Saving the best to the last: Can we wait for second-line?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 284-284
Author(s):  
Renana Barak ◽  
Barliz Waissengrin ◽  
Ido Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Good Treatment ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

284 Background: A common perception of some oncologists is that the vast majority of their patients with metastatic disease will receive second-line treatment upon progression. Therefore, “saving” good treatment options for the future may be acceptable. We aimed to examine whether this perception correlates with real-life. Methods: Using an oncology electronic database, consisting of >27,000 patients treated at our institution, we selected consecutive patients with metastatic or locally advanced lung, colon, pancreatic, bile duct and gastric cancers who started standard first-line. We then assessed the correlation between proceeding to second-line therapy and demographic and clinical variables, including age, gender, initial performance status, BMI, hemoglobin, WBC, creatinine, glucose, calcium, as well as duration on first line therapy and survival. Results: A total of 492 patients met the inclusion criteria. Their median age was 67 and 285 were men. Their diagnoses were colon (169), lung (102), pancreas (101), bile duct (65) and gastric (55) cancers. Only 52% (255) received second-line treatment for at least 30 days (36% colon, 26% lung, 18% pancreas, 9% bile duct and 11% gastric). Receipt of second-line therapy was associated with disease site (P=0.001) as well as with age, with patients who received second-line being 5 years younger compared to those who did not (64 vs. 69 years, P=0.004). Patients who reached second-line had better performance status and higher hemoglobin level at presentation, additionally their median duration on first-line chemotherapy was substantially longer (P<0.007 for all comparisons). Survival of patients not starting second-line was significantly shorter across all tumor types (19.8 vs 6.5 months P=0.001). General deterioration and toxicity were the major reasons for avoiding second-line therapy at progression, 43% and 30% respectively. Conclusions: These real-life data indicate that only half of the patients starting standard doublet or triplet treatment for advanced cancers will commence second-line therapy; and this can be hardly predicted in advance using standard clinical and laboratory characteristics. Our data challenge the practice of saving good treatment options for subsequent lines, and call for the development of tools enabling prediction of response and tolerance to treatment, pursuing for better patient selection and patient-tailored therapy.

Saving the best to the last: Can we wait for second-line?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7013-7013
Author(s):  
Renana Barak ◽  
Ido Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Good Treatment ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Real Life Data ◽  
Disease Site ◽  
Tumor Types

7013 Background: A common perception of some oncologists is that the vast majority of their patients with metastatic disease will receive 2nd line treatment upon progression. Therefore, “saving” good treatment options for the future may be acceptable. We aimed to examine whether this perception correlates with real-life. Methods: Using an oncology electronic database, consisting of >27,000 patients treated at our institution, we selected consecutive patients with metastatic or locally advanced lung, colon, pancreatic, bile duct and gastric cancers who started standard 1st line, consisting of at least doublet therapy. We then assessed the correlation between proceeding to 2nd line therapy and demographic and clinical variables, including age, gender, initial BMI, hemoglobin, WBC, creatinine, glucose, calcium, as well as survival. Results: A total of 553 patients met the inclusion criteria. Their median age was 66 and 317 were men. Their diagnoses were colon (197), lung (129), pancreas (101), bile duct (71) and gastric (55) cancers. Only 59% received at least one course of 2nd line treatment (61.9% colon, 65.1% lung, 66.3% pancreas, 35.2% bile duct and 54.5% gastric). Probability of reaching 2nd line treatment was associated with disease site (P=0.0002) as well as with age, with patients who received 2nd line being 2.5 years younger compared to those who did not (65 vs. 67.5 years, P=0.008). No other factor, including gender, BMI or standard laboratory values at presentation could predict chances of proceeding to 2nd line, for either the whole group or by primary cancer origin. Survival of patients not starting 2nd line was also significantly shorter across all tumor types. Conclusions: These real-life data indicate that only 60% of patients starting standard doublet or triplet treatment for advanced cancers will commence 2nd line therapy; and this cannot be reliably predicted in advance using standard clinical and laboratory characteristics. Our data challenge the practice of saving good treatment options for subsequent lines, and call for the development of tools enabling prediction of response and tolerance to treatment, pursuing for better patient selection and patient-tailored therapy.

Gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin as second-line therapy of advanced and metastatic NSCLC

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18157-18157
Author(s):  
A. J. Alencar ◽  
M. Blaya ◽  
L. Raez ◽  
N. Farfan ◽  
G. Lopes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organ Failure ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Multi Organ Failure

18157 Background: Single agent gemcitabine is active as second line therapy in NSCLC. Oxaliplatin may be non-cross resistant with the other platinum-containing agents used as first-line therapy in NSCLC. The combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) is synergistic in pre-clinical models. Methods: A phase II, non-randomized trial was designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 over 100 min in combination with oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 over 2 hours both given on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Patients with NSCLC were eligible if they had progressed after first line treatment. Primary endpoint was tumor response rate. Planned sample size is 30 patients over a period of 2 years. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- Lung (FACT-L) v.4 questionaire was used to assess quality of life of patients on therapy. Results: Twenty-two patients have been enrolled. 13 males (59%) and 9 females (41%). 15 Hispanic (68%), 4 Caucasian (18%), and 3 African-American (13%). Median age is 55 yrs. Histologic subtypes are as follows: adenocarcinoma, 12; NSCLC not otherwise specified 7; squamous cell carcinoma, 3. Nine patients had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0 (41%) and 13 had a PS of 1 (59%). Two patients were never smokers. A total of 56 cycles have been administered (median 2, range 1 to 6). GEMOX as second-line therapy was given to 18 patients (81%), third-line to 4 patients (18%). Two patients died on study from disease progression leading to respiratory and multi-organ failure. The following Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were seen in 2 patients each: fatigue, dyspnea, anemia, and multi-organ failure. Cancer pain was seen in 1 patient. Twenty patients are available for assessment of response. Two patients had a confirmed partial response (10%) and another eight had stable disease (40%). Preliminary results of FACT-L analysis in 19 pts shows improvement in Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) score in 25% of the patients after 2 cycles of therapy. Conclusions: Combination gemcitabine and oxaliplatin is active and well tolerated as second line treatment for NSCLC. Improvement of LCS score after 2 cycles suggests a clinical benefit that is beyond the observed response rate of 10%. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Novel Agents Versus Conventional Drugs for the Treatment of Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Patients: Experience of a Single Center over the Last 25 Years

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 5385-5385
Author(s):  
Sara Grammatico ◽  
Elisabetta Lisi ◽  
Laura Cesini ◽  
Maria Letizia Vallone ◽  
Saveria Capria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Life ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Abstract Background: New active classes of drugs such as proteasome inhibitors (e.g., bortezomib) and immunomodulatory drugs-IMiDs (e.g., thalidomide and lenalidomide) are nowadays the standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients, alone or in association with old agents. The achievement of deeper responses, using novel agents instead of conventional treatment, is a significant prognostic factor for the outcome of these patients, resulting in an improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report the single center real life comparison between the outcome achieved with old agents with that obtained with novel agents in young MM patients treated at first relapse over a 25-year period. Patients and Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 258 young (median age 55 years; range 19-69) newly diagnosed MM patients treated at our Center between August 1989 and November 2014. All patients received old or novel agents followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (single or tandem) as first line treatment. Of the 258 patients, 144 experienced a progression of disease after a median of 34 months (range 7-195) and received old or novel agents as second line therapy. Old agents used as first and second line treatment were prevalently vincristine, doxorubicin and dexamethasone (VAD), melphalan and prednisone (MP) or cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD); novel agents included velcade-based or IMiD-based regimens. Our cohort was divided into four different groups: 1) 51 patients treated with old agents as first and second line therapy (35.4%);2) 79 patients treated with old agents as first line therapy and novel agents as second line therapy (54.8%);3) 2 patients treated with novel agents in induction therapy and subsequently with old agents as second line therapy (1.4%);4) 12 patients treated with novel agents both in first and second line (8.3%). Our analysis focused on groups 1 and 2; group 3 was not considered for the small number of patients and because the choice of treatment was based exclusively on a worsening of the clinical condition; group 4 was not included for the small number of patients and because of the short follow-up. Our aim was to compare the results obtained in patients treated only with old agents both as first and second line treatment with the outcome of patients who received old agents as first treatment and novel agents as second line treatment, to assess the impact of novel agents in real life MM patients' management. Results: The OS at 5 years for patients of group 2 was significantly higher than that of group 1 patients (41.6% vs 14.1%); even at 10 years, the OS was significantly better for group 2 (20.4% vs 2.4%, p<0.0001); median OS was 4.1 years for group 2 and 1.4 years for group 1. The PFS was superior for patients treated with novel agents as second line treatment both at 5 years (12% vs 6.9%) and at 10 years (10% vs 2.3%) (p=0.02); median PFS was 1.4 years for group 2 and 0.7 for group 1. PFS2, considered as the interval from the start of first line treatment to the date of second relapse, showed also significantly better results for group 2 patients compared to group 1 patients both at 5 (61.8% vs 33.3%) and 10 years (25.7% vs 9.2%). Median PFS2 was 6.8 years for group 2 and 3.7 years for group 1(p=0.0002). Conclusions: We analyzed the effect of the introduction of novel agents in a cohort of young MM patients treated at our Center over a 25-year period, between 1989 and 2014. Patients treated in the earlier years received old agents both as first and second line treatment, while in more recent years all patients who experienced a relapse were treated with novel agents as second line treatment. Our analysis underlines that patients receiving novel agents witnessed a significantly better OS and PFS compared to patients treated only with old agents. When focusing on PFS2, we could determine that the duration of response obtained with proteasome inhibitors and IMiDs was significantly longer than that obtained with conventional chemotherapy. This currently ongoing study and a longer follow-up in a larger number of group 4 patients will allow to conclusively define the true real life impact of novel agents when used both as first and second line treatment for the management of young MM patients. Disclosures Petrucci: Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Mundipharma, BMS: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2545-2556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davendra P.S. Sohal ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Alok Khorana ◽  
Mehmet S. Copur ◽  
Christopher H. Crane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Comorbidity Profile

