Modified FOLFIRINOX versus sequential chemotherapy (FOLFIRI/FOLFOX) as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A real-world analysis.

Authors

null

Shun Tezuka

Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan

Shun Tezuka , Makoto Ueno , Satoshi Kobayashi , Manabu Morimoto , Shuhei Nagashima , Yusuke Sano , Hiroyuki Asama , Kuniyuki Kawano , Satoshi Tanaka , Taito Fukushima

Organizations

Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Medical Oncology Division, Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Japan, Kanagawa Cancer Hospital, Yokohama, Japan

Research Funding

No funding received
None

Background: Therapy options for second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and preferred regimens have not been established. This study compared the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) and sequential chemotherapy (FOLFIRI/FOLFOX) as second-line treatment for advanced PDAC. Methods: This was a retrospective single-center analysis of all patients who received mFFX or sequential chemotherapy between December 2014 and May 2019 as second-line treatment for advanced PDAC. The sequential arm included all patients intended to be treated with sequential chemotherapy even if finished with either FOLFIRI or FOLFOX. For efficacy analysis, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR)of all the patients, excluding those with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), were evaluated. For safety analysis, we evaluated the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events in all the patients. Results: Seventy-four patients (mFFX 44; sequential 30) were included.The patients characteristics (mFFX/sequential) are as follows:median age 64/67 years, performance status (ECOG) 0 50%/53%, and LAPC 16%/13%. In contrast to sequential therapy, the mFFX group showed better OS and RR. However, there was no significant difference between mFFX and sequential therapy in PFS (median 4.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-7.9] vs. 4.6 [95% CI 2.0-6.2] months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.51-1.56]; p = 0.657), OS (median 10.6 [95% CI 5.9-13.8] vs. 8.5 [95% CI 5.0-12.2] months; HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.37-1.41]; p = 0.318), and RR (8.1% vs. 3.8%; odds ratio 1.94 [95% CI 0.19-19.87]; p = 1.000). In the safety analysis, grade ≥3 rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and anorexia were 36.4%, 6.8%, and 16.0%, respectively, with mFFX and 0%, 0% and 3.3%, respectively, with sequential chemotherapy. Conclusions: Whereas certain trends were observed, there were no significant differences in efficacy between mFFX and sequential chemotherapy. Considering the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events with mFFX, sequential chemotherapy could be considered as one of the second-line treatment options for advanced PDAC.

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 Details

Meeting

2020 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session B: Hepatobiliary Cancer, Neuroendocrine/Carcinoid, Pancreatic Cancer, and Small Bowel Cancer

Track

Hepatobiliary Cancer,Neuroendocrine/Carcinoid,Pancreatic Cancer,Small Bowel Cancer,Other GI Cancer

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38, 2020 (suppl 4; abstr 711)

Abstract #

711

Poster Bd #

K22

Abstract Disclosures