Abstract 2559
Background
The APACT trial compared disease-free survival in pts with surgically resected PA randomized to nab-P+GEM or GEM as adjuvant regimens. We compared the QoL impact of both regimens in the biggest cohort of pts (n = 379/arm) in which QoL was studied in this setting.
Methods
The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) scores were assessed in 12-week intervals at screening (BL), middle and end of treatment (EOT), and up to 2.5 years of follow-up (FU). A mixed model for repeated measures analysis adjusting for BL score was conducted to predict scores by arm at each visit. Time until definite deterioration (TUDD) and improvement (TUDI) were compared between arms, separately during treatment and FU, using a minimal important difference (MID) threshold of 10-points for all QLQ-C30 scales and scale-specific thresholds for PAN26.
Results
The proportion of pts with QoL data at EOT, year 1, and year 3 were 88%, 51%, and 17%, with similar attrition in both arms. The predicted differences between arms for global health (GH) and all but 1 subscale of the QLQ C-30 never reached the predefined MID threshold (Table). nab-P+GEM pts had meaningfully worse predicted scores than GEM pts on 6 of 17 PAN26 scales during treatment, but these differences persisted for only 2 scales at 2 FU visits. For TUDD and TUDI, nab-P+GEM pts deteriorated faster during treatment, but TUDD did not differ for domain-specific or GH scales between arms at FU, during which nab-P+GEM pts improved faster on some scales, including GH.Table:
684P QLQ-C30 and PAN26 scales assessed through MMRM, TUDD, and TUDI analyses demonstrating clinically and statistically significant differences between nab-P+GEM vs GEM
nab-P+GEM vs GEM Comparison | During Treatmenta | Follow-Upb | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLQ-C30 | PAN26 | QLQ-C30 | PAN26 | ||
MMRM analysis by arm: scales with clinically and statistically significant differences in mean predicted scoresc | Favoring GEM | RFe (67 vs 78 at MOT) | BIf (33 vs 22 at MOT) TAf (28 vs 15 at EOT) WEf (33 vs 23 at EOT) LAf (28 vs 18 at EOT) AEf (34 vs 25 at EOT) SXf (38 vs 31 at EOT) | - | TAf (19 vs 11 at w48) LAf (25 vs 16 at w36) |
Favoring nab-P+GEM | - | - | - | - | |
TUDD: scales with significant differences (hazard ratios for nab-P+GEM vs GEM)d,g | Favoring GEM | GH (1.4) PF (1.8) RF (1.4) SF (1.5) DY (1.5) | BI (1.7) TA (2.0) WE (2.3) AE (1.6) LA (1.3) SX (1.4) | - | - |
Favoring nab-P+GEM | - | PP (0.7) | - | LW (0.8) WE (0.6) | |
TUDI: scales with significant differences (hazard ratios for nab-P+GEM vs GEM)d,h | Favoring GEM | GH (0.5) PF (0.5) RF (0.6) SF (0.6) FA (0.6) PA (0.7) AL (0.7) | DS (0.8) BI (0.5) SX (0.5) TA (0.5) WE (0.4) DM (0.7) AE (0.6) FH (0.6) LA (0.6) | - | - |
Favoring nab-P+GEM | - | - | GH (1.7) PF (1.6) RF (1.4) SF (1.4) FA (1.4) | BI (1.6) SX (1.4) TA (1.7) IN (1.6) WE (2.1) LA (1.4) |
AE, treatment related adverse event; AL, appetite loss; BI, body image; DM, dryness of mouth; DS, digestive symptoms; DY, dyspnea; EOT, end of treatment; FA, fatigue; FH, worried about future health; GH, global health; IN, indigestion; LA, limited activities; MMRM, mixed model for repeated measures; MOT, middle of treatment; PA, pain; PF, physical function; PP, Pancreatic Pain; RF, role function; SF, social function; SX, sexual dysfunction; TA, taste change; TUDD, time until definite deterioration; TUDI, time until definite improvement; WE, weakness in arms and legs. w36 or w48 = clinically and statistically significantly up to week 36 or week 48. a During treatment = MOT and EOT. b Follow-up = EOT to week 156. c Mean predicted scores for nab-P+GEM vs GEM for visits until clinical and statistical differences persisted. d Hazard ratio not including 1.00. e Higher score indicates better QoL. f Higher score indicates worse QoL. g Hazard Ratio >1 indicate higher rate of deterioration and <1 indicate lower rate of deterioration in nab-P+GEM h Hazard Ratio >1 indicate higher rate of improvement and <1 indicate lower rate of improvement in nab-P+GEM
Conclusions
As expected, nab-P+GEM is associated with temporary reductions in some QoL dimensions vs GEM alone. Over the long term, QoL was not compromised by adding nab-P to GEM as adjuvant therapy for surviving and reporting pts.
