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
4413 - Infigratinib versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 gene fusions/translocations: the PROOF trial
Presenter: Ghassan Abou-Alfa
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4710 - Phase 3 (COSMIC-312) study of cabozantinib (C) in combination with atezolizumab (A) vs sorafenib (S) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) who have not received previous systemic anticancer therapy
Presenter: Lorenza Rimassa
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5509 - A Randomized Controlled, Open label, Adaptive Phase-3 Trial to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of EndoTAG-1 Plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine alone in Patients with Measurable Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas Failed on FOLFIRINOX Treatment (NCT03126435)
Presenter: Li-Tzong Chen
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1463 - Modified FOLFOX versus modified FOLFOX plus nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction – Moonlight, a randomized phase 2 trial of the German Gastric Group of the AIO.
Presenter: Sylvie Lorenzen
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2392 - GLOW: Randomized Phase 3 Study of Zolbetuximab + CAPOX Compared With Placebo + CAPOX as First-line Treatment of Patients With CLD18.2⁺/HER2⁻ Locally Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction (GEJ) Adenocarcinoma
Presenter: Manish Shah
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
5217 - PRODIGE67_UCGI33 ARION: Association of Radiochemotherapy and Immunotherapy for the treatment of unresectable Oesophageal caNcer: a comparative randomized phase II trial
Presenter: Rosine Guimbaud
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
1726 - Randomized phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel + ramucirumab versus weekly nab-paclitaxel + ramucirumab for unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer with peritoneal dissemination refractory to first-line therapy: WJOG10617G/P-SELECT
Presenter: Kenro Hirata
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
2279 - FRONTiER: A Feasibility Trial of Nivolumab With Neoadjuvant CF or DCF Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma
Presenter: Shun Yamamoto
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
4912 - A phase Ib/II study of AK104, a PD-1/CTLA-4 Bispecific Antibody, Combined With mXELOX as First-line Therapy for Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction (GEJ) Adenocarcinoma
Presenter: Jiafu Ji
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract
3780 - Perioperative atezolizumab in combination with FLOT versus FLOT alone in patients with resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: DANTE, a randomized, open-label phase II trial of the German Gastric Group of the AIO and the SAKK.
Presenter: Salah-Eddin Al-Batran
Session: Poster Display session 2
Resources:
Abstract