scholarly journals Optimizing Collection of Adverse Event Data in Cancer Clinical Trials Supporting Supplemental Indications

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (34) ◽  
pp. 5046-5053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee D. Kaiser ◽  
Allen S. Melemed ◽  
Alaknanda J. Preston ◽  
Hilary A. Chaudri Ross ◽  
Donna Niedzwiecki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Concomitant Medication ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Drug Effects ◽  
Statistical Analysis Plan ◽  
Marketing Approval ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Adverse Event Data ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Optimal Approach

Purpose Although much is known about the safety of an anticancer agent at the time of initial marketing approval, sponsors customarily collect comprehensive safety data for studies that support supplemental indications. This adds significant cost and complexity to the study but may not provide useful new information. The main purpose of this analysis was to assess the amount of safety and concomitant medication data collected to determine a more optimal approach in the collection of these data when used in support of supplemental applications. Methods Following a prospectively developed statistical analysis plan, we reanalyzed safety data from eight previously completed prospective randomized trials. Results A total of 107,884 adverse events and 136,608 concomitant medication records were reviewed for the analysis. Of these, four grade 1 to 2 and nine grade 3 and higher events were identified as drug effects that were not included in the previously established safety profiles and could potentially have been missed using subsampling. These events were frequently detected in subsamples of 400 patients or larger. Furthermore, none of the concomitant medication records contributed to labeling changes for the supplemental indications. Conclusion Our study found that applying the optimized methodologic approach, described herein, has a high probability of detecting new drug safety signals. Focusing data collection on signals that cause physicians to modify or discontinue treatment ensures that safety issues of the highest concern for patients and regulators are captured and has significant potential to relieve strain on the clinical trials system.

scholarly journals Paracetamol safety in COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-9
Author(s):  
B. K. Romanov
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Safety Issue ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Concerns ◽  
State Register ◽  
Pharmacovigilance Database

The relevance of paracetamol safety assessment is associated with broad recommendations for its use as a symptomatic agent in COVID-19 and an agent for adverse events following vaccination to prevent COVID-19.Objectives. Conducting a review of global paracetamol safety data during the initial period of COVID-19 pandemic (in 2020 and in the first half of 2021).Materials and methods. 2,356 scientific articles and their abstracts on paracetamol safety in electronic libraries; data on 2,272 clinical trials of paracetamol in ClinicalTrials.gov and the State Register of Medicines of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; 173,707 individual reports of adverse drugs reactions of paracetamol in the international pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. The data were evaluated by statistical methods in the VigiLyze analytical system (authorized expert access).Results. No publications and completed clinical trials were found on the safety issue of paracetamol use in COVID-19. During the initial period of COVID-19 pandemic (from January 1, 2020 to July 31, 2021), the number of reports of paracetamol safety issues included in VigiBase decreased by 22,1%, which may be due to a decrease in the number of specialists sending reports on safety, with an increase of their duties and with a switching attention of these specialists and patients to other problems associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. No changes have been identified in the sources of safety data and trade names for paracetamol medicinal products. It has been established that the main part (99,4% of cases) of side effects associated with paracetamol develops outside the use of vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19. Pre-COVID and COVID data include information on 2,692 and 2,527 names of various paracetamol safety concerns, respectively. These data overlap the list of side effects specified in instructions for medical use and include new symptoms not described in instructions for medical use.Conclusions. The lack of safety signals may be due to the lack of alertness of specialists and marketing authorization holders regarding paracetamol. During the COVID period, the structure and frequency of paracetamol safety concerns codified in terms of MedDRA (version 24.0) have changed, which can be studied in future studies of paracetamol, ibuprofen and other medicinal products.

scholarly journals Overlap between adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs): a case study of a phase III cancer clinical trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. James ◽  
David Dunn ◽  
Adrian D. Cook ◽  
Andrew R. Clamp ◽  
Matthew R. Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Event Data ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Serious Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Event Data ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Mapping Exercise

