Hopital Notre Dame de CHUM, Montreal, QC, Canada
Mustapha Ali Tehfe , Scot D. Dowden , Hagen F. Kennecke , Robert Hassan El-Maraghi , Bernard Lesperance , Felix Couture , Richard Letourneau , Darryl Neil Penenberg , Alfredo Romano , Daniel D. Von Hoff
Background: Weekly nab-P + Gem is a new option for first-line treatment (Tx) of mPC. In the MPACT trial, nab-P/Gem demonstrated superior overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) vs Gem alone as first-line Tx of mPC (Table). Here we report a subgroup analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone from the Canadian cohort of the MPACT trial. Methods: Previously untreated pts (N = 861) with mPC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS], region, and the presence of liver metastases) to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle or Gem 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). Results: 63 pts from Canada enrolled in the MPACT trial. Baseline pt characteristics were well balanced. Median age was 61 years and KPS was similar for both groups and comparable to the intent-to-treat (ITT) populations. Primary lesion in the pancreatic head was more common among pts in the nab-P + Gem vs Gem arm (55% vs 30%); use of biliary stent was similar (33% nab-P + Gem; 27% Gem). Median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were longer with nab-P + Gem vs Gem (Table). Median Tx duration was 4.2 mo with nab-P + Gem vs 3.2 mo with Gem. Use of subsequent therapy was 30% in the nab-P + Gem arm vs 43% in the Gem arm. The median relative dose intensity for Gem was similar in each arm (81% nab-P + Gem vs 85% Gem). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs for nab-P + Gem vs Gem were neutropenia (22% vs 10%), fatigue (34% vs 33%), and neuropathy (25% vs 0%). Conclusions: Canadian pts participating in MPACT were similar to the ITT population and nab-P + Gem was well tolerated and showed improved median OS, PFS, and ORR vs Gem alone, although not statistically significant (likely due to the small number of pts). Clinical trial information: NCT00844649
Efficacy | nab-P + Gem | Gem | HR or RRR | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
ITT populationa | ||||
n | 431 | 430 | — | |
OS, median, mo | 8.5 | 6.7 | 0.72 | <0.001 |
PFS, median, mo | 5.5 | 3.7 | 0.69 | <0.001 |
ORR, % | 23 | 7 | 3.19 | <0.001 |
Canadian cohort | ||||
n | 33 | 30 | — | |
OS, median, mo | 11.9 | 7.1 | 0.76 | 0.373 |
PFS, median, mo | 7.2 | 5.2 | 0.65 | 0.224 |
ORR, % | 27 | 17 | 1.64 | 0.312 |
a Von Hoff D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013:369:1691-703.
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Dong-Sheng Zhang
2021 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Daniel John Renouf
2023 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Zev A. Wainberg
2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
First Author: Daniel John Renouf