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

Proffered Paper - GI, non colorectal

LBA65 - The Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA.7 trial: Results of a randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (GEM) and nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) vs GEM, nab-P, durvalumab (D) and tremelimumab (T) as first line therapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC)


20 Sep 2020


Proffered Paper - GI, non colorectal



Tumour Site

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma


Daniel Renouf


Annals of Oncology (2020) 31 (suppl_4): S1142-S1215. 10.1016/annonc/annonc325


D.J. Renouf1, J.J. Knox2, P. Kavan3, D. Jonker4, S. Welch5, F. Couture6, F. Lemay7, M. Tehfe8, M. Harb9, N. Aucoin10, Y. Ko11, P. Tang12, R. Ramjeesingh13, B.M. Meyers14, C. Kim15, D.F. Schaeffer16, J. Loree1, S. Gill1, D. Tu17, C. O'Callaghan17

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, BC Cancer - Vancouver, V574E6 - Vancouver/CA
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto/CA
  • 3 Medical Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal/CA
  • 4 Medical Oncology, Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa/CA
  • 5 Medical Oncology, London Health Sciences Centre, London/CA
  • 6 Medical Oncology, CHUQ- Hote-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec/CA
  • 7 Medical Oncology, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke/CA
  • 8 Medicine Hematology/oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, H3X 3H3 - Montréal/CA
  • 9 Medical Oncology, The Moncton Hospital, Moncton/CA
  • 10 Medical Oncology, Hopital de la Cite-de-la-Sante, Laval/CA
  • 11 Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto/CA
  • 12 Medical Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary/CA
  • 13 Medical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax/CA
  • 14 Medical Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton/CA
  • 15 Medical Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg/CA
  • 16 Anatomical Pathology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver/CA
  • 17 Public Health Sciences, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Kingston/CA


Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

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

Abstract LBA65


GEM and Nab-P is a standard first line therapy for mPDAC based on the MPACT Trial. D is a human monoclonal antibody (mAb) that inhibits binding PD-L1 to its receptor. T is a mAb directed against CTLA-4. PA.7 is designed to evaluate whether combining PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition with GEM and Nab-P increases treatment efficacy.


This randomized phase II study (NCT02879318) assessed the efficacy and safety of GEM, Nab-P, D, and T (arm A) vs GEM and Nab-P (arm B) in patients (pts) with mPDAC (n=191). Pts with untreated mPDAC and good performance status (ECOG PS 0-1) were eligible. A safety run in was conducted for 11 pts receiving GEM, Nab-P, D and T. The study then randomized 180 pts in a 2:1 ratio to receive GEM (1000mg/m2 D1, 8, 15); Nab-P (125mg/m2 D1, 8, 15); D (1500 mg) D1 q 28 days and T (75 mg) D1 for first 4 cycles vs. GEM and Nab-P alone. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), safety, overall response rate (ORR) and quality of life.


180 pts were randomized (119 to arm A and 61 to arm B) between April 2017 and July 2018. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. With a median (med) follow-up of 28.5 months (mo) there was no significant difference in OS (med 9.8 mo in arm A vs. 8.8 mo in arm B, Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.94, 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.25, p=0.72). There was no significant difference in PFS (med 5.5 mo vs 5.4 mo respectively, HR=0.98, 90% CI 0.75-1.29, p=0.91). ORR was not significantly different, 30.3% vs. 23.0% respectively (Odds Ratio=1.49, 90% CI 0.81-2.72, p=0.28). Disease control rate (DCR) was 70.6% vs 57.4% respectively (difference=13.2%, 90% CI 0.7-25.7%, p=0.096). The only significant difference in grade 3 or greater adverse events was lymphopenia (38% vs 20% respectively, p=0.02).


The addition of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors to Gem and Nab-P did not result in a significant improvement in OS, PFS, or ORR. There is a trend to improved DCR. Correlative analyses to assess biomarkers that may predict immune sensitivity in this setting are underway.

Clinical trial identification


Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Canadian Cancer Trials Group.




D.J. Renouf: Advisory/Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory/Consultancy: Servier; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (institution): Roche; Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Taiho; Advisory/Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen. J.J. Knox: Research grant/Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Merck; Research grant/Funding (self): Ipsen; Advisory/Consultancy, Research grant/Funding (self): Roche; Advisory/Consultancy: Eisai. M. Tehfe: Honoraria (institution), Research grant/Funding (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca. N. Aucoin: Advisory/Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory/Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory/Consultancy: BMS; Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory/Consultancy: Pfizer. R. Ramjeesingh: Honoraria (self), Advisory/Consultancy: Celgene; Honoraria (self): Astrazeneca; Advisory/Consultancy, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Ipsen; Advisory/Consultancy: Servier. 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.