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.

LAPACT: An open-label, multicenter phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) in patients (pts) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS477-TPS477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Agop Philip ◽  
Jill Lacy ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Venu Gopal Bathini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Tumors

TPS477 Background: In pts with LAPC, more effective systemic therapies may be associated with improved local control, delay of metastasis, and overall survival (OS). The phase III MPACT trial in pts with metastatic PC demonstrated longer OS (median, 8.7 vs 6.6 mos; HR, 0.72; P < 0.001) and an ≈ 3-fold greater shrinkage of primary tumors with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone (−22.15% vs −7.02%), raising the possibility of improved local PC control with nab-P + Gem. LAPACT will assess the efficacy and safety of nab-P + Gem in LAPC. Methods: LAPACT will enroll treatment-naive pts (planned n ≈ 110) in the United States, Canada, and Europe with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, confirmed unresectable LAPC, no distant metastases, and adequate organ function. Pts with mixed-origin tumors, any other malignancy within 5 years, peripheral neuropathy grade > 1, or clinically significant ascites are ineligible. Pts will receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Pts without progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity after 6 cycles will receive investigator’s choice of surgery, chemoradiotherapy, or continued nab-P + Gem. If a major response is observed, surgery may occur prior to completing 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem. The primary endpoint is time to treatment failure (TTF; time from first therapy dose to discontinuation due to PD, start of a new non–protocol-defined anti-cancer therapy, or death). The study design allows for 80% power at a 1-sided α of 0.05 to detect a 30% increase over the 5.1-month median TTF observed for nab-P + Gem in the MPACT study. The secondary endpoints are disease control rate (DCR) after 6 cycles, overall response rate, progression-free survival, OS, safety, and quality of life. The exploratory endpoint is correlation of changes in circulating nucleic acids with PD and treatment response. An interim DCR analysis will occur after all pts have completed 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem, discontinued therapy due to PD, died, or started a new non–protocol-defined therapy before completing 6 cycles of therapy. Enrollment is ongoing (first pt enrolled in April 2015). Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

TRYbeCA-1: A randomized, phase III study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4666-TPS4666
Author(s):  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Rossana Berardi ◽  
Geert-Yan Creemers ◽  
Antonio Cubillo ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3

TPS4666 Background: Second-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma are currently limited. Eryaspase, asparaginase (ASNase) encapsulated in red blood cells (RBCs) is an investigational product under development. Following infusion, asparagine and glutamine are actively transported into RBCs where they are hydrolyzed by the encapsulated ASNase. We have recently reported the outcome of a randomized Phase 2b study inpatients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose disease progressed following first-line treatment(NCT02195180). Eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine monotherapy or FOLFOX combination therapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). The safety profile of eryaspase was acceptable. The results of this Phase 2b study provided a rationale for initiating this confirmatory Phase 3 pivotal trial (TRYbeCA-1). Methods: TRYbeCA-1 is a randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (N = ~500) of eryaspase combined with chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who have failed only one prior line of systemic anti-cancer therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and have measurable disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine/Abraxane or irinotecan-based therapy (FOLFIRI [FOLinic acid-Fluorouracil-IRInotecan regimen] or irinotecan liposome injection/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) with or without eryaspase, administered as IV infusion on Day 1 and Day 15 of each 4-week cycle. Key eligibility criteria include performance status 0 or 1; stage III-IV disease; documented evidence of disease progression; available tumor tissue; and adequate organ function. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS and objective response rate, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and biomarker research. A hazard ratio in OS of 0.725 is being targeted which represents a conservative estimate based on the Phase 2b data and is viewed as being highly clinically relevant. An IDMC is established to review safety at regular intervals andto review efficacy data at the planned interim and final analyses. IDMC last reviewed the trial in October 2019 and suggested the trial continue as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03665441 .