Purpose In 2016, ASCO published a guideline to assist in clinical decision making in metastatic pancreatic cancer for initial assessment after diagnosis, first- and second-line treatment options, palliative and supportive care, and follow-up. The purpose of this update is to incorporate new evidence related to second-line therapy for patients who have experienced disease progression or intolerable toxicity during first-line therapy. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on second-line therapy published between June 2015 and January 2018. Recommendations on other topics covered in the 2016 Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Guideline were endorsed by the Expert Panel. Results Two new studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan can be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, an ECOG PS of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus irinotecan or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin may be offered when there is a lack of availability of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan; gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Testing select patients for mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability is recommended, and pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mismatch repair deficiency or high microsatellite instability tumors. Endorsed recommendations from the 2016 version of this guideline for computed tomography, baseline performance status and comorbidity profile, defining goals of care, first-line therapy, and palliative care are also contained within the full guideline text. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with metastatic cervical cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Xiaoyun Pan ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
John White ◽  
Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour ◽  
Christian Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Line Therapy

51 Background: In 2021, 14,480 patients are estimated to be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US; 16% of patients are expected to have metastatic disease for whom the 5-year survival rate is 17.6% per SEER estimates. Patients with metastatic cervical cancer (mCC) are treated mainly with systemic therapy. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, demographics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with mCC receiving systemic therapy. Methods: Eligible women had been diagnosed with cervical cancer, as evidenced by >2 outpatient or >1 inpatient claim in the Optum Research Database from January 2014 through January 2020. Patients were included if they had metastasis within 6 months before or after cervical cancer diagnosis, with evidence of systemic treatment on or after the latter of a claim date for cervical cancer disease or metastatic disease. The index date was the first-line treatment initiation date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of pre-index continuous enrollment. The top 3 treatment regimens and median treatment duration by line of therapy were described. All-cause per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs (2019 US dollars), including plan and patient paid amounts, were reported for full follow-up period from first-line and second-line therapy initiation. Results: The study sample consisted of 778 patients (mean age, 59 years; commercial, 58%; Medicare Advantage, 42%). The mean (median) follow-up period was 14 (9) months. Top baseline comorbidities were diseases of the urinary system (71%) and diseases of the female genital organs (70%), and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7. In the first line, 80% of patients received platinum-based therapy and 23% received bevacizumab (bev). Of 778 patients, only 294 (38%) received second-line therapy, with 34% receiving bev. Top first-line treatment regimens were carboplatin + paclitaxel (27%), cisplatin (21%), and bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (10%); the median (95% CI) duration of treatment was 3.4 (3.1-3.7) months. Top second-line treatment regimens were bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (13%), carboplatin + paclitaxel (11%), and pembrolizumab (6%); the median duration of treatment was 3.8 (3.1-4.2) months. Mean all-cause total PPPM costs were $19,519 from first-line and $22,660 second-line therapy initiation (table). Conclusions: This study indicates that real-world mCC patients have short treatment durations and significant economic burden with first-line and second-line therapy. Novel therapies associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with mCC may provide economic benefit.[Table: see text]

Intravenous vinorelbine as first-line and second-line therapy in advanced breast cancer.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2722-2730 ◽  
Author(s):  
B L Weber ◽  
C Vogel ◽  
S Jones ◽  
H Harvey ◽  
L Hutchins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

