Cost description of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Evaluation of the Treatment Duration of Japanese Patients With Pancreatic Cancer in a Real-World Setting Using a Large Hospital Claims Database: The SUISEI Study

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the treatment reality of pancreatic cancer in Japan, focusing on treatment duration and time to death.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed Japanese hospital claims data for patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between April 2009 and October 2018 to investigate treatment patterns, duration of first-line chemotherapy, and time to death.

RESULTS

Of 81,185 eligible patients, 54.2% were male, the mean age was 71.7 years, and 23.3% (n = 18,884) received chemotherapy as primary treatment. The median treatment duration was 14.1 weeks for the 6.7% of patients who received oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX; recommended first-line regimen) and 16.9 weeks for the 30.2% of patients who received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). Time to death for patients who received FOLFIRINOX or GEM + nab-PTX was similar (15.4 and 14.8 months, respectively). The duration of first-line chemotherapy regimens tended to increase annually for both regimens. The time to death for all first-line chemotherapy regimens also increased annually.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed the treatment reality of pancreatic cancer in the real-world Japanese setting. Treatment duration and time to death tended to increase over time and did not differ numerically between FOLFIRINOX and GEM + nab-PTX.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC).

AIM

The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an "R0" resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G-nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower.

CONCLUSION

Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

First-line and second-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in routine clinical practice across Europe: a retrospective, observational chart review study

Background

Treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC) relies on chemotherapeutic regimens. We investigated patterns of first-line and second-line treatment choices, their geographical variation between European countries, and alignment with current European recommendations.

Methods

This retrospective, observational chart review study was conducted between July 2014 and January 2016. Physicians were recruited from nine European countries. Patient data were collected in electronic patient record forms (PRFs) by physicians managing patients with mPAC. Patients with a current mPAC diagnosis aged ≥18 years old who had completed first-line therapy during the study period were included.

Results

Participating physicians (n=225) completed 2565 PRFs. The vast majority of PRFs were from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Most patients (86.6%) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. The most common first-line treatments were FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin/folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) (35.6%), gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (25.7%) and gemcitabine monotherapy (20.5%). Physicians in France and the UK prescribed FOLFIRINOX more frequently than gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine-based therapies were more widely used at second-line, although 5-fluorouracil-based therapies were preferred in Italy and Spain, where gemcitabine-based treatments were more frequently selected for first-line. For patients receiving first-line modified FOLFIRINOX, second-line gemcitabine monotherapy was preferred in the overall population (45.9%).

Conclusion

Although treatment choices for patients with mPAC varied between countries, they align with current European guidelines. Factors including drug availability, reimbursement, patient characteristics, physician preference and prior first-line therapy affect treatment choices. Approved, recommended therapies for patients who progress following first-line treatment are lacking. These findings may influence the development of effective treatment plans, potentially improving future patient outcomes.

Real-World Assessment of Health Care Costs for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Following Initiation of First-Line Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX), the combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, few previous studies have examined overall health care costs associated with mPDA management.

OBJECTIVE

To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA.

METHODS

Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date.

RESULTS

A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker-Guided Treatment for Metastatic Gastric Cancer in the Second-Line Setting

BACKGROUND

The 5-year survival rate of patients with metastatic gastric cancer (GC) is only 5%. However, trials have demonstrated promising antitumor activity for targeted therapies/immunotherapies among chemorefractory metastatic GC patients. Pembrolizumab has shown particular efficacy among patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided second-line GC treatment.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov decision-analytic model using clinical trial data. Our model compared pembrolizumab monotherapy and ramucirumab/paclitaxel combination therapy for all patients and pembrolizumab for patients based on MSI status or PD-L1 expression. Paclitaxel monotherapy and best supportive care for all patients were additional comparators. Costs of drugs, treatment administration, follow-up, and management of adverse events were estimated from a US payer perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY over 60 months. Secondary outcomes were unadjusted life years (survival) and costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The most effective strategy was pembrolizumab for MSI-H patients and ramucirumab/paclitaxel for all other patients, adding 3.8 months or 2.0 quality-adjusted months compared to paclitaxel. However, this strategy resulted in a prohibitively high ICER of $1,074,620/QALY. The only cost-effective strategy was paclitaxel monotherapy for all patients, with an ICER of $53,705/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Biomarker-based treatments with targeted therapies/immunotherapies for second-line metastatic GC patients substantially improve unadjusted and quality-adjusted survival but are not cost-effective at current drug prices.

