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
700P - First-in-human dose-escalating study of ABSK043, a novel and oral small-molecule inhibitor of PD-L1, in patients with advanced solid tumors
Presenter: Adam Cooper
Session: Poster session 17
701P - NCI10221: Phase II multicenter biomarker driven combination trial of copanlisib and nivolumab in patients with molecularly-selected advanced solid tumors (BaCoN)
Presenter: Timothy Yap
Session: Poster session 17
702P - Characterization of germline HLA genotypes in patients (pts) with solid tumors treated with immunotherapy
Presenter: Katerin Rojas Laimito
Session: Poster session 17
703P - Prognostic scores for immunotherapy-based phase one trials (P1T): To GRIm or not to GRIm?
Presenter: Pauline Corbaux
Session: Poster session 17
705P - TIMES: A ctDNA tumor fraction based and externally validated nomogram to predict survival in cancer patients referred for early phase trials
Presenter: Antoine Italiano
Session: Poster session 17
706P - The IMPRESS-Norway trial: Improving public cancer care by implementing precision cancer medicine in Norway - Safety analysis of the first 126 patients included in the trial
Presenter: Katarina Puco
Session: Poster session 17
707P - Personalised dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology: The era of therapeutic drug monitoring
Presenter: Maud van der Kleij
Session: Poster session 17
709P - Challenges and opportunities to the implementation of adaptive design in phase III oncology trials: Results from a cross-sectional analysis
Presenter: Andriy Krendyukov
Session: Poster session 17