Abstract 96P
Background
To compare the doublet gemcitabine and cisplatin which is a standard of care in locally advanced or metastatic gall bladder cancer to a triplet gemcitabine, cisplatin and nab paclitaxel regime which has shown promising results in a single arm phase II study.
Methods
A total of 60 patients with locally advanced or metastatic gall bladder cancer were randomized 30 in each arm after imaging [contrast enhanced CT scan of chest, abdomen, and pelvis / MRI abdomen and pelvis with CECT chest /whole-body PET CT scan] and biopsy. Arm A received two drugs gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 i.v and cisplatin 25mg/m2 i.v on Day1 and Day8 of 21-day cycle and arm B received three drugs gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 , cisplatin, 25 mg/m2 , and nab-paclitaxel, 125 mg/m2 , on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycle. Evaluation was done post 3 and 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Then patients were followed up every 6 months for 2 years period for assessment of primary and secondary endpoints of the study.
Results
The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (arm A) showed an overall radiological response rate (complete response and partial response) of 13.3% while it was 61.9 % in patients who received gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel. This difference was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.004. The median progression-free survival for the patients who received gemcitabine and cisplatin was 4.5 months (95% CI, 4.0-4.9) vs 7.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-11.2) for the patients who were treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel. This difference was statistically significant with a p-value of ≤ 0.05. The median overall survival for the doublet was 9.2 months (95% CI 2.6-15.7) vs not reached for the patients who were treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel. There was no increase in grade 3 adverse events with the addition of nab-paclitaxel.
Conclusions
To conclude, our study showed that the triplet chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin and nab-paclitaxel was significantly better in terms of overall response rate, and median progression-free survival with a longer follow up needed to comment on median overall survival.
Clinical trial identification
CTRI/2021/09/036362.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
C. Khatri.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
97P - Neoadjuvant durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (D+GemCis) versus gemcis alone for localized biliary tract cancer (BTC): Results of a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase II trial (DEBATE)
Presenter: Changhoon Yoo
Session: Poster session 17
101P - Quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients (pts) with zanidatamab (zani)-treated HER2-positive (HER2+) biliary tract cancer (BTC) in the phase IIb HERIZON-BTC-01 study
Presenter: Harpreet Wasan
Session: Poster session 17
102P - Potentially prognostic factors of overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer in the randomised phase III TOPAZ-1 study
Presenter: Aiwu Ruth He
Session: Poster session 17
103P - Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials to compare efficacy of second-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC)
Presenter: Jaewon Hyung
Session: Poster session 17
104P - Final analysis of the prospective, randomized phase II STAMP trial: Adjuvant gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GemCis) versus capecitabine (CAP) in node-positive extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA)
Presenter: Hyehyun Jeong
Session: Poster session 17
105P - A phase II study of SHR-1316 plus IBI310 in patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after failure of first-line therapy
Presenter: Jia Fan
Session: Poster session 17