Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel versus FOLFIRINOX in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A European Multicenter Study

Simple Summary

Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are two standard first-line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) but have rarely been compared, especially in patients with locally advanced PC (LAPC). By carefully selecting patients, it is likely these two regimens lead to similar survival outcomes. Through a multicenter European study, biases regarding practice habits are reduced. Hence, we observed no difference between GN and FFX as first-line treatments in patients with LAPC in terms of either survival, tumor response or tumor resection rate. Further trials are needed to confirm these data.

Abstract

Background: Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are two standard first-line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) but have rarely been compared, especially in patients with locally advanced PC (LAPC). Methods: This is a retrospective European multicenter study including patients with LAPC treated with either GN or FFX as the first-line therapy between 2010 and 2019. Coprimary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 147 patients (GN: n = 60; FFX: n = 87) were included. Tumor resection rates were similar between the two groups (16.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 1), with similar R0 resection rates (88.9%). Median PFS rates were not statistically different: 9 months (95% CI: 8–13.5) vs. 12.1 months (95% CI: 10.1–14.6; p = 0.8), respectively. Median OS rates were 15.7 months (95% CI: 12.6–20.2) and 16.7 months (95% CI: 14.8–20.4; p = 0.7), respectively. Abdominal pain at the baseline (HR = 2.03, p = 0.03), tumors located in the tail of the pancreas (HR = 4.35, p = 0.01), CA19-9 > 200 UI/L (HR = 2.03, p = 0.004) and tumor resection (HR = 0.37, p = 0.007) were independent prognostic factors for PFS, similarly to OS. CA19-9 ≤ 200 UI/L (OR = 2.6, p = 0.047) was predictive of the tumor response. Consolidation chemoradiotherapy, more often used in the FFX group (11.7% vs. 50.6%; p < 0.001), was not predictive. Conclusion: This retrospective study did not show any difference between GN and FFX as the first-line treatment in patients with LAPC.

Evolving Treatment Paradigms for Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an extremely aggressive tumor which is supposed to become the second deadliest malignancy in 2030. For a long time the possibilities to treat this complex disease were very limited.

SUMMARY

In the last years the development of new chemotherapeutic regimens has led to a better outcome in the ad-juvant, neoadjuvant, and palliative setting. Furthermore, progress in sequencing technologies has enabled a detailed investigation of the genetic alterations, mutational burden, expression pattern, and stroma composition in pancreatic cancer and led to the identification of subtypes of this disease.

MESSAGES

This analysis will increase our understanding of tumor heterogeneity and hopefully translate into new potential targets, biomarkers, and the development of individual therapeutic approaches in the future.

Intensification of induction chemotherapy before consolidation chemoradiotherapy improves progression-free survival and time without treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancers

Aims

To assess the interest of induction chemotherapy (ICT) intensification before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Charts of patients treated between February 2010 and November 2016 with consolidation capecitabin based-CRT were retrospectively reviewed in this bicentric study. Patients who underwent Gemcitabine as ICT (Group G) were compared to patients treated with intensive ICT (group I). Primary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from the first day of ICT to progression or last follow-up, and Time without treatment (TWT), as the time from the last day of CRT to progression.

Results

Patients’ characteristics were balanced between group I (Folforinox: n = 24; GemOx: n = 6) and group G (n = 16) including mean age (63.7 vs 68.1 years), and performance status (PS 0-1 :90% vs 93.7%). Median PFS (17.8 months vs 12 months; p = 0.02) and TWT (7.4 months vs 2.5 months p = 0.01) were statistically better in group I vs group G. These results remained statistically and clinically significant by comparing Folfirinox subgroup to Gemcitabine. A trend to a better median overall survival was observed in group I (20.4 months) vs group G (18.3 months; p = 0.07). After adjusting for ICT duration, PS, and CA19.9 level, ICT intensification remains independently prognostic. Toxicity profile was in accordance with Literature.

Conclusion

This study shows ICT intensification before CRT is an interesting approach in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm these results, and to assess the specific role of CRT in this setting.