Abstract Background Safety data is required to be collected in all clinical trials and can be separated into two types of data, adverse events and serious adverse events. Often, these types of safety data are collected as two discrete data sets, where adverse events that also meet the criteria for seriousness should be reported in both datasets. Safety analyses are often conducted using only the adverse event dataset, which should feature all safety events reported. We investigated whether the reporting of safety in both datasets was systematically followed and explored the impact of this on safety analyses in ICON8, an ovarian cancer clinical trial. Methods Text searches of serious adverse event data identified events that could potentially match the data reported in the adverse event dataset (looking at pre-specified AE terms only). These serious adverse events were then mapped to adverse event data according to predefined criteria: (a) event term matches, (b) date of onset and date of assessment within 30 days of each other, (c) date of assessment lies between date of onset and date of resolution and (d) events confirmed to occur in the same chemotherapy cycle. A combined dataset of all unique safety events (whether originally reported in the adverse event or serious adverse event dataset) was created and safety analyses re-performed. Results 51,019 adverse events were reported in ICON8, of which 42,410 were included in the mapping exercise. One thousand five hundred six serious adverse event elements were reported, of which 668 were included in the mapping exercise. Sixty-one percent of serious adverse event elements was matched to an already-reported adverse event. Supplementing these additional safety events and re-performing safety analyses increased the proportion of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse safety events in all arms from 42 to 47% in the control arm and 61 to 65% and 52 to 59% in the research arms. The difference in proportions of grade 3 or worse event in the research arms compared to the control arm changed by 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 24%) and 12% (95% CI 6 to 18%), respectively. Conclusions There was low agreement in mapping serious adverse events to already reported adverse events, with nearly 40% of serious adverse events included in the mapping exercise not mapped to an already reported adverse event. Any analyses of safety data that use only adverse event datasets or do not clearly account for serious adverse event data will likely be missing important safety information. Reporting standards should make clear which datasets were used for analyses.

scholarly journals The Tendril Plot—a novel visual summary of the incidence, significance and temporal aspects of adverse events in clinical trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 1069-1073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Karpefors ◽  
James Weatherall
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Time Resolved ◽  
Single View ◽  
Adverse Event Data ◽  
Temporal Aspects

Abstract Background In contrast to efficacy, safety hypotheses of clinical trials are not always pre-specified, and therefore, the safety interpretation work of a trial tends to be more exploratory, often reactive, and the analysis more statistically and graphically challenging. Methods We introduce a new means of visualizing the adverse event data across an entire clinical trial. Results The approach overcomes some of the current limitations of adverse event analysis and streamlines the way safety data can be explored, interpreted and analyzed. Using a phase II study, we describe and exemplify how the tendril plot effectively summarizes the time-resolved safety profile of two treatment arms in a single plot and how that can provide scientists with a trial safety overview that can support medical decision making. Conclusion To our knowledge, the tendril plot is the only way to graphically show important treatment differences with preserved temporal information, across an entire clinical trial, in a single view.

scholarly journals 37. Safety Profile of the Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV) in Immunocompromised Populations: an Overview of 6 Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S42-S43
Author(s):  
Marta Lopez Fauqued ◽  
Maribel Miranda Co ◽  
Adriana Bastidas ◽  
Pierre Beukelaers ◽  
Alemnew F Dagnew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Safety Concern ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Renal Transplant Recipients ◽  
Independent Contractor ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Immunocompromised (IC) populations are at increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ) and its related complications. RZV demonstrated > 68% efficacy against HZ in autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients ≥ 18 years of age (YOA). Here we present the safety data across 6 clinical trials in IC populations: autologous HSCT recipients, HIV-infected adults, renal transplant recipients, patients with solid tumor and patients with hematological malignancies. Methods All 6 studies (Table 1) enrolled IC adults ≥ 18 YOA in RZV and Placebo groups. Safety was evaluated in the total vaccinated cohort (TVC). Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for 7 days and unsolicited AEs for 30 days after each dose. Serious AEs (SAEs), and potential immune-mediated diseases (pIMDs) were collected from dose 1 until 1 year post-last dose or study end (for causally related [assessed by investigator] and fatal SAEs). Data are presented by age group: 18–49 YOA and ≥ 50 YOA. Reactogenicity data are pooled across the 6 studies and other safety data are presented by study. Table 1. Clinical trials with immunocompromised populations included in our analysis Results 1587 (RZV) and 1529 (Placebo) adults were included in the pooled TVC. Solicited AEs were more frequently reported in the RZV than Placebo group. Pain, fatigue, headache, myalgia, shivering and fever were reported more frequently in the RZV 18–49 YOA than in the RZV ≥ 50 YOA (Figure 1). Solicited AEs were mostly mild/moderate and lasted ≤3 days and grade 3 solicited AEs lasted ≤ 2 days (median duration). Across studies, the percentage of adults reporting ≥ 1 unsolicited AE was similar between RZV (18–49 YOA: 37.4–80.6%; ≥ 50 YOA: 36.9–87.2%) and Placebo (18–49 YOA: 31.4–90.0%; ≥ 50 YOA: 30.1–89.4%) (Figure 2). Overall, the percentage of adults with ≥ 1 SAE (Figure 3), causally related SAEs, fatal SAEs and pIMDs was similar between RZV and Placebo and between age groups. Overall, no safety concern was identified. Conclusion Reactogenicity symptoms were more frequent after RZV than placebo, and in younger age groups but no safety concern was identified. Most of the reported AEs and SAEs were in the context of underlying diseases and therapies. Overall our data support a favorable benefit-risk profile of vaccination with RZV in IC adults. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA Disclosures Marta Lopez Fauqued, PhD, GSK group of companies (Employee) Maribel Miranda Co, MD, GSK group of companies (Employee) Adriana Bastidas, MD, GSK group of companies (Shareholder, Former employee) Pierre Beukelaers, PhD, GSK group of companies (Employee) Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder) Juan Jose Fernandez Garcia, MSc, GSK group of companies (Independent Contractor) Anne Schuind, MD, GSK (Employee, Other Financial or Material Support, own GSK stock options or restricted shares as part of renumeration) Fernanda Tavares da Silva, MD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Shareholder)