Pancreatic cancer treatment costs, including patient liability, by phase of care and treatment modality, 2000-2013

OBJECTIVES

Our study provides phase-specific cost estimates for pancreatic cancer based on stage and treatment. We compare treatment costs between the different phases and within the stage and treatment modality subgroups.

METHODS

Our cohort included 20,917 pancreatic cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database diagnosed between 2000 and 2011. We allocated costs into four phases of care-staging (or surgery), initial, continuing, and terminal- and calculated the total, cancer-attributable, and patient-liability costs in 2018 US dollars. We fit linear regression models using log transformation to determine whether costs were predicted by age and calendar year.

RESULTS

Monthly cost estimates were high during the staging and surgery phases, decreased over the initial and continuing phases, and increased during the three-month terminal phase. Overall, the linear regression models showed that cancer-attributable costs either remained stable or increased by year, and either were unaffected by age or decreased with older age; continuing phase costs for stage II patients increased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates demonstrate that pancreatic cancer costs can vary widely by stage and treatment received. These cost estimates can serve as an important baseline foundation to guide resource allocation for cancer care and research in the future.

Comparison of conventional versus liposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil for advanced pancreatic cancer: a single-institution experience

The majority of pancreatic cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when surgical options are limited and treatment relies on systemic chemotherapy. In the NAPOLI-1 trial, liposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil (nal-iri/5FU) was shown to improve overall survival when compared to fluorouracil alone for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Other retrospective studies have shown the combination of fluorouracil and conventional irinotecan (FOLFIRI) to be a viable option, though no randomized trials have compared nal-iri/5FU to FOLFIRI. The purpose of this single-center, retrospective, cohort study was to determine if nal-iri/5FU and FOLFIRI are similarly effective for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Due to the potential for treatment bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting was utilized to correct for baseline differences between the groups. The primary outcome of progression-free survival was similar at 4.1 months for nal-iri/5FU and 3.1 months for FOLFIRI. Overall survival and adverse effect frequency were also similar. Pegfilgrastim was used in 16% and 15% of patients, respectively, and nal-iri/5FU patients required significantly less atropine during treatment (36 vs. 70%). A cost analysis was conducted and concluded that the treatment with nal-iri/5FU was nearly 30 times more expensive than FOLFIRI treatment. Together, these data suggest a potential role for FOLFIRI for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer in the absence of clear benefits in effectiveness, toxicity, or cost for nal-iri/5FU.

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

Assessing the Financial Burden Associated With Treatment Options for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the financial burden associated with treatment options for resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND

As the volume of cancer care increases in the United States, there is growing interest among both clinicians and policy-makers to reduce its financial impact on the healthcare system. However, costs relative to the survival benefit for differing treatment modalities used in practice have not been described.

METHODS

Patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan database. Associations between chemoradiation therapies and survival were performed using parameterized multivariable accelerated failure time models. Median payments over time were calculated for surgery, chemoradiation, and subsequent hospitalizations.

RESULTS

A total of 2408 patients were included. Median survival among all patients was 21.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 19.8-22.5 months], whereas median follow-up time was 25.1 months (95% CI: 23.5-26.5 months). After controlling for comorbidity, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and nodal involvement, a longer survival was associated with undergoing combination gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel [time ratio (TR) = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02-1.57, P = 0.035) or capecitabine and radiation (TR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.51, P = 0.018). However, median cumulative payments for gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel were highest overall [median $74,051, interquartile range (IQR): $38,929-$133,603).

CONCLUSIONS

Total payments for an episode of care relative to improvement in survival vary significantly by treatment modality. These data can be used to inform management decisions about pursuing further care for pancreatic cancer. Future investigations should seek to refine estimates of the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.

Can we downstage locally advanced pancreatic cancer to resectable? A phase I/II study of induction oxaliplatin and 5-FU chemoradiation

