Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Basic science, Endocrine tumours, Gastrointestinal tumours - colorectal & non-colorectal, Head and neck cancer (excluding thyroid), Melanoma and other skin tumours, Neuroendocrine tumours, Thyroid cancer, Tumour biology & pathology

1057 - Real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G) vs FOLFIRINOX (FFX) in patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (aPC)


21 Oct 2018


Poster display session: Basic science, Endocrine tumours, Gastrointestinal tumours - colorectal & non-colorectal, Head and neck cancer (excluding thyroid), Melanoma and other skin tumours, Neuroendocrine tumours, Thyroid cancer, Tumour biology & pathology


Cytotoxic Therapy

Tumour Site

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma


E. Gabriela Chiorean


Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii205-viii270. 10.1093/annonc/mdy282


E..G. Chiorean1, W.Y. Cheung2, G. Giordano3, G. Kim4, S. Al-Batran5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, 98109 - Seattle/US
  • 2 Oncology, Alberta Health Services, T2N 4L7 - Calgary/CA
  • 3 Oncology, IRRCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo/IT
  • 4 Oncology, 21st Century Oncology, Jacksonville/US
  • 5 Oncology, Nordwest-Krankenhaus, 60488 - Frankfurt am Main/DE


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1057


Current guidelines recommend chemotherapy with nab-P/G or FFX as the preferred first-line (1L) treatment for metastatic (m)PC pts with good performance status. However, no clinical trial has directly compared 1L nab-P/G vs FFX in mPC or aPC. We conducted a systematic review of the real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-P/G vs FFX in this setting.


Embase, Medline, and ASCO GI 2018 were searched through January 2018 for real world, retrospective studies directly comparing 1L nab-P/G vs FFX in mPC/aPC. Radiotherapy studies were excluded.


550/580 records did not meet eligibility criteria, mainly as they were not comparative (264) nor 1L (188). After removing 5 duplicates, the remaining 25 studies (16 mPC; 9 aPC) assessed > 5464 pts who received nab-P/G or FFX. Generally, a lower proportion of pts in the nab-P/G group (range, 59% - 100%) had an ECOG PS score of 0 or 1 vs FFX (82% - 100%) (12 studies). Median overall survival (OS; 19 studies) ranged from 5.5 mo to “not reached” for nab-P/G, and 8.6 to 15.9 mo for FFX (Table); median progression-free survival (12 studies) ranged from 4 to 8.5 mo and 3.7 to 11.7 mo, respectively. In 2 studies that reported OS based on ECOG PS, the median OS for pts with ECOG PS 0/1 was 12.1 and 14.1 mo for nab-P/G vs 11.4 and 13.7 mo for FFX. Overall response rates ranged from 10% to 41% for nab-P/G and 6% to 34% for FFX (4 studies), and disease control rates ranged from 50% to 92% and 56% to 89%, respectively (5 studies). Safety outcomes were heterogeneously reported in 1667 pts (10 studies) receiving nab-P/G or FFX (Table).Table: 724P

Studyn (1L)Median 1L OS, moMedian 1L PFS, moGrade ≥ 3 AEs
Beyer 2016 (mPC)1957712NRNRNRNR
Park 2016 (mPC)1896.19.9NRNRNRNR
Braiteh 2017 (mPC)122808.6a8.6aNRNRNeutropenia Febrile neutropenia Anemia Thrombocytopenia28% 1% 13% 11%30% 3% 6% 14%
Caponnetto 2017 (mPC)2023NRNR65NRNR
Cartwright 2017 (mPC)2551599.8b11.4bNRNRNRNR
Cherniawsky 2017 (aPC)cNRNR10116.98.8NRNR
Javed 2017 (mPC)801917.09.0NRNRNRNR
Kasi 2017 (aPC)c47 (33)107 (56)10.815.95.711.7Neutropenia Peripheral neuropathy Diarrhea Anemia Thrombocytopenia Elevated transaminases Elevated creatinine17% 6% 0% 31% 6% 6% 4%33% 6% 5% 14% 28% 4% 3%
Maeda 2017 (aPC)c9 (NR)16 (NR)11.513.16.16.3NRNR
Mañes-Sevilla 2017 (mPC)20159.
Muranaka 2017 (aPC)c22 (17)16 (1)Not reached9.96.53.7Neutropenia Peripheral neuropathy Febrile neutropenia Diarrhea Anemia Nausea Anorexia Thrombocytopenia Vomiting55% 0% 9% 0% 18% 0% 5% 14% 0%69% 0% 19% 0% 6% 6% 6% 6% 0%
Papneja 2017 (aPC)c33 (21)86 (70)9946NRNR
Shahda 2017 (aPC)cNRNR11.4-14.4d11.3-12.3d4.6-6.1d5.3-9.4dNRNR
Wang 2017 (aPC)c87 (66)92 (55)10.5 (10.0)14.1 (9.4)8.5 (8.3)8.4 (6.6)NRNR
Watanabe 2017e (mPC)657014. Peripheral neuropathy Febrile neutropenia Diarrhea Anorexia45% 5% 2% 2% 3%47% 4% 9% 1% 13%
Barrera 2018 (mPC)31448. Peripheral neuropathy Fatigue13% 7% 26%20% 4% 11%
Franco 2018 (aPC)c49 (NR)87 (NR)1313NRNRNRNR
Helen 2018 (aPC)cNRNRNR (5.5NR (8.8)NRNRNRNR
Hwang 2018 (mPC)14915911.
Kim 2018 (mPC)33731712.1f13.8fNRNRNRNR
Totalg1363 (1253)1528 (1306)

Reported as database persistence, a proxy for OS.


For pts with ECOG PS 0/1, OS was 12.1 mo for nab-P/G and 11.4 mo for FFX.


aPC includes mPC. The numbers in parentheses are for pts with mPC.


Biomarker study observing homologous recombination deficiency low vs high in each treatment regimen with data presented here as a range.


Modified FFX (no bolus 5-FU and reduced dose irinotecan).


For pts with ECOG PS 0/1, OS was 14.1 mo for nab-P/G and 13.7 mo for FFX.


Represents minimum as some studies did not report the number of pts. The numbers in parentheses are for pts with mPC. 1L, first line; AE, adverse event; aPC, advanced pancreatic cancer; FFX, FOLFIRINOX; mPC, metastatic pancreatic cancer; nab-P/G, nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine; NR, not reported; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.


Several real-world studies have compared the effectiveness of nab-P/G vs FFX, highlighting the clinical significance. A systematic review of these studies shows that nab-P/G and FFX have comparable effectiveness in mPC/aPC. Differences were observed in the toxicity profiles for the 2 regimens, which may drive treatment decisions. Table. Studies reporting OS, PFS, and safety.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Celgene Corporation.


Celgene Corporation.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Editorial assistance was provided by Narender Dhingra, MediTech Media.


E.G. Chiorean: Advisor: Celgene, Genentech, Novocure, Pfizer; Research funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Ignyta, Incyte, Lilly, Stemlive. G. Giordano: Honoraria: Celgene, Sanofi; Consultancy: Celgene; Travel accomodation expenses, Celgene. G. Kim: Consultant, Speaker: Celgene, Ipsen. S-E. Al-Batran: Consultancy: Bristo-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, Merck, Roche, Servier; Speaker: Celgene, Lilly, Nordic Bioscience, Roche; research funding, Celgene, Hospira, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Vibor. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.