scholarly journals Tuberculosis and viral hepatitis in patients treated with certolizumab pegol in Asia-Pacific countries and worldwide: real-world and clinical trial data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chak Sing Lau ◽  
Yi-Hsing Chen ◽  
Keith Lim ◽  
Marc de Longueville ◽  
Catherine Arendt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Viral Hepatitis ◽  
Central Europe ◽  
Real World ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Hbv Reactivation ◽  
Post Marketing

Abstract Introduction/objectives To evaluate the incidence rate (IR) of tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis B and C (HBV/HCV) during certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment, worldwide and in Asia-Pacific countries, across clinical trials and post-marketing reports (non-interventional studies and real-world practice). Method CZP safety data were pooled across 49 clinical trials from 1998 to June 2017. Post-marketing reports were from initial commercialization until March 2015 (TB)/February 2017 (HBV/HCV). All suspected TB and HBV/HCV cases underwent centralized retrospective review by external experts. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated per 100 patient-years (PY) of CZP exposure. Results Among 11,317 clinical trial patients (21,695 PY), 62 TB cases were confirmed (IR 0.29/100 PY) including 2 in Japan (0.10/100 PY) and 3 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.58/100 PY). From > 238,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, there were 31 confirmed TB cases (0.01/100 PY): 5 in Japan (0.05/100 PY), 1 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.03/100 PY). Reported regional TB IRs were highest in eastern Europe (0.17/100 PY), central Europe (0.09/100 PY), and Mexico (0.16/100 PY). Across clinical trials, there was 1 confirmed HBV reactivation and no HCV cases. From > 420,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, 5 HBV/HCV cases were confirmed (0.001/100 PY): 2 HCV reactivations; 1 new HCV; plus 2 HBV reactivations in Japan (0.008/100 PY). Conclusions CZP TB risk is aligned with nationwide TB rates, being slightly higher in Asia-Pacific countries excluding Japan. Overall, TB and HBV/HCV risk with CZP treatment is currently relatively low, as risk can be minimized with patient/physician education, screening, and vigilant treatment, according to international guidelines. Key Points:• TB rates were highest in eastern/central Europe, Mexico, and Asia-Pacific regions.• With the implementation of stricter TB screening and risk evaluations in 2007, especially in high TB incidence countries, there was a notable reduction TB occurrence.• Safety profile of biologics in real-world settings complements controlled studies.• TB and hepatitis (HBV/HCV) risk with certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment is low.

scholarly journals Manual on the proper use of sodium astatide ([211At]NaAt) injections in clinical trials for targeted alpha therapy (1st edition)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadashi Watabe ◽  
Makoto Hosono ◽  
Seigo Kinuya ◽  
Takahiro Yamada ◽  
Sachiko Yanagida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Japanese Society ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Evaluation Methodology ◽  
Targeted Alpha Therapy ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
And Training ◽  
Alpha Therapy

AbstractWe present the guideline for use of [211At] sodium astatide (NaAt) for targeted alpha therapy in clinical trials on the basis of radiation safety issues in Japan. This guideline was prepared by a study supported by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, and approved by the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine on 8th Feb, 2021. The study showed that patients receiving [211At]NaAt do not need to be admitted to a radiotherapy room and outpatient treatment is possible. The radiation exposure from the patient is within the safety standards of the ICRP and IAEA recommendations for the general public and caregivers. Precautions for patients and their families, safety management associated with the use of [211At]NaAt, education and training, and disposal of medical radioactive contaminants are also included in this guideline. Treatment using [211At]NaAt in Japan should be carried out according to this guideline. Although this guideline is applied in Japan, the issues for radiation protection and evaluation methodology shown here are considered internationally useful as well.