BACKGROUND

Half of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) present with regionally advanced disease. This includes borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable tumors as defined by current NCCN guidelines for resectability. Chemoradiation (CH-RT) is used in this setting in attempt to control local disease, and possibly downstage to resectable disease. We report a phase I/II trial of a combination of 5FU/Oxaliplatin with concurrent radiation in patients presenting with borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with biopsy-proven borderline resectable or locally advanced unresectable PC were eligible. Chemotherapy included continuous infusion 5FU (200 mg/m2) daily and oxaliplatin weekly for 5 weeks in dose escalation cohorts, ranging from 30 to 60 mg/m2. Concurrent radiation therapy consisted of 4,500 cGy in 25 fractions (180 cGy/fx/d) followed by a comedown to the tumor and margins for an additional 540 cGy ×3 (total dose 5,040 cGy in 28 fractions). Following completion of CH-RT, patients deemed resectable underwent surgery; those who remained unresectable for cure but did not progress (SD, stable disease) received mFOLFOX6 ×6 cycles. Survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. End-points of the phase II portion were resectability and overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 subjects (15 men and 9 women, mean age 64.5 years) were enrolled between June 2004 and December 2009 and received CH-RT. Seventeen patients were enrolled in the Phase I component of the study, fifteen of whom completed neoadjuvant therapy. Reasons for not completing treatment included grade 3 toxicities (1 patient) and withdrawal of consent (1 patient). The highest dose of oxaliplatin (60 mg/m2) was well tolerated and it was used as the recommended phase II dose. An additional 7 patients were treated in the phase II portion, 5 of whom completed CH-RT; the remaining 2 patients did not complete treatment because of grade 3 toxicities. Overall, 4/24 did not complete CH-RT. Grade 4 toxicities related to initial CH-RT were observed during phase I (n=2, pulmonary embolism and lymphopenia) and phase II (n=3, fatigue, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia). Following restaging after completion of CH-RT, 4 patients had progressed (PD); 9 patients had SD and received additional chemotherapy with mFOLFOX6 (one of them had a dramatic response after two cycles and underwent curative resection); the remaining 7 patients (29.2%) were noted to have a response and were explored: 2 had PD, 4 had SD, still unresectable, and 1 patient was resected for cure with negative margins. Overall 2 patients (8.3%) in the study received curative resection following neoadjuvant therapy. Median overall survival for the entire study population was 11.4 months. Overall survival for the two resected patients was 41.7 and 21.6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined modality treatment for borderline resectable and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer with oxaliplatin, 5FU and radiation was reasonably well tolerated. The majority of patients remained unresectable. Survival data with this regimen were comparable to others for locally advanced pancreas cancer, suggesting the need for more novel approaches.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

How to Reliably Assess Nodal Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The optimal number of lymph nodes that need to be analyzed to reliably assess nodal status in distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma is still unknown.

METHODS

Two hundred seventy-eight patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma were retrieved from a retrospective French nationwide database. The relations between the number of analyzed lymph nodes and the nodal status of the tumor were studied. The beta-binomial law was used to estimate the probability of being truly node negative depending on the number of analyzed lymph nodes. Cox proportional hazard model was used for the survival analysis.

RESULTS

The median number of analyzed lymph nodes was 15. There was a positive correlation between the number of positive lymph nodes and the number of lymph nodes analyzed. The curve reached a plateau at approximately 25 lymph nodes. The beta binomial model demonstrated that an analysis of 21 negative lymph nodes shows a probability to be truly N0 at 95%. N+ status was associated with survival, but the number of lymph node analyzed was not.

CONCLUSION

At least 21 lymph nodes should be analyzed to ensure a reliable assessment of the nodal status, but this number may be hard to reach in distal pancreatectomy.

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX

BACKGROUND

The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX.

METHODS

The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy.

RESULTS

550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Current status on the place of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and future directions

Pancreatic cancer (PC) incidence rates are rapidly increasing in developed countries, with half the patients being metastatic at diagnosis. For decades, fluorouracil, then gemcitabine regimens were the preferred palliative first-line options for fit patients with metastatic PC. FOLFIRINOX (a combination of bolus and infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was introduced to clinical practice in 2010 due to the results of the phase II/III trial (PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11) comparing FOLFIRINOX with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line treatment for patients with MPC. Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate were superior with FOLFIRINOX over gemcitabine and there was prolonged time to definitive deterioration in quality of life. Although FOLFIRINOX was also associated with increased toxicity, mainly febrile neutropenia and diarrhea, there has been rapid uptake of this regimen. This review closely examines optimal management and prevention of toxicities, international recommendations for first-line treatment, and use of modified FOLFIRINOX protocols. In this review, we also look at the potential benefit of FOLFIRINOX in selected groups of patients: second-line therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, induction therapy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced PC. Robust validation of the FOLFIRINOX regimen in these settings requires confirmation in further randomized trials.

Comparison of treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX

BACKGROUND

We compared real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of inpatient and hospital-based outpatient data in the United States. Primary endpoints included median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and total cost of care per patient per month. Secondary endpoints included supportive care costs and hospitalization rate and length.

