FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer: KU Cancer Center experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15744-e15744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anup Kasi ◽  
Akshay Middinti ◽  
An Cao ◽  
Pratikkumar Vekaria ◽  
Devangi Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Disease Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference

e15744 Background: FOLFIRINOX (FFN) and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) have been established as first line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). But there is no head-to-head randomized trial data available to support preferable first line choice between these two regimens. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 154 chemotherapy-naïve locally advanced and metastatic PC patients treated with FFN or GN at KU Cancer Center between January 2011 and November 2016. FFN consisted of Oxaliplatin 85mg/m2, Irinotecan 180mg/m2, 5-FU 400mg/m2 as a bolus and 2,400 mg/m2over 46 hour on days 1 and 15 every 4 weeks. GN consisted of Gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 plus nab-paclitaxel 125mg/m2 day1,8,15 every 4 weeks. We compared characteristics, efficacy and adverse events between FFN and GN. Results: 107 patients were treated with FFN and 47 patients with GN as first line therapy. Demographic and baseline characteristics (FFN/GN) were as follows: Median age 61/63 years, ECOG performance status (0-1): 90% / 83%, Gender (male): 57% / 54%, distant metastases: 52%/70%, biliary stenting: 41%/20%, locally advanced tumor: 48%/30%, pancreatic head tumors: 63%/55%, median number of cycles: 4/4 respectively. Objective response rate (13% vs. 10%), Stable disease rate (76% vs 82%) and disease control rate (89% vs. 92%, p = 0.5) were similar in FFN and in GN. Median PFS was 11.7 months (95% CI: 7.2-16.1) in FFN and 5.7 months (95% CI: 2.7-8.8) in GN [p = 0.07]. Median OS was 15.9 months (95% CI: 13.7-18.1) in FFN and 10.8 months (95% CI: 7.1 – 14.5) in GN [p = 0.17]. Incidences of grade 3 or higher adverse effects were neutropenia (33% vs. 17%), anemia (14% vs 31%), thrombocytopenia (28% vs 6%), elevated creatinine (2.8% vs 4%), elevated transminases (3.7% vs 6%), diarrhea (5% vs. 0%), and peripheral neuropathy (6% vs. 6%) respectively. Conclusions: Patients treated with FFN showed statistically better PFS compared to GN. However this difference in PFS did not translate into statistically significant difference in OS. Response rates were similar. Incidences of adverse events were relatively more with FFN compared to GN as expected.

Clinical outcomes of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in initially diagnosed locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 407-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yusuke Hashimoto ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Izumi Ohno ◽  
Hiroshi Imaoka ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Rank Test

407 Background: Gemcitabine plus nab-Paclitaxel has shown improved survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in MPACT. Many studies have been investigating the survival benefit of GnP in LACP patients. The aim of this study is to clinical outcome of GnP in initially diagnosed LAPC in our single tertiary institution. Methods: LACP patients who received GnP as initial chemotherapy were identified between December 2014. and December 2016 from our database retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, disease status, response, conversion to resection and survival was reviewed. Resectability was determined at our hepatobiliary pancreatic tumor board, reflecting Japanese guideline of pancreatic cancer. Results: We identified 55 LACP patients initially treated with GnP (median age: 67 year old, female was 49%, ECOG PS 0/1, 62%/38%, pancreatic head 58%, baseline tumor size: median 32mm (18-62), CA19-9: median 139ng/ml (3.9-12956)). Best objective response rate was 58% and median time to partial response was 60 days (40-212). Median overall survival (mOS) was 24.7 months (95%CI :15.5-not reached). Nine patients (16%:9/55) were re-evaluated as resectable with CT and normalized CA19-9/CEA and subsequently proceeded to conversion to resection. Seven patients (13%:7/55) achieved R0 resection and sequentially performed adjuvant six- month duration of GnP. Median time to resection from initial GnP administration was 5.2 months (4.0-7.3). LAPC patients who achieved conversion to resection was associated with better overall survival than non-resected LAPC in log-rank test (mOS: all alive :12.1-25.4months vs 21.5 months 95%Cl:15.5-, HR:0.493 range: NA, P = 0.043). Shrinking tumor minimal size from the baseline was the factor to successful conversion in univariate analysis (P = 0.006). Conclusions: GnP showed promising results of response and overall survival in uLAPC patients. Conversion to resection in carefully selected uLAPC currently suggests an early surgical benefit, but longer follow-up and more cases will be required to assess the potential long-term benefit of conversion therapy.

