Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

376P - FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine nab-paclitaxel: A real-world efficacy and safety analysis - a single-centre experience

Date

27 Jun 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

ARIF KHAN

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_1): S119-S161. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1481

Authors

A.M. KHAN1, S. Noor2, R. Ahmed2, S. Takreem2, S.S. Shahnoor2, V.K. Muddu3, A. Bonda4, I. Siripurapu4, S. Krishnaiah5, G. Rao5, N. Reddy5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Tata Memorial Hospital Centre, Mumbai/IN
  • 2 anwarul uloom college of pharmacy, hyderabad/IN
  • 3 AIG Hospitals - Hyderabad, Hyderabad/IN
  • 4 AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad/IN
  • 5 Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad/IN

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 376P

Background

The most common chemotherapy regimens used in pancreatic cancer are FOLFIRINOX (Fx) and gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel (G+P).Both are used in borderline resectable (BRPC),locally advanced (LAPC) or advanced metastatic (M) stage. This study analysed the safety and efficacy of these regimens as frontline treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A retrospective review of case records of pancreatic cancer patients treated from Oct 2019 to jan 2023 with either Fx or G+P as frontline therapy was done. Patients having complete data for efficacy and safety analysis were included. Efficacy measures were progression free survival ( PFS ) ,objective response rate (ORR), Disease control rate ( DCR) and overall survival ( OS). Stastical analysis was done with Kaplan meier analysis, log rank test and cox proportional hazards model.

Results

Of 181 patients screened 150 were finally analysed. In metastatic patients (n=47 vs n=30), ORR was 46 % vs 50% (p=0.272), DCR 85 % vs 73% (p=0.245), median PFS: 5 vs 6 months (p=0.481) Hazard ratio(HR)= 1.19( 95% CI 0.71- 1.98), median OS : 8 vs 10.5 months ( p = 0.35) HR= 1.26( 95% CI 0.75- 2.09) with G+P vs Fx respectively. In LAPC patients (n=16 vs n=16) ORR was 37.5%vs 68 % (p=0.208), DCR 75.4 % vs 87.5 % (p=0.654), median EFS: 7 vs 7.5 months (p=0.693) HR= 0.849( 95% CI 0.36- 1.98), median OS : 13 vs 15.5 months ( p = 0.84) HR= 1.08( 95% CI 0.47- 2.47) with G+P vs Fx respectively. In BRPC patients (n=23 vs n=18) ORR was 34 % vs 55 % (p=0.38), DCR 69 % vs 83 % (p=0.46), median EFS: 6 vs 8.5 months (p=0.219) ,HR=1.69( 95% CI 0.70- 4.10), median OS : 9.5 vs 17.5 months ( p = 0.02) HR= 3.158 (95% CI 1.1- 9.05) with G+P vs Fx respectively. The rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicities was 21% vs 45 % in G+P ( peripheral neuropathy & fatigue) vs Fx ( diarrhea, mucositis & myelosuppression) respectively.

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in ORR,DCR and OS between Fx & G+P across different settings in this real world study. Despite the limitations of a real-world study, G+P appears to have a better safety profile and can be considered as an acceptable regimen in first-line treatment of pancreatic cancer. This study demonstrates the overall limited survival in pancreatic cancer and highlights the need for more effective therapies.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.