v metastatic) and randomly assigned to either GemOx (gemcitabine 1 g/m2 as a 100-minute infusion on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 2 every 2 weeks) or Gem (gemcitabine 1 g/m2 as a weekly 30-minute infusion). Results Three hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled; 313 were eligible, and 157 and 156 were allocated to the GemOx and Gem arms, respectively. GemOx was superior to Gem in terms of response rate (26.8% v 17.3%, respectively; P = .04), progression-free survival (5.8 v 3.7 months, respectively; P = .04), and clinical benefit (38.2% v 26.9%, respectively; P = .03). Median overall survival (OS) for GemOx and Gem was 9.0 and 7.1 months, respectively (P = .13). GemOx was well tolerated overall, although a higher incidence of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 and 4 toxicity per patient was observed for platelets (14.0% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), vomiting (8.9% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), and neurosensory symptoms (19.1% for GemOx v 0% for Gem). Conclusion These results confirm the efficacy and safety of GemOx, but this study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in terms of OS compared with Gem. Because GemOx is the first combined treatment to be superior to Gem alone in terms of clinical benefit, this promising regimen deserves further development.

Randomized Phase III Study of Exatecan and Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Untreated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (27) ◽  
pp. 4441-4447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
Richard Letourneau ◽  
Graydon Harker ◽  
Manuel Modiano ◽  
Herbert Hurwitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Water Soluble ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Purpose Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. Patients and Methods Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status ≥ 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. Results From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). Conclusion Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Meta-analysis of randomized phase II and phase III trials of gemcitabine with/without S-1 in Asian patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 311-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Yuyat Ku ◽  
Benjamin Haaland ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
Hiroyuki Isayama ◽  
Yousuke Nakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Ecog Ps

311 Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) is a virulent disease, where gemcitabine is considered the standard-of-care. A recent phase III evaluation demonstrated superiority of FOLFIRINOX (bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan, oxaliplatin) in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of ≤1. Recently, three studies were presented in abstract form, comparing gemcitabine/S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine. S-1 is a mixture of tegafur (an oral 5-FU prodrug), a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitor and an agent designed to reduce the gastrointestinal toxicity of 5-FU. All three trials demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) while one study also showed a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of the three trials. Results: Seven hundred and seventy patients were randomized to receive GS vs. gemcitabine; 75% had metastatic disease and 65% had an ECOG PS of 0. GS was associated with superior RR (hazard ratio (HR) 0.348, p=3.06×10-7), PFS (HR 0.64, p=7.26×10-9) and OS (HR 0.79, p=2.47×10-2) compared to gemcitabine. Patients receiving GS were more likely to experience nausea, diarrhea, rash and stomatitis (mostly grade 1/2); neutropenic fever occurred in <2% of patients. One study demonstrated superior quality-of-life for GS. Conclusions: GS should be considered a first-line option for the treatment of advanced PC in Asian patients. This regimen should serve as the reference for future trials and comparison with FOLFIRINOX in patients with ECOG PS ≤1 is warranted.

FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer: The Princess Margaret experience.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 417-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muralidharan Chllamma ◽  
Natalie Cook ◽  
Kazim Giby ◽  
Anna Dodd ◽  
Lisa Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Reductions

417 Background: The FOLFIRINOX regimen has been shown to significantly increase both overall (OS) and progression free (PFS) survival in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC), albeit with an increase in adverse events (AEs). It is not known whether initial dose reductions compromise FOLFIRINOX efficacy and there are limited data regarding treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients (pts) treated with FOLFIRINOX for MPC or LAPC at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, and began treatment between Dec 2011 and April 2014. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX when used with dose modifications. Results: 102 pts were identified; 66 MPC and 36 LAPC. Median age was 65 years. 72% of pts had pancreatic head tumors. At baseline 95% of pts had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1; 95% had bilirubin < 1.5 ULN and 45% had a biliary stent. 68% of pts initiated treatment with a dose reduction (93% reduction or omission of bolus 5FU, 88% reduction in Irinotecan, 68% reduction in Oxaliplatin and 66% reduction in infusional 5FU). Median number of cycles was 6 (1-31); 25% of pts received <4 cycles. Median OS in metastatic pts was 12.9 months (mo) and 23 mo in LAPC; Median PFS was 8.7 mo (metastatic) and 11.1 mo in LAPC. There was no significant difference in PFS (10.9 vs. 10.3 mo; p=0.60) or OS (11.1 vs. 14.0 mo; p=0.19) between the full starting dose and reduced starting dose groups respectively. Partial response or stable disease was achieved in 57% of pts; 11% of the LAPC pts had a surgical resection. Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs were observed in 43% of pts (febrile neutropenia in 6%). Only 13% of pts received G-CSF support. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic AEs were observed in 28% of pts, including vomiting (19%), nausea (16%) and diarrhea (16%). 18% of pts had a treatment related hospitalization (5% neutropenic sepsis, 13% GI toxicity/dehydration.) There was one treatment related death. Pt wellbeing (scored on a validated questionnaire) significantly improved from baseline to cycle 4 (p=0.002). Conclusions: Modest dose reductions do not appear to compromise efficacy of FOLFIRINOX. Our median PFS, OS and AEs are comparable to other studies using FOLFIRINOX in both LAPC and metastatic disease.

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4050-4050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Gresham ◽  
Sharlene Gill ◽  
George A Wells ◽  
Derek J. Jonker
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Safety Outcomes

4050 Background: Recent RCTs suggest a survival benefit for combination therapy in mPC compared to gemcitabine alone. Such combinations include FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G+nab-P). Survival and safety outcomes of these regimens were analyzed using gemcitabine as the reference comparator. Methods: Systematic review and NMA included data from reported phase III RCTs meeting quality standards and compared chemotherapy treatment to gemcitabine for mPC between 2000 and 2013. Excluded were trials assessing locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Following inter-trial heterogeneity assessment (patient characteristics, trial methodologies, treatment protocols), Bayesian NMAs were conducted for primary (overall survival [OS]) and secondary (progression free survival [PFS]) outcomes, overall response rate [ORR], and safety. Results: 27 studies were included involving 10 429 patients and 18 different treatments. No significant heterogeneity was observed between trials. When indirectly compared, FOLFIRINOX, PEFG and G+nab-P were top ranked for OS, PFS and ORR (Table). Comparing FOLFIRINOX and G +nab-P, there was no significant difference in odds ratios (OR) for febrile neutropenia, diarrhea or sensory neuropathy. FOLFIRINOX caused more gr3-4 neutropenia (OR 1.85 (95%Cl 1.1-3.4),p<0.05), and G+nab-P trended more gr3-4 fatigue (OR 2.03 95% Cl 0.95-3.8). Conclusions: Survival and safety outcomes were comparable amongst the three regimens identified from this network meta-analysis for mPC. FOLFIRINOX tended towards a greater survival benefit over G+nab-P and PEFG although comparisons did not reach statistical significance.Head-to-head trials between FOLFIRINOX, G+nab-P and PEFG are needed to further compare the survival benefits and safety profiles of these treatments. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document