RESULTS

Overall, 345 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, n = 182; FOLFIRINOX, n = 163). Median TTD was significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX (4.3 vs 2.8 months; P = .0009). Mean acquisition cost was higher with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($10,643 vs $6549; P = .0043), but mean total cost of care was lower ($16,628 vs $19,936; P = .1740). Supportive care cost was significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ($1995 vs $6456; P < .0001). Hospitalization rate and length were both significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite higher acquisition costs with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had higher total costs driven by supportive care. Toxicity-related costs and drug acquisition costs should be considered when evaluating total cost of care.

Dilemma of first line regimens in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers, ranking fourth among cancer-related deaths. Despite all the major molecular advances and treatment breakthroughs, mainly targeted therapies, the cornerstone treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) remains cytotoxic chemotherapy. In 2016, more than 40 years after the introduction of gemcitabine in the management of mPC, the best choice for first-line treatment has not yet been fully elucidated. Two main strategies have been adopted to enhance treatment efficacy. The first strategy is based on combining non-cross resistant drugs, while the second option includes the development of newer generations of chemotherapy. More recently, two new regimens, FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GNP), have both been shown to improve overall survival in comparison with gemcitabine alone, at the cost of increased toxicity. Therefore, the best choice for first line therapy is a matter of debate. For some authors, FOLFIRINOX should be the first choice in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (0-1) given its lower hazard ratio. However, others do not share this opinion. In this paper, we review the main comparison points between FOLFIRINOX and GNP. We analyze the two pivotal trials to determine the similarities and differences in study design. In addition, we compare the toxicity profile of the two regimens as well as the impact on quality of life. Finally, we present studies revealing real life experiences and review the advantages and disadvantages of possible second-line therapies including their cost effectiveness.

A modified regimen of biweekly gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer is both tolerable and effective: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatment with nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine demonstrates a survival advantage when compared with single-agent gemcitabine. However, the combination is associated with significant toxicities, leading to a high rate of drug discontinuation. We implemented a modified regimen of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (mGNabP) in an attempt to minimize toxicities while maintaining efficacy.

METHODS

A total of 79 evaluable patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC) treated with a modified regimen of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m²) on days 1, 15 of every 28-day cycle were identified from our prospective database. A total of 57 patients received this regimen as first-line treatment and were evaluated for toxicities, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Overall, 22 patients with advanced or metastatic PC treated with the modified regimen outside the first-line setting were only evaluated for toxicities.

RESULTS

The median OS and PFS were 10 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-13 months] and 5.4 months (95% CI 4.1-7.4 months) for patients that received the modified regimen as first-line therapy. Neurotoxicity occurred in 27% with only 1.6% of patients experiencing grade ⩾3 toxicity. The incidence of grade ⩾3 neutropenia was 19%, resulting in growth factor support in 12% of patients. This rate was similar in patients who received the modified regimen for first-line treatment of mPC versus the overall group.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified regimen of biweekly nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine is associated with a lower cost, acceptable toxicity profile and appears to be relatively effective in pancreatic cancer. Prospective randomized studies confirming its potential benefits compared with standard weekly mGNabP are warranted.

Randomized Phase 2 Trial of the Oncolytic Virus Pelareorep (Reolysin) in Upfront Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Pelareorep causes oncolysis in tumor cells with activated Ras. We hypothesized that pelareorep would have efficacy and immunomodulatory activity in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) when combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. A randomized phase 2 study (NCT01280058) was conducted in treatment-naive patients with MPA randomized to two treatment arms: paclitaxel/carboplatin + pelareorep (Arm A, n = 36 evaluable patients) versus paclitaxel/carboplatin (Arm B, n = 37 evaluable patients). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) between the arms (Arm A PFS = 4.9 months, Arm B PFS = 5.2 months, P = 0.6), and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) status did not impact outcome. Quality-adjusted Time without Symptoms or Toxicity analysis revealed that the majority of PFS time was without toxicity or progression (4.3 months). Patient immunophenotype appeared important, as soluble immune biomarkers were associated with treatment outcome (fractalkine, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)). Increased circulating T and natural killer (NK)-cell subsets were also significantly associated with treatment outcome. Addition of pelareorep was associated with higher levels of 14 proinflammatory plasma cytokines/chemokines and cells with an immunosuppressive phenotype (Tregs, cytotoxic T lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA4)(+) T cells). Overall, pelareorep was safe but does not improve PFS when administered with carboplatin/paclitaxel, regardless of KRAS mutational status. Immunologic studies suggest that chemotherapy backbone improves immune reconstitution and that targeting remaining immunosuppressive mediators may improve oncolytic virotherapy.