Abstract 82P
Background
FOLFIRINOX is a global standard first-line (1L) treatment for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (APDAC), but the second-line option after its failure remains yet defined. Current study evaluated the efficacy and safety of EndoTAG-1 (paclitaxel in cationic liposomes) plus gemcitabine as a second-line treatment in APDAC after FOLFIRINOX.
Methods
Patients with histologically confirmed APDAC and failed to 1L FOLFIRINOX were eligible. Participants were stratified by disease stage (metastatic vs. locally advanced) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1) and then randomized 1:1 to receive either EndoTAG-1 22 mg/m2 twice weekly plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks (ET+Gem arm) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 alone (Gem arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of the intent-to-treat population.
Results
A total of 218 patients were enrolled: median age 62.0, 59.6% male, 52.8%/30.3% White/Asian, 86.7% metastatic diseases at enrollment, 44.5%/55.5% ECOG PS 0/1. Of the 108 subjects in the ET+Gem group and 110 subjects in the Gem group, six (5.6%) and eight (7.3%) did not receive assigned treatment, respectively. On intent-to-treat analysis, the median OS for patients in ET+Gem arm was 226 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 183-278) vs. 209 days (158-248) for Gem arm (p=0.665). The median PFS was 113 days (79-168) for the ET+Gem arm vs. 110 days (60-115) for the Gem armp (=0.435), whiles the objective response rate (ORR) in corresponding arm was 11.5% and 6.8%, respectively (p=0.263). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) grade 3 and above occurred in 82 patients (82/102, 80.4%) of the ET+Gem arm and 72 patients (72/102, 70.6%) in the Gem arm. Grade 5 / death related to TEAEs occurred for six patients (5.9%) in the ET+Gem arm and 11 patients (10.8%) in the Gem arm.
Conclusions
Add-on EndoTAG-1 did not significantly improve survival over gemcitabine alone in patients with FOLFIRINOX-refractory APDAC. No new safety issues were noted and the safety profile is manageable.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
SynCore Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
Funding
SynCore Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
Disclosure
The author has declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
79P - Outcomes by baseline liver function in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with tremelimumab and durvalumab in the phase III HIMALAYA study
Presenter: Arndt Vogel
Session: Poster viewing 02
83P - Impact of viral aetiology in the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab (T) plus durvalumab (D) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC)
Presenter: Stephen Chan
Session: Poster viewing 02
84P - Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A large real life worldwide population
Presenter: Margherita Rimini
Session: Poster viewing 02
86P - Outcomes by primary tumour location in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer treated with durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in the phase III TOPAZ-1 study
Presenter: Aiwu Ruth He
Session: Poster viewing 02
87P - Socio-demographic disparities in esophageal cancer: A SEER analysis
Presenter: Beas Siromoni
Session: Poster viewing 02
88P - Sintilimab plus anlotinib as second-line therapy for metastatic or recurrent gallbladder carcinoma (GBC): A single-arm, phase II study
Presenter: Qingbao Cheng
Session: Poster viewing 02