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.

Clinical outcome of modified FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 438-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuo Watanabe ◽  
Yusuke Hashimoto ◽  
Kumiko Umemoto ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

438 Background: FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) have been established as first line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). But few data support preferable first line choice of these two regimens in “real-world” clinical setting. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 135 chemotherapy-naive mPC patients treated with modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) or GN at National Cancer Center Hospital East between December 2013 and September 2015. mFFX is a modified regimen of reduced dose of irinotecan 150mg/m2 and eliminated bolus 5-FU from original FFX. GN consists of gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 plus nab-paclitaxel 125mg/m2 day1,8,15 every 4 weeks. We compared characteristics, efficacy and adverse events between mFFX and GN. Results: Seventy patients were treated with mFFX and 65 patients with GN as first line therapy. Demographic and baseline characteristics (mFFX/GN) were similar as follows: ECOG performance status (0-1): 100% / 99%, Gender (male): 66% / 69%, liver metastasis: 56%/49%, peritoneal metastasis: 34% / 31%, prior biliary drainage: 21%/17%, median observation period: 330 / 265 days, respectively. The population of elderly patients ( > 75y) was smaller in mFFX than GN (4.3% vs. 12%, p = 0.05). Objective response rate (27% vs. 39%, p = 0.02) and disease control rate (79% vs. 92%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower in mFFX than in GN. Median OS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.7-16.8) in mFFX and 14.0 months (95% CI: 12.2 - not reached) in GN. Median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.4-7.1) in mFFX and 6.5 months (95% CI: 6.1-7.9) in GN. One-year survival rate was significantly higher in GN than in mFFX (44% vs. 67%, p = 0.0006). Incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (47% vs. 45%), diarrhea (1.4% vs. 2.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (4.2% vs. 4.6%) were similar in each group. On the other hand, incidences of febrile neutropenia (8.5% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.06) and G-CSF use rate (21% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), anorexia (13% vs. 3%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in mFFX than those of GN. Conclusions: Patients treated with GN showed more favorable efficacy and survival. Incidences of most adverse events did not differ between mFFX and GN,whereas febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently in mFFX.

Correlation of biliary stenting with clinical outcome in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 349-349
Author(s):  
Luca Faloppi ◽  
Elena Maccaroni ◽  
Riccardo Giampieri ◽  
Maristella Bianconi ◽  
Alessandro Bittoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Obstructive Jaundice ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Biliary Stent ◽  
Toxicity Profile ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference

349 Background: The head of the pancreas is a common location for primary pancreatic tumour and therefore obstructive jaundice is a common complication deriving from this location. Although very important in the palliative treatment of this setting of patients, endoscopic procedures are an important source of complications, frequently influencing the prognosis. Aim of our analysis was to assess the clinical outcome of pancreatic cancer patients with biliary stent. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a population of metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients receiving at our Institution a first line chemotherapy between 2002 and 2010. Results: 163 patients were eligible for our analysis, 29 (18%) carried a biliary stent before first line treatment. A statistically significant difference in time to progression (TTP) was found in patients with or without biliary stent (respectively 2.77 months vs 4.27 months p=0,03). Clinical characteristics were homogeneous between the two groups (age, sex, performance status, stage, objective response rate, chemotherapy performed, toxicity profile). Overall survival analysis was worse in patients with biliary stent (5.93 months vs 8.33 months). In the group of patients with biliary stent toxicity was worse in patients receiving a combination chemoterapy (GEMOX). Conclusions: In our population placement of biliary stent seems to have a negative prognostic role in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Our data also show that in patients with biliary stent the toxicity profile of chemotherapy may influence treatment adherence and clinical outcome. These observations seem to suggest that patients with obstructive jaundice even when successfully treated with plastic or metal stent may still represent a group of patients with a worse clinical outcome, not suitable for an intensive first-line approach such as FOLFIRINOX.