Clinical trial identification
ABI-007-PANC-003.
Editorial acknowledgement
Pharmerit International.
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Celgene Corporation.
Disclosure
H. Riess: Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Leo-Pharma, Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer, Celgene, Leo Pharma. J. Braverman: Full / Part-time employment: Celgene Corporation. M. Reni: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Personal Fees: Celgene, Baxalta, Shire, eli-lilly, Pfizer, Novocure, Novartis, AstraZeneca. D. Oh: Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Taiho, ASLAN, Halozyme, Zymeworks; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca, Novartis, Array, Eli Lilly. T. Macarulla Mercade: Honoraria (self): Roche, Sanofi, Tesaro, Shire, Genzyme; Advisory / Consultancy: Baxalta, Celgene, H3B, QED, Shire; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Celgene, Sanofi/Aventis, Shire; Research grant / Funding (self): Agios, Aslan, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Genetech, Hallozyme, Immunomedics, Lilly, Merimarck, Millennium, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer, H3B, Merck, Sanofi. A. Shah: Full / Part-time employment: Pharmerit International; Non-remunerated activity/ies, Financial Support: Bayer, Celgene, Pfizer, Insmed. N. Joshi: Full / Part-time employment: Pharmerit International; Advisory / Consultancy, Consulting Fee: Celgene Corporation. M. Botterman: Honoraria (institution): Celgene, Bayer, Daiichi, BMS. E. Mantovani: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Celgene Corporation. B. Lu: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Celgene Corporation. M.A. Tempero: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie, Advance Medical, BioPharm Communications, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Ignyta, Pharmacyslics, Pharmcyte Biotech, Tocagen; Advisory / Consultancy, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, CPRIT, Immunovia; Research grant / Funding (self), Research Contract: Halozyme. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
5295 - Predictive factors and survival outcomes with stereotactic body radiation therapy in treatment of oligometastases in colorectal cancer
Presenter: Vibhay Pareek
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5887 - Factors of importance in procuring tumoroids from colorectal liver metastasis biopsies for precision medicine.
Presenter: Lars Henrik Jensen
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2196 - FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis (MA) to assess the performance of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) gene polymorphisms for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine (FP) toxicity
Presenter: Marie-Christine Etienne-Grimaldi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2859 - Treatments (tx) after progression to first-line FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (bev) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts): A pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE-2 studies by GONO.
Presenter: Daniele Rossini
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3888 - Randomized phase III study of sequential treatment with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (FP) plus bevacizumab (BEV) followed by the addition with oxaliplatin (OX) versus initial combination with OX+FP+ BEV in the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: The C-cubed study
Presenter: Takeshi Nagasaka
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1065 - Early tumour shrinkage (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and associated survival outcomes in patients (pts) with RAS wild type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) classified according to Köhne prognostic category: retrospective analysis of the panitumumab (Pmab) PRIME study
Presenter: Andrea Sartore-Bianchi
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1702 - Randomized phase II trial of CAPOX with planned oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy as adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection of colon cancer (CCOG-1302 study)
Presenter: Hiroyuki Yokoyama
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5104 - A metabolomic recurrence score for risk-stratification of elderly patients (pts) with early colorectal cancer (eCRC)
Presenter: Samantha Di Donato
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5285 - RAS mutant allele fraction in plasma predicts benefit to anti-angiogenic based first line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer
Presenter: Giulia Martini
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1790 - Impact of prophylactic systemic antibiotics (SA) on outcome of patients (pts) with RAS-wildtype (RAS-wt) metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) treated with cetuximab-based first-line therapy. Subgroup analysis of the german non-interventional study ERBITAG
Presenter: Stephan Sahm
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract