ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-mediated signalling contributes to andgiogenesis and therapy resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Ramucirumab (RAM) is a VEGFR2 monoclonal antibody. We conducted a randomised phase II trial to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between mFOLFIRINOX with or without RAM in first line therapy of metastatic PDAC. METHODS: This phase II randomised, multi-centre, placebo controlled, double-blinded, trial randomly assigned to recurrent/metastatic PDAC patients to either mFOLFIRINOX/RAM (Arm A) or mFOLFIRINOX/placebo (Arm B). The primary endpoint is PFS at 9 months, and the secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), response rate and toxicity evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 86 subjects enrolled, 82 eligible (42 in Arm A versus 40 in Arm B). The mean age was comparable (61.7 versus 63.0, respectively). Majority were White (N = 69) and males (N = 43). The median PFS was 5.6 compared to 6.7 months, for Arm A and B, respectively. At 9 months, the PFS rates were 25.1% and 35.0% for Arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.322). The median OS in Arm A was 10.3 compared to 9.7 months for Arm B (p = 0.094). The disease response rate for Arm A was 17.7% compared to Arm B of 22.6%. FOLFIRINOX/RAM combination was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of RAM to FOLFIRINOX did not significantly impact PFS or OS. The combination was well tolerated (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02581215).
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Pancreatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pancreatic Neoplasms/etiology , Double-Blind Method , Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Ramucirumab , Pancreatic NeoplasmsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To examine the benefit of telehealth over current delivery options in oncology practices without genetic counselors. METHODS: Participants meeting cancer genetic testing guidelines were recruited to this multi-center, randomized trial comparing uptake of genetic services with remote services (telephone or videoconference) to usual care in six predominantly community practices without genetic counselors. The primary outcome was the composite uptake of genetic counseling or testing. Secondary outcomes compare telephone versus videoconference services. RESULTS: 147 participants enrolled and 119 were randomized. Eighty percent of participants in the telehealth arm had genetic services as compared to 16% in the usual care arm (OR 30.52, p < 0.001). Five genetic mutation carriers (6.7%) were identified in the telehealth arm, compared to none in the usual care arm. In secondary analyses, factors associated with uptake were lower anxiety (6.77 vs. 8.07, p = 0.04) and lower depression (3.38 vs. 5.06, p = 0.04) among those who had genetic services. There were no significant differences in change in cognitive or affective outcomes immediately post-counseling and at 6 and 12 months between telephone and videoconference arms. CONCLUSION: Telehealth increases uptake of genetic counseling and testing at oncology practices without genetic counselors and could significantly improve identification of genetic carriers and cancer prevention outcomes.