Prognostic impact of chemoradiation-related lymphopenia in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 439-439
Author(s):  
Daniel W Kim ◽  
Grace Lee ◽  
Colin D. Weekes ◽  
David P. Ryan ◽  
Aparna Raj Parikh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Grade 3

439 Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) induced lymphopenia is common and associated with poorer survival in multiple solid malignancies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of lymphopenia in patients with nonmetastatic, unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated by neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil [5FU]/leucovorin/irinotecan/oxaliplatin) followed by CRT. We hypothesized that severe lymphopenia would correlate with worse survival. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this single-institution retrospective study were: 1) biopsy-proven diagnosis of unresectable PDAC, 2) absence of distant metastasis, 3) receipt of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX followed by CRT, and 4) absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) available prior to and two months after initiating CRT. In general, CRT consisted of 5FU or capecitabine and RT with 58.8 Gy over 28 fractions. Lymphopenia was graded according to CTCAE v5.0. The primary variable of interest was lymphopenia at two months, dichotomized by ALC of < 0.5/μl (Grade 3 lymphopenia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Cox modeling and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to perform survival analyses. Results: A total of 138 patients were identified. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 16 months. Median age was 65. Fifty-six percent were female, 86% were Caucasian, and 97% had ECOG ≤1. Median tumor size was 3.8 cm. Tumor location was pancreatic head in 63%, body in 22%, tail in 8%, and neck in 7%. Median baseline ALC for the entire cohort was 1.5 k/ul. Two months after initiating CRT, 106 (77%) had severe (Grade 3 or worse) lymphopenia. While there were no significant differences in baseline patient or disease characteristics, patients with severe lymphopenia received higher doses of RT with longer duration of treatment compared to those without severe lymphopenia. On multivariable Cox model, severe lymphopenia at two months was significantly associated with increased hazards of death (HR = 4.00 [95% CI 2.03-7.89], p < 0.001). Greater number of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX cycles received prior to CRT was associated with lower hazards of death (HR = 0.84 [95% CI 0.77-0.92], p < 0.001). The 12-month OS was 73% vs. 90% in the cohort with vs. without severe lymphopenia, respectively (log-rank p < 0.001). Conclusions: Treatment-related lymphopenia is common and severe lymphopenia may be a prognostic marker of poorer survival in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Closer observation in high-risk patients and minimization of RT dose and duration are potential approaches to mitigating CRT-related lymphopenia. Our findings also suggest an important role of the host immunity in pancreatic cancer outcomes, supporting the ongoing efforts of immunotherapy trials in pancreatic cancer.

Anlotinib Plus Toripalimab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Study Protocol for An Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Phase II Study (ATNPA)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingwen Chen ◽  
Yiqian Liu ◽  
Yizhi Zhu ◽  
Shiyun Cui ◽  
Chongqi Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Combination Strategy

Abstract Background There have not been standard second-line or maintenance regimens with definite survival benefits so far for patients with pancreatic carcinoma who have lost the opportunity of curable resections or failed first-line chemotherapy. Anlotinib, a potent small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits anti-angiogenic and anti-tumour effects by specifically binding to multiple targets such as VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, c-Kit and Ret. Toripalimab, a novel anti-PD-1 mAb, has been proved to significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in various solid tumours with manageable toxicities when combining with cytotoxic chemotherapy. We design this study to assess the combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel as a second-line or maintenance therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). Patients and Methods: This is an open-label, non-randomized, single-arm phase Ⅱ study, aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety profile of the above-mentioned combination strategy in first-line therapy-failed LAPC or MPC. Totally 53 patients are to be enrolled and receive anlotinib (12 mg, po. qd.) plus toripalimab (240 mg, ivgtt. q3w.) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2, ivgtt, d1, d8) every 3 weeks as a cycle until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. The primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary end points include OS, disease control rate (DCR), object response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and safety. Enrollment started in April 2021, and follow-up will be finished in April 2023. Discussion and Significance: Combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel may promote vessel normalization and drug delivery, and activate the immune response, thus exerting synergistic anti-tumour effects and counteracting the immunosuppressive microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. As the first intending to assess this combination in pancreatic cancer, this study will provide comprehensive evidence for second-line or maintenance therapy of LAPC and MPC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: ATNPA, NCT04718701. Registered January 22, 2021. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04718701?term=NCT04718701&draw=2&rank=1)

scholarly journals Resection of Locally Advanced Pancreatic Neoplasms after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine following FOLFIRINOX Failure

