Clinical outcomes of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine–nab paclitaxel for metastatic pancreatic cancer in the real world setting

Background/objectives The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing in developed countries. The incorporation of new therapies, to the first-line treatment of patients with good performance status led to better survival in clinical trials. However, there is a wide variability in their use and some concerns about the treatment of elderly patients who were not included in the clinical trials. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter study. Data from consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treated with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) were analysed to evaluate efficacy (overall survival—OS) and toxicity. Results A total of 119 patients were included. 49.6% were treated with FFX and 50.4% with GNP in first-line. The median OS was 12 months with no statistically significant differences between both regimens (12.7 m for FFX vs 10.2 m for GnP). Elevated Ca 19.9 levels and neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increased the risk of death. Patients who received both regimens in first/second line had a median OS longer than 15 months whichever the sequence. 32 patients (27%) were older than 70-y. 54% patients received a second-line treatment, 56% in the FFX group and 44% in the GnP group. The median OS for patients older than 70 was 9.5 m versus 12.3 m for patients younger than 70. Progression of the disease was the cause of death in 67.6% of the patients. Conclusions In our setting, the use of FFX and GnP for treating mPC is quite similar, but superiority could not be demonstrated for any of the schemes in the first line. OS was determined by basal levels of Ca 19.9 and NLR. Patients receiving both regimens in first/second line whichever the sequence, exhibited the best survival rates. In our series, elderly patients had poorer survival rates (AU)

Clinical outcomes of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel for metastatic pancreatic cancer in the real world setting.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing in developed countries. The incorporation of new therapies, to the first-line treatment of patients with good performance status led to better survival in clinical trials. However, there is a wide variability in their use and some concerns about the treatment of elderly patients who were not included in the clinical trials. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter study. Data from consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treated with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) were analysed to evaluate efficacy (overall survival-OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included. 49.6% were treated with FFX and 50.4% with GNP in first-line. The median OS was 12 months with no statistically significant differences between both regimens (12.7 m for FFX vs 10.2 m for GnP). Elevated Ca 19.9 levels and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increased the risk of death. Patients who received both regimens in first/second line had a median OS longer than 15 months whichever the sequence. 32 patients (27%) were older than 70-y. 54% patients received a second-line treatment, 56% in the FFX group and 44% in the GnP group. The median OS for patients older than 70 was 9.5 m versus 12.3 m for patients younger than 70. Progression of the disease was the cause of death in 67.6% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, the use of FFX and GnP for treating mPC is quite similar, but superiority could not be demonstrated for any of the schemes in the first line. OS was determined by basal levels of Ca 19.9 and NLR. Patients receiving both regimens in first/second line whichever the sequence, exhibited the best survival rates. In our series, elderly patients had poorer survival rates.

First-line mFOLFOX plus cetuximab followed by mFOLFOX plus cetuximab or single-agent cetuximab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Phase II randomised MACRO2 TTD study.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, randomised, and phase II study evaluated mFOLFOX+cetuximab followed by maintenance mFOLFOX+cetuximab or single-agent cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (NCT01161316). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously, untreated mCRC patients (wild-type KRAS) were randomised to receive cetuximab+mFOLFOX-6 (8 cycles for 2 weeks) followed by maintenance therapy: single-agent cetuximab (Arm-A) or mFOLFOX-6 + cetuximab (Arm-B) until progression. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 9 months. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients (median [range] age 60 [33-74] years) were randomised (2:1): 129 Arm-A versus 64 Arm-B. PFS at 9 months (95% confidence interval) showed non-inferiority between arms (Arm-A/Arm-B: 60 [52, 69]%/72 [61, 83]%, p [non-inferiority]<0.1). There were no statistically significant differences in the PFS (Arm-A/Arm-B: 9 [95% CI 7, 10] months/10 [7,13] months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19 [0.80, 1.79]) or overall survival (23 [19, 28] months/27 [18, 36] months, HR = 1.24 [0.85, 1.79]) between arms. The objective response rate was also similar (48 [39, 57]%/39 [27, 52]%). The safety profile was similar between arms, and all patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) (Arm-A/Arm-B grade ≥III AEs: 70%/68%). The most common grade ≥III AEs were as follows: neutropenia (Arm-A/Arm-B: 28%/26%), rash acneiform (15%/24%) and sensory neuropathy (2%/15%) in any group. Arm-A was associated with less grade ≥III rash and sensory neuropathy and a lower rate of serious AEs (20%/27%). CONCLUSION(S): This phase II exploratory trial with a non-inferiority design suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent cetuximab following mFOLFOX+cetuximab induction could be a valuable option compared with mFOLFOX+cetuximab treatment continuation. We await phase III trials to confirm single-agent cetuximab as maintenance therapy in mCRC patients.