Meeting
2021 ASCO Annual Meeting
Final survival results from a multicenter, randomized phase II trial of intravenous paclitaxel plus FOLFOX (ivPOF) and/or intraperitoneal paclitaxel plus FOLFOX (ipPOF) versus mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC): SYLT/FNF 004.
Authors
Shen Zhao
Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China
Shen Zhao , Rongbo Lin , Nan-Feng Fan , Yigui Chen , Xiaofeng Li , Peicheng Lin , Wujin Chen , Wenzheng Fang , Jinfeng Zhu , Hui Li , Jie Liu
Organizations
Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China, Medical Oncology, Quanzhou First Hospital, Quanzhou, China, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital. Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China, Department of Medical Oncology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, China, Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University in 900 Hospital of the Joint Logistics Team, Fuzhou, China, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China
Research Funding
No funding received
None
Background: Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival for SYLT/FNF 004 were previously reported in ASCO and ASCO-GI 2019. At that time, PFS was statistically significantly improved with ivPOF or ipPOF compared to mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of AGC; however, there were no significant between-treatment differences in OS. Herein, we report final survival results for this trial. Methods: Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatments: intravenous paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 + mFOLFOX6 omitting the 5-FU bolus (ivPOF); intraperitoneal paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + mFOLFOX6 omitting the 5-FU bolus (ipPOF); or mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 as a 46-hour continuous infusion). Treatment cycles were repeated every 14 days for up to 9 cycles. Thereafter, maintenance treatment with S-1 80 mg/m2/day for 14 days every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient refusal, or physician decision. The original study objective was to compare ivPOF or ipPOF vs. mFOLFOX6 for PFS. Due to slow accrual, the protocol was later amended to compare POF (ivPOF and ipPOF) with mFOLFOX6 for PFS. Results: Between Nov 2015 and May 2018, 89 subjects (30 ivPOF, 29 ipPOF, 30 mFOLFOX6) were enrolled. As of the data cutoff on Dec 31, 2020, median follow-up was 41 (IQR: 37-43) months. The median number of cycles administered was 7 (IQR: 4-9) for POF; 6 (IQR: 4-9) for ivPOF; 9 (IQR: 4-9) for ipPOF; and 4 (IQR: 3-9) for mFOLFOX6. Median PFS and OS, respectively, were 6.23 (95% CI: 4.90 to 9.07) and 10.17 (95% CI: 8.97 to 16.4) months for POF and 4.55 (95% CI: 2.73 to 6.87) and 6.87 (95% CI: 5.83 to 13.6) months for mFOLFOX6. Both PFS and OS were statistically significantly better with POF, ivPOF or ipPOF versus mFOLFOX6 (Table). Safety was consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: POF, ivPOF or ipPOF improved both PFS and OS compared with mFOLFOX6, with similarly manageable adverse effects. Clinical trial information: NCT02845908
| POF* (n=59) | ivPOF* (n=30) | ipPOF* (n=29) | mFOLFOX6 (n=30) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median PFS, mos. (95% CI) | 6.23 (4.90 to 9.07) | 6.52 (4.13 to 10.27) | 5.83 (4.43 to 10.93) | 4.55 (2.73 to 6.87) |
| P-value | 0.012 | 0.026 | 0.037 | |
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | 0.56 (0.35 to 0.88) | 0.56 (0.33 to 0.94) | 0.56 (0.33 to 0.96) | |
| Median OS, mos. (95% CI) | 10.17 (8.97 to 16.4) | 9.83 (7.70 to 19.2) | 11.03 (9.93 to 21.8) | 6.87 (5.83 to 13.6) |
| P-value | 0.014 | 0.043 | 0.029 | |
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | 0.57 (0.36 to 0.90) | 0.59 (0.35 to 1.00) | 0.54 (0.32 to 0.93) |
Note: *Comparison with mFOLFOX6.
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
Session Type
Poster Session
Session Title
Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary
Track
Gastrointestinal Cancer—Gastroesophageal, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary
Sub Track
Esophageal or Gastric Cancer
Clinical Trial Registration Number
NCT02845908
Citation
J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 15; abstr 4041)
DOI
10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.4041
Abstract #
4041
Poster Bd #
Online Only
Abstract Disclosures
Similar Abstracts
Abstract
2019 ASCO Annual Meeting
POF (paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) versus IP PAC (intraperitoneal paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) versus FOLFOX as a first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer (AGC): Update from a multicenter, randomized phase II trial, FNF-004 trial.
First Author: Rongbo Lin
Abstract
2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
Tislelizumab combined with POFI (irinotecan, paclitaxel, oxaliplatin and 5-FU/levoleucovorin) as first-line treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (AGC): Preliminary results of a single-arm, open-label phase I/II trial (SYLT-023).
First Author: Rongbo Lin
Abstract
2019 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
FOLFOX versus POF (Paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) versus IP PAC (Intraperitoneal Paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) as a first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer (AGC): A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, FNF-004 trial.
First Author: Rongbo Lin
Abstract
2019 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium
FOLFOX versus POF (Paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) versus IP PAC (Intraperitoneal Paclitaxel plus FOLFOX) as a first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer (AGC): A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, FNF-004 trial.
First Author: Rongbo Lin