TRYbeCA-1: A randomized, phase III study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS783-TPS783
Author(s):  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Rossana Berardi ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Jaime Feliu ◽  
Richard Greil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3

TPS783 Background: Second-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma are currently limited. Eryaspase, asparaginase (ASNase) encapsulated in red blood cells (RBCs) is an investigational product under development. Following infusion, asparagine and glutamine are actively transported into RBCs where they are hydrolyzed by the encapsulated ASNase. We have recently reported the outcome of a randomized Phase 2b study inpatients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose disease progressed following first-line treatment. Eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine monotherapy or FOLFOX combination therapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). The safety profile of eryaspase was acceptable. The results of this Phase 2b study provided a rationale for initiating this confirmatory Phase 3 pivotal trial (TRYbeCA-1). Methods: TRYbeCA-1 is a randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (N = ~500) of eryaspase combined with chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who have failed only one prior line of systemic anti-cancer therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and have measurable disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine/Abraxane or irinotecan-based therapy (FOLFIRI [FOLinic acid-Fluorouracil-IRInotecan regimen] or irinotecan liposome injection/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) with or without eryaspase, administered as IV infusion on Day 1 and Day 15 of each 4-week cycle. Key eligibility criteria include performance status 0 or 1; stage III-IV disease; documented evidence of disease progression; available tumor tissue; and adequate organ function. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS and objective response rate, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and biomarker research. A hazard ratio in OS of 0.725 is being targeted which represents a conservative estimate based on the Phase 2b data and is viewed as being highly clinically relevant. An IDMC will be established to review safety at regular intervals andto review efficacy data at the planned interim and final analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03665441.

A New Direction for Pancreatic Cancer Treatment: FOLFIRINOX in Context

2012 ◽  
pp. 232-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedy Lee Kindler
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Biliary Stents ◽  
Borderline Resectable

Overview: Since 1996, the cornerstone of chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer has been gemcitabine, which has a genuine, but modest effect on survival and quality of life. It has been remarkably difficult to improve on these outcomes. Many phase III studies of gemcitabine doublets have been uniformly negative, with the exception of a trial of gemctabine plus erlotinib, which provided only marginal benefit. In 2010, the FOLFIRINOX regimen (bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) emerged as a major treatment advance for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. In a trial with 342 patients, FOLFIRINOX yielded a longer median overall survival (11.1 vs. 6.8 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, p < 0.001), a superior progression-free survival (6.4 vs. 3.3 months, HR 0.47, p < 0.001), a higher objective response rate (31.6% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), and a significant increase in time until definitive deterioration in quality of life, compared with gemcitabine. FOLFIRINOX is also more cost-effective than gemcitabine. Because of higher rates of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (46% vs. 21%), febrile neutropenia (5% vs. 1%), and diarrhea (13% vs. 2%) with FOLFIRINOX, vigilant patient selection, education, and monitoring are essential. Retrospective single-institution series confirm the substantial activity of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic, locally advanced, and previously-treated patients; demonstrate its safety in individuals with biliary stents; and elucidate how physicians routinely modify drug doses without clear evidence or guidelines. Ongoing and planned studies will prospectively evaluate FOLFIRINOX in the adjuvant, locally advanced, and borderline resectable settings, will add targeted agents to FOLFIRINOX, and will evaluate how to adjust doses to ameliorate toxicity.

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.

A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter, global study of first-line (1L) durvalumab in combination with standard of care (SoC) chemotherapy and durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab and soc chemotherapy versus soc chemotherapy alone in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (UC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS499-TPS499
Author(s):  
Matt D. Galsky ◽  
Andrea Necchi ◽  
Srikala S. Sridhar ◽  
Osamu Ogawa ◽  
Dario Ruscica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Transitional Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

TPS499 Background: Despite high response rates to 1L SoC for locally advanced or metastatic UC chemotherapy (gemcitabine +cisplatin or gemcitabine + carboplatin for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible [poor performance status, impaired renal function, comorbidities]), most patients experience disease progression. Novel strategies like combining chemotherapy and immunotherapy offer hope for improving clinical outcomes. Durvalumab is a selective, high affinity, engineered human IgG1 mAb that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80. Tremelimumab is a human IgG2 mAb directed against CTLA-4. The mechanisms of action of PD-1 and CTLA-4 are nonredundant, so targeting both checkpoint pathways may have additive or synergistic efficacy compared to monotherapy. Studies in other tumor types of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with checkpoint blockade have yielded improved efficacy with acceptable safety and support exploration of this approach for 1L locally advanced or metastatic UC. Methods: NILE is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, global trial that will enroll approximately 1265 patients who will be randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab + SoC chemotherapy, durvalumab + tremelimumab + SoC chemotherapy, or SoC chemotherapy as 1L-line therapy in patients with histologically or cytologically documented, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Primary endpoints are progression-free survival using blinded independent central review assessments per RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, OS at 24 months, proportion of patients alive and progression free at 12 months, duration of response, disease control rate, time from randomization to second progression, and HRQoL. Safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers will also be assessed. The study opened for enrollment in September 2018. Clinical trial information: NCT03682068.

