Nab-paclitaxel/S-1(AS) Versus Nab-Paclitaxel/gemcitabine(ag) for First-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (apdac): A Retrospective Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

Yuan Zong,Zhi Peng,Ming Lu,Xicheng Wang,Jun Zhou,Lin Shen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e15743
IF: 45.3
2019-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e15743 Background: AG significantly improved PFS and OS compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in patients (pts) with metastatic PDAC, but the confirmed ORR was limited to 23% with increased grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression. In GEST and JASPAC01 studies, S-1 showed non-inferior or superior activity to gemcitabine in advanced and postoperative PDAC. S-1 also developed less hematologic adverse events especially in neutropenia and was a convenient oral alternative. Two single-arm phase II trials in China demonstrated high ORR of 50.0-53.1% with AS. We investigated the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy with AS versus AG in pts with aPDAC. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of aPDAC pts treated with first-line AS and AG in GI dpt. Of PUCH between 11/2013 and 12/2018. Pts received 125mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel intravenously (IV) on day1, and 80-100mg S-1 orally per day on day1-7 every two weeks in AS cohort, while pts received 125mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel IV on day1,8, and 1000mg/m2 gemcitabine IV on day1,8 every three weeks in AG cohort. ORR, ORR of primary lesion, DCR, PFS, OS and safety were analysed between two cohorts. Survival outcomes were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazard model was made to determine independent predictors of survival. Results: A total of 70 pts (45 in AS cohort, 25 in AG cohort) with locally advanced (4%) and metastatic (96%) PDACs were identified. 75% were male and the median age was 65(range 36-72). Among intention-to-treat population, the ORR and DCR were 40.0% vs 32.0% (p = 0.70) and 75.6% vs 64.0% (p = 0.57) in AS and AG cohort, respectively. The ORR of primary lesion was 31.1% with AS vs 20.0% with AG (p = 0.73). With the median follow-up of 9.8 months(range 2.3-22.2), the median PFS and OS were 4.7m vs 6.7m (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.4; p = 0.62) and 10.3m vs 11.3m (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.8; p = 0.78) in AS and AG cohort, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities occurred in 31.1% AS vs 36.0% AG (p = 0.59). Most G3/4 toxicities were: leukopenia/neutropenia (26.7% vs 20.0%), febrile neutropenia (2.2% vs 8.0%), thrombocytopenia (0 vs 12%), fatigue (4.4% vs 12%), peripheral neuropathy (0 vs 8.0%). In multivariate analysis, liver metastasis was the only independent predictor of poor OS (HR 0.3, 95%CI 0.1-0.8, p = 0.014). Conclusions: AS was a comparable and convenient alternative with manageable toxicities in aPDAC. There was a trend towards improved ORR of primary lesion compared with AG.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?