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

372P - Third-line (3L) single-agent chemotherapy (single-CTx) versus combination chemotherapy (combo-CTx) for patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (aPC): A retrospective, single-center study

Date

27 Jun 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Elena Valenzi

Citation

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

Authors

A. Pirozzi1, V. Zanuso2, G. Tesini2, E. Valenzi2, R. Balsano2, T. Pressiani3, F. Gavazzi3, A. Zerbi2, S. Bozzarelli3, L. Rimassa4

Author affiliations

  • 1 Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano/IT
  • 2 Humanitas University and IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Pieve Emanuele/IT
  • 3 IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano/IT
  • 4 Humanitas Cancer Center, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital; Humanitas University, Rozzano/IT

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

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

Abstract 372P

Background

Chemotherapy (CTx) is the standard of care in aPC, but the best management of pts who received ≥ 2 lines of CTx is still to be defined. We aimed to assess if single-CTx provides similar results to combo-CTx based on our tertiary center experience.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from pts with aPC treated from 2015 to 2024, who received ≥ 1 cycle of 3L CTx. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of 3L therapy until progression, death, or last follow-up. Data were analyzed using log-rank and Cox regression model.

Results

Overall population included 61 pts. Median age was 66 years (range, 51 - 78). 36 pts (59%) were male; 29 (52%) presented with de novo metastatic disease, 32 (48%) with recurrent disease. Most common metastatic sites were liver (45%), peritoneum (17%), distal nodes (16%), lung (12%). All pts progressed to fluoropyrimidine- and gemcitabine-based CTx. 26 pts (43%) received 3L single-CTx: 15 pts (58%) irinotecan, 5 (19%) capecitabine, 4 (15%) gemcitabine, 2 (8%) 5-FU. 35 pts (57%) received 3L combo-CTx: 22 pts (63%) FOLFIRI, 7 (20%) XELOX, 6 (17%) FOLFOX. Median duration of treatment was 2.4 mos (range, 0 – 12.6) vs 1.8 mos (range, 1.4 – 12.4) for single-CTx and combo-CTx (p = 0.3). Objective response rate (all partial responses) was 12% for single-CTx and 6% for combo-CTx. Disease control rate was 24% and 20% for single-CTx and combo-CTx. At a median follow-up of 4.3 mos, median PFS was 3.7 mos (95% CI, 2.9 – 9.5) with single-CTx vs 2.76 mos (95% CI 2.2 – 4.0) with combo-CTx (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 - 1.32; p = 0.2). Median OS was 5.3 mos (95% CI 4.0 - 6.5) with single-CTx vs 6.2 mos (95% CI 4.0 - 7.9) with combo-CTx (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.58 – 1.83; p = 0.9).

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy outcomes between single-CTx and combo-CTx. As a result, a careful choice for a less aggressive 3L CTx regimen may be feasible, potentially sparing toxicity, without losing efficacy. However, our experience may be biased by the small sample size, and more research including quality-of-life assessment is needed.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

R. Balsano: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Lecture fees: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel expenses: Roche. T. Pressiani: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting fees: Bayer, Ipsen, AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Research funding: Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel expenses: Roche. L. Rimassa: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Consulting fees: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Elevar Therapeutics, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Lecture fees: AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Servier; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Travel expenses: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Institutional, Other, Research funding: Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, FibroGen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Zymeworks. All other 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.