Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Original versus Modified FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the NAPOLEON Study

Junichi Nakazawa,Nobuhiro Tsuruta,Mototsugu Shimokawa,Machiko Kawahira,Shiho Arima,Akio Ido,Futa Koga,Yujiro Ueda,Azusa Komori,Satoshi Otsu,Masaru Fukahori,Akitaka Makiyama,Hiroki Taguchi,Takuya Honda,Taro Shibuki,Kenta Nio,Yasushi Ide,Norio Ureshino,Toshihiko Mizuta,Taiga Otsuka,Tsuyoshi Shirakawa,Kenji Mitsugi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000527176
Oncology
Abstract:Introduction: Original FOLFIRINOX (oFFX) is more toxic than other regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC); therefore, a modified FFX (mFFX) regimen with a reduced dosage has been used in Japanese clinical practice. However, very few studies have compared these two regimens. Methods: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of 318 patients with mPC across 14 centers in Japan (NAPOLEON study). To control for potential bias and confounders, we conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Results: oFFX and mFFX were administered to 48 and 54 patients. More patients with younger age and poorer performance status were included in the oFFX group. The overall survival (OS; median, 11.6 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.40; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (median, 6.3 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.28; p = 0.44), and overall response rate (29 vs. 26%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different for the oFFX and mFFX groups. Thrombopenia and liver dysfunction were significantly more frequent with oFFX than with mFFX. The median received dose intensity of CPT-11 was higher with oFFX than with mFFX (299 vs. 270 mg/m2/week, p < 0.01). The propensity score-adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS and PFS between the two groups. Conclusion: In our data, there was no significant difference in efficacy between mFFX and oFFX, and mFFX has fewer adverse events.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?