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
109P - Economic evaluation of second-line treatment for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review
Presenter: Gagandeep Kaur
Session: Poster viewing 02
110P - Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of poor prognosis in advanced esophageal cancer
Presenter: Chaichana Chantharakhit
Session: Poster viewing 02
111P - Bicentric real-life analysis of the molecular portrait of patients with early onset metastatic biliary tract cancer
Presenter: Theresa Schmalfuss
Session: Poster viewing 02
112P - Prognostic role of sarcopenia before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer: A retrospective study
Presenter: Mastaneh Sanei
Session: Poster viewing 02
113P - Brain metastases in esophageal cancer patients who have been treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy: An inconsiderable complication
Presenter: Jun Liu
Session: Poster viewing 02
114P - Risk factors for oesophageal fistula: A life-threatening complication of treatment for oesophageal cancer
Presenter: Reo Omori
Session: Poster viewing 02
115P - Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) expression status in patients with cholangiocarcinoma
Presenter: Thanit Imemkamon
Session: Poster viewing 02
116P - Spleen as an organ at risk (OAR) in adjuvant chemoradiotherapy of gastric cancer: Retrospective dosimetric single institutional experience
Presenter: Preethi Shetty
Session: Poster viewing 02
117P - Immunoprofile of adenosquamous carcinoma in gastric cancer
Presenter: Cheng-Han Wu
Session: Poster viewing 02
118P - Association between stomach cancer with behavioral and dietary factors: A case control study from Nepal
Presenter: Arun Shahi
Session: Poster viewing 02