First-line drug selection versus sequential treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: Does it really matter? Multi-institutional Canadian perspective.

Authors

null

Ivan Barrera

Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Ivan Barrera , Neha Papneja , Jill Ranger , Abhishek Papneja , Petr Novotny , Shahid Ahmed , Gerald Batist , Petr Kavan

Organizations

Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, Department of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, Jewish General Hospital-Segal Cancer Center, University of McGill, Montreal, QC, Canada, Jewish General Hospital-Segal Cancer Center, Montreal, QC, Canada, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, Segal Cancer Centre-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Educational and research grant provided by CELGENE Canada

Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and Gemcitabine with nab-Paclitaxel (GN) are both proven to be superior to Gemcitabine (G) in the first line treatment (1LTx) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Yet, the optimal 1LTx selection nor sequential Tx (ST) has not been fully established. Therefore, the best choice for 1LTx is a matter of debate often influenced by access to drugs. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes based on 1Ltx selection and ST in APC. Methods: We assessed patients (pts) with APC who received either FFX or GN as 1LTx during 2010-2019 at three Canadian institutions. As well as the ST used. The main objective was to assess survival. Kaplan method and log-rank test were used for survival curves. Results: This retrospective study included 231 pts; 1LTx included 143 pts on FFX and 88 pts on GN. FFX pts were predominantly male; 89(62.2%) vs 46(52.3%) and slightly younger (median age 62 vs 66) than GN. WHO performance status (PS) of 0 were 38 (28.4%) vs 14 (16.5%) and 1 were 90 (67.2%) vs 65 (76.5%) respectively. There were more grade 3-4 toxicity in FFX vs GN group: GI 55 (38.5%) vs 15 (17%) and hematologic 51 (35.4%) vs 20 (22.7%) respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia rates were similar in both regimens. The median PFS of FFX was 5.5 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.7) vs 5.1 (95% CI: 3.8-7.1) with GN (p=0.37). The median OS with FFX was 9.3 months (95% CI: 7.5-11.1) vs 10.2 (95% CI: 6.8-11.3) with GN (p=0.81). There were not statically significant. Table shows Tx frequency across 4LTx. 2LTx and beyond regimens included G, GN, FFX, Capecitabine, Irinotecan liposome plus 5-FU, Irinotecan and clinical trials. Conclusions: Our results revealed that pts who received 1LTx FFX or GN had similar PFS and OS even though 1LTx FFX group was younger with better PS, allowing to continue 2-4LTx more frequently when compare with 1LTx GN group. Therefore, 1LTx selection appear to have more impact in our pts rather than ST, whereas GN is less toxic and seems a preferable 1LTx choice for most pts. FFX could be reserved for young high-performance pts.

1LTx (N=231)2LTx N=102/231 (44%)3LTx N=30/102 (29.4%)4LTx N=7/102 (6.8%)
FFX143 (62%)60.8%67%71.4%
GN88 (38%)39.2%33%28.6%

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

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Real-World Evidence

Citation

J Clin Oncol 38, 2020 (suppl 4; abstr 673)

Abstract #

673

Poster Bd #

J4

Abstract Disclosures