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 422-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hahn ◽  
Ahmet Ayav ◽  
Anthony Lopez
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Neoplasms ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Vascular Involvement ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Past ◽  
Single Center Experience

The incidence of pancreatic cancer has dramatically increased over the past years, but the prognosis has not improved. Between 30 and 40% of tumors are considered locally advanced, essentially due to vascular involvement. In recent years, new chemotherapy protocols with high response rates have been developed. FOLFIRINOX seems to be an interesting option in this situation, but hematologic toxicity could be an obstacle to its prescription. Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine offer significant response rates with a reasonable safety profile. We report here a single-center experience of 2 cases with a locally advanced pancreatic cancer initially considered unresectable, progressive after first-line neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, and then treated with second-line nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine chemotherapy.

Randomized Controlled Trial Of Dalteparin For Primary Thromboprophylaxis For Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) In Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (APC): Risk Factors Predictive Of VTE

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 580-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saroj Vadhan-Raj ◽  
Xiao Zhou ◽  
Gauri R. Varadhachary ◽  
Javle Milind ◽  
David Fogelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Activation Markers ◽  
Compression Ultrasound ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
D Dimer

Abstract Background Risk of VTE is high in cancer patients, especially, in patients with APC. Treatment with chemotherapy further increases the risk. Purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin in reducing the incidence of VTE in APC patients planned to start chemotherapy; and to determine the baseline risk factors/biomarkers predictive of VTE. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer planned to start chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to dalteparin vs control arms, stratified for the presence of metastasis and central venous catheter (CVC). The treatment arm received dalteparin 5000 U SQ daily for 16 weeks during chemotherapy and the control arm received chemotherapy alone. Bilateral compression ultrasound of the lower extremities was performed at baseline, and during study (weeks-8 and-16). In addition, blood was collected to identify biomarkers such as, plasma D-dimer levels, platelet activation markers (P-selectin), thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), prothrombin fragments 1 and 2 (F1+2), and cytokine levels. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of clinical and laboratory parameters were done to identify risk factors associated with the development of VTE. Results Of 87 patients enrolled, 75 were randomized to dalteparin (38 patients) or control (37 patients) arms; 8 did not meet the eligibility criteria (including 6 found positive for incidental VTE on screening ultrasound), and 4 withdrew consents before randomization. There were 41 males and 34 females; with median age 52 (range, 36-77 years). Over half of the patients (55% dalteparin arm and 54% control arm) completed 16 weeks on study. All 75 patients were evaluable for response in an intent-to-treat analysis. During the study, the incidence of VTE was 22% [8/37 patients; 2 pulmonary emboli (PE) and 6 deep vein thrombosis (DVT)] on the control arm as compared to 5% (2/38 patients; both DVT) on the dalteparin arm (p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, baseline plasma levels of D-dimer, ECOG performance status, presence of CVC, and prophylaxis with dalteparin were independent factors predictive of risk for VTE, as shown below. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two arms; however, there were higher proportion of patients with elevated baseline D-dimer levels in the dalteparin arm than the control arm (≥ 5000 ng/mL 16% vs 3%). Elevated baseline D-dimer level (≥ 5000 ng/mL) was also predictive of the presence of silent or asymptomatic VTE at screening for study entry (p=0.001), suggesting its potential value in identifying patients with silent VTE. Treatment with dalteparin was well tolerated; the main adverse events included minimal bruising (5/34, 15%), or pain (2/34, 6%) at the injection sites. There were no clinically significant bleeding episodes in the dalteparin arm. Conclusions The results of this study showed that the incidence of VTE is very high in patients with APC. Primary thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin was well tolerated and was associated with 75% reduction in the incidence of VTE in ambulatory patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer while receiving chemotherapy. Baseline risk factors such as elevated D-dimer levels may help identify high risk patients for primary thromboprophylaxis as well as patients with the presence of asymptomatic VTE. Disclosures: Vadhan-Raj: Eisai: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Fragmin (Dalteparin): Prophylaxis of VTE in ambulatory cancer patients while receiving chemotherapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document