558 Programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand-1 inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of their efficacy and safety

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A592-A592
Author(s):  
Melissa Lingohr-Smith ◽  
Chelsea Deitelzweig ◽  
Grace Lin ◽  
Jay Lin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Nsclc Patient ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Therapies ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Programmed Death ◽  
Grade 3

BackgroundTreatment advances have been made in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the development and approval of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors may be used as monotherapies or in combination with other agents and have been shown to improve NSCLC patient outcomes in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic search to compare the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of NSCLC.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed was conducted to identify phase III clinical trials in which the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of NSCLC was evaluated. PD-1 inhibitors included nivolumab and pembrolizumab; PD-L1 inhibitors included atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab. Patient characteristics and efficacy data were extracted.ResultsSixteen phase III clinical trials were identified (nivolumab=4; pembrolizumab=5; atezolizumab=5; avelumab=1; durvalumab=1). Across the 3 nivolumab monotherapy trials (n=638; median ages: 61–63 years), median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged 2.3–4.2 months; response rates ranged 19%-26%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 7%-18% of patients. Nivolumab in combination with iplimumab (n=583; median age: 64 years) had a median PFS of 5.1 months and response rate of 33%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 33% of patients. Across the 3 pembrolizumab monotherapy trials (n=1,481; median ages: 63–64 years), median PFS ranged 3.9–10.3 months; response rates ranged 18%-45%; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 13%-27% of patients. In the 2 pembrolizumab combination therapy trials (n=688; median ages: 65 years), median PFS ranged 6.4–8.8 months; response rates ranged 48%-58%; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 67%-70% of patients. In the 4 atezolizumab combination therapy trials (n=1,486; median ages: 63–64 years), median PFS ranged 6.3–8.3 months; response rates ranged 47%-63.5%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54%-73% of patients. In the 3 monotherapy trials of atezolizumab (n=613; median age: 63 years), avelumab (n=396; median age: 64 years), and durvalumab (n=476; median age: 64 years), the median months of PFS were 2.7, 2.8, and 17.2, respectively; response rates were 14%, 15%, and 30%, respectively; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 15%, 10%, and 30.5% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough treatment responses varied, most of the evaluated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with a clinical benefit for NSCLC trial patients. Generally, treatment efficacy was greater with combination therapies, but adverse events occurred more frequently. Innovations in the targeting/personalization of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapies will likely lead to improved NSCLC patient outcomes and further research is needed in this regard.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3573
Author(s):  
Alfred Chung Pui So ◽  
Harriet McGrath ◽  
Jonathan Ting ◽  
Krishnie Srikandarajah ◽  
Styliani Germanou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Solid Malignancy ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Oncology Centre

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

scholarly journals WEE1 Inhibitor: Clinical Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Kong ◽  
Hisham Mehanna
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tp53 Mutation ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Concurrent Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Chemotherapy Agents

Abstract Purpose of Review WEE1 inhibitor has been shown to potential chemotherapy or radiotherapy sensitivity in preclinical models, particularly in p53-mutated or deficient cancer cells although not exclusively. Here, we review the clinical development of WEE1 inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy as well as its combination with different novel agents. Recent Findings Although several clinical trials have shown that WEE1 inhibitor can be safely combined with different chemotherapy agents as well as radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy, its clinical development has been hampered by the higher rate of grade 3 toxicities when added to standard treatments. A few clinical trials had also been conducted to test WEE1 inhibitor using TP53 mutation as a predictive biomarker. However, TP53 mutation has not been shown to be the most reliable predictive biomarker and the benefit of adding WEE1 inhibitor to chemotherapy has been modest, even in TP53 biomarker-driven studies. Summary There are ongoing clinical trials testing WEE1 inhibitor with novel agents such as ATR and PAPR inhibitors as well as anti-PDL1 immunotherapy, which may better define the role of WEE1 inhibitor in the future if any of the novel treatment combination will show superior anti-tumor efficacy with a good safety profile compared to monotherapy and/or standard treatment.

scholarly journals Real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591985036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Guido Giordano ◽  
George Kim ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 3

Background: No clinical trial has directly compared nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P/G) with FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer (mPC or aPC). We conducted a systematic review of real-world studies comparing these regimens in the first-line setting. Methods: Embase and MEDLINE databases through 22 January 2019, and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2019 abstracts were searched for real-world, retrospective studies comparing first-line nab-P/G versus FOLFIRINOX in mPC or aPC that met specific parameters. Studies with radiotherapy were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Of 818 records initially identified, 35 were duplicates and 749 did not meet the eligibility criteria, mostly because they were either not comparative ( n = 356) or not first line ( n = 245). The remaining 34 studies (21 mPC; 13 aPC) assessed >6915 patients who received nab-P/G or FOLFIRINOX. In the studies identified, the median overall survival (OS) reached 14.4 and 15.9 months with nab-P/G and FOLFIRINOX, respectively, and median progression-free survival reached 8.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. Safety data were reported in 14 studies (2205 patients), including 8 single-institutional studies. In most single-institutional studies that reported safety data, rates were higher with FOLFIRINOX versus nab-P/G for grade 3/4 neutropenia (five of six studies) and febrile neutropenia (all three studies), while rates of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy were higher with nab-P/G in four of seven studies. Conclusions: Although FOLFIRINOX was associated with slightly longer median OS in more studies, the differences, when available, were not statistically significant. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial is warranted. Toxicity profile differences represent key considerations for treatment decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document