PURPOSE We evaluated single-agent intravenous (IV) vinorelbine as first- and second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients who were not resistant to anthracyclines. Objective tumor response (TR) and toxicity were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 107 women were enrolled onto this multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase II study. Patients were stratified into first- and second-line treatment groups, based on prior treatment history. Vinorelbine was initially given at 30 mg/m2/wk, with dose modification for toxicity as indicated. Therapy was continued until disease progression or severe toxicity mandated withdrawal or until the patient asked to be removed from the study. RESULTS The objective response rate for all patients was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 44%): 35% (95% CI, 23% to 48%) for first-line patients and 32% (95% CI, 20% to 47%) for second-line patients. Nine first-line and three second-line patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median duration of objective response was 34 weeks in both groups. The overall survival durations of first- and second-line patients were 67 weeks and 62 weeks, respectively. Granulocytopenia was the predominant dose-limiting toxicity. Two patients died on study as a result of granulocytopenic sepsis. CONCLUSION Single-agent vinorelbine is an effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line therapy of ABC. The results of this study confirm the findings of similar international trials and suggest vinorelbine should be considered a valid treatment option for patients with ABC and a potential component in future combination regimens for this disease.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Determinants of first-line treatment selection in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Hui-Li Wong ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Yaling Yin ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Treatment Selection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

468 Background: Chemotherapy options currently available for the first-line treatment of advanced PDAC include FOLFIRINOX (FX), gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GP) and single agent gemcitabine (Gem). GP was introduced most recently and funded for clinical use in British Columbia (BC) in September 2014. In this retrospective analysis, we explore the impact of GP availability on first-line treatment selection and overall survival (OS) in advanced PDAC. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency provincial pharmacy database was used to identify patients (pts) who started FX, GP or Gem between January and August 2014 (pre-GP) or January and August 2015 (post-GP). Pts were eligible for inclusion if they received at least one cycle of first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. OS was defined as time from diagnosis of advanced PDAC to death and compared by treatment era, adjusting for age, ECOG, comorbidities, disease extent and baseline CA19-9. Results: 286 pts fulfilled eligibility criteria: 88 (31%) with locally advanced and 198 (69%) with metastatic disease. 131 and 155 pts were treated in the pre- and post-GP eras respectively. Prior to GP approval, 44% and 49% of pts received Gem and FX; this decreased to 21% and 33% after GP funding, with 46% of pts receiving GP in the latter period. Nine (7%) pts received GP in the pre-GP era, either through self-pay or addition of nab-paclitaxel after approval. There were no significant differences in pt characteristics across both eras. 46% of pts who received GP post approval had ECOG ≥ 2. The proportion of pts receiving second-line therapy was lower in the post-GP era (22% vs. 38%). Median OS in the post-GP era was 8.1 vs. 10.1 months in the pre-GP era; adjusted HR 1.28 (95% CI 0.96–1.71). Pts with ECOG ≥ 2 who received GP had a median OS of 6.5 months. Conclusions: After GP was funded, it became the preferred first-line regimen for advanced PDAC. Its more frequent use instead of FX did not appear to compromise overall survival even though a substantial proportion of pts were ECOG ≥ 2 and few pts received second-line therapy.

Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with poor performance status.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15796-e15796
Author(s):  
Adarsh Das ◽  
Andrew Peter Dean ◽  
Domenic Higgs
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

e15796 Background: FOLFIRINOX is well known to be a highly effective treatment in pancreatic cancer for young patients with good performance status. As the original ACCORD study was carried out with patient’s performance status 0 or 1, many oncologists feel uncertain administering modified dose FOLFIRINOX (m-FOLFIRINOX) as a second-line therapy. We have previously reported our experience in 35 patients (aged 27 – 85) where we concluded that m-FOLFIRINOX can be administered safely with appropriate dose reductions. More recently, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Tong et al. concluded that m-FOLFIRINOX is a good choice of therapy even for those with poor performance status. This retrospective analysis assessed the efficacy of m-FOLFIRINOX in second-line treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: Using an electronic database, patients with either locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were identified who had received first-line gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, followed by second-line m-FOLFIRINOX between January 2013 and July 2018. All patients had an ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Fifty-two patients were identified, with 65% of the patients having metastatic pancreatic disease. Median age of patients was 75 (range, 27 – 86). Dose intensity of m-FOLFIRINOX was 65% for oxaliplatin, 68% for irinotecan, 18% for bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and 68% for infusional 5-FU. From diagnosis, the median OS of all patients was 45.0 months (95% CI, 25.0 – 63.0). The median OS of the locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 63.0 months (95% CI, 45.0 – 70.0) and 22.5 months (95% CI, 18.0, 38.0), respectively. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of m-FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel failure. These findings correlate with the findings of Tong et al.’s findings of the benefits of m-FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer in patients with poor performance status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document