A phase III, randomized, open label, multicenter, global study of first-line (1L) durvalumab in combination with standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy and durvalumab in combination with tremelimumab and SOC chemotherapy versus SOC chemotherapy alone in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (UC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4590-TPS4590
Author(s):  
Matt D. Galsky ◽  
Andrea Necchi ◽  
Srikala S. Sridhar ◽  
Osamu Ogawa ◽  
Natasha Angra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Transitional Cell ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

TPS4590 Background: Despite high response rates to 1L SoC for locally advanced or metastatic UC chemotherapy (gemcitabine + cisplatin or gemcitabine + carboplatin for patients who are cisplatin-ineligible [poor performance status, impaired renal function, comorbidities]), most patients experience disease progression. Novel strategies such as combining chemotherapy and immunotherapy offer hope for improving clinical outcomes. Durvalumab is a selective, high affinity, engineered human IgG1 mAb that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80. Tremelimumab is a human IgG2 mAb directed against CTLA-4. The mechanisms of action of PD-1 and CTLA-4 are nonredundant, so targeting both checkpoint pathways may have additive or synergistic efficacy compared with monotherapy. Studies of platinum-based chemotherapy combined with checkpoint blockade in other tumor types have yielded improved efficacy with acceptable safety and support exploration of this approach for 1L locally advanced or metastatic UC. Methods: NILE (NCT03682068) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, global trial that will enroll approximately 1265 patients with histologically or cytologically documented, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium. Patients will be randomized (1:1:1) to durvalumab + SoC chemotherapy, durvalumab + tremelimumab + SoC chemotherapy, or SoC chemotherapy as 1L therapy. Primary endpoints are progression-free survival using blinded independent central review assessments per RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, OS at 24 months, proportion of patients alive and progression free at 12 months, duration of response, disease control rate, time from randomization to second progression, and health-related quality of life. Safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and biomarkers will also be assessed. The study opened for enrollment in September 2018. 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. Clinical trial information: NCT03682068.

Multicenter randomized controlled phase III clinical trial using TNFerade (TNF) with chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC): Interim analysis (IA) of overall survival (OS)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4605-4605
Author(s):  
K. J. Chang ◽  
W. Fisher ◽  
D. Kenady ◽  
J. Klapman ◽  
M. Posner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Human Tumor ◽  
Adenovirus Vector ◽  
Nonparametric Methods ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Cancer Trial

4605 Intro: Local control of LAPC with CRT has historically demonstrated survival benefit vs. RT alone. TNF is a nonreplicating adenovirus vector delivering human tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α). Results from a phase II study with TNF in LAPC indicated a possible survival advantage. To confirm these findings, a randomized, open-label, controlled Pancreatic Cancer Trial with TNF (PACT) study was developed. Methods: The TNF arm received a 5 wk treatment of qw intratumoral inj of 4x1011 PU TNF, cont. iv 5-FU and 50.4Gy radiation. The standard of care (SOC) arm received CRT alone. Both groups received adjuvant gemcitabine(G) with the option of erlotinib(E). An IA of OS (primary efficacy endpoint) was planned after the first third (92) of the expected 276 total death events (from a total patient n=330). Nonparametric logrank of OS was planned; in addition, a lognormal model was used to account for an evident separation of the survival curves after the median. Results: 185 pts were available for OS analysis (117-TNF+SOC and 68-SOC). Survival in the TNF+SOC group demonstrated a HR of 0.753 (CI [0.494 - 1.15]) relative to SOC. Best fit parametric lognormal analysis indicated a median survival of 11.1 mo with TNF+SOC and 8.7 mo with SOC; nonparametric methods indicated a MS of 9.9 mo for both arms, with a pronounced “late effect” (75th percentile 19.4 mo with TNF+SOC and 11.8 mo with SOC). Prognostic information (G and E use, stage, etc) indicated equivalent distribution between groups. Conclusions: HR results of the OS IA indicate an encouraging trend in favor of the TNF treated group. Parametric medians may better reflect the true HR than nonparametric methods since the latter do not reflect the shape of the OS distribution. A second IA is planned after 2/3 total events. [Table: see text]

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document