Clinical Outcomes of Second-Line Chemotherapy after Progression on Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Effect of a MUC5AC Antibody (NPC-1C) Administered With Second-Line Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel on the Survival of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) beyond first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), with such individuals commonly being treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether NPC-1C, an antibody directed against MUC5AC, might increase the efficacy of second-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced PDAC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced PDAC between April 2014 and March 2017 whose disease had progressed on first-line FOLFIRINOX. Eligible patients had tumors with at least 20 MUC5AC staining by centralized immunohistochemistry review. Statistical analysis was performed from April to May 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycle, with or without intravenous NPC-1C 1.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Pretreatment clinical variables were explored with Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients (median [range] age, 62 [36-78] years; 32 [41%] women; 9 [12%] Black; 66 [85%] White) received second-line treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 40) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C (n = 38). Median OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.5 months; P = .22) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. Median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 3.4 months (95% CI, 1.9-5.3 months; P = .80) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. The ORR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-19.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C group and 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-18.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. No differences in toxicity were observed between groups, except that grade 3 or greater anemia occurred more frequently in patients treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C than gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (39% [15 of 38] vs 10% [4 of 40]; P = .003). The frequency of chemotherapy dose reductions was similar in both groups (65% vs 74%; P = .47). Lower performance status, hypoalbuminemia, PDAC diagnosis less than or equal to 18 months before trial enrollment, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio less than 2.8, and CA19-9 greater than 2000 IU/mL were independently associated with poorer survival.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial of advanced PDAC, NPC-1C did not enhance the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. These data provide a benchmark for future trials investigating second-line treatment of PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01834235.

EUS-guided ablation with the HybridTherm Probe as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A case-control study

Background and Objectives

Data on the clinical efficacy of EUS-guided ablation using the HybridTherm-Probe (EUS-HTP) in locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LA-PDAC) are lacking. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of EUS-HTP added to chemotherapy (CT) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of LA-PDAC patients with local disease progression (DP) after first-line therapy, compared to CT alone in controls.

Methods

LA-PDAC cases, prospectively treated by EUS-HTP, were retrospectively compared to matched controls (1:2) receiving standard treatment. Study endpoints were the OS and PFS from local DP after first-line therapy, compared through log-rank test calculating hazard ratios and differences in restricted mean OS/PFS time (RMOST/RMPFST) within prespecified time points (4, 6, and 12 months).

Results

Thirteen cases and 26 controls were included. Clinical, tumor, and therapy features before and after first-line therapy were case-control balanced. The median OS and PFS were not significantly improved in cases over controls (months: 7 vs. 5 and 5 vs. 3, respectively). At 4 and 6 months, the RMPFST difference was in favor of cases (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.003, respectively). In cases and controls not candidate to further CT (N = 5 and N = 9), the median OS and PFS were not significantly improved in cases over controls (months: 6 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 2, respectively), but the RMPFST difference was in favor of cases at 4 months (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

In locally progressive PDAC patients experiencing failure of first-line therapy, EUS-HTP achieves a significantly better RMPFST up to 6 months compared to standard treatment, although without a significant impact on OS.

Trend Analysis and Prediction of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Korea

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the current trends and predict the epidemiologic features of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) cancers according to the Korea Central Cancer Registry to provide insights into health policy.

METHODS

Incidence data from 1999 to 2017 and mortality data from 2002 to 2018 were obtained from the Korea National Cancer Incidence Database and Statistics Korea, respectively. The future incidence rate from 2018 to 2040 and mortality rate from 2019 to 2040 of each HBP cancer were predicted using an age-period-cohort model. All analyses, including incidence and mortality, were stratified by sex.

RESULTS

From 1999 to 2017, the age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) of HBP cancers per 100,000 population had changed (liver, 25.8 to 13.5; gallbladder [GB], 2.9 to 2.6; bile ducts, 5.1 to 5.9; ampulla of Vater [AoV], 0.9 to 0.9; and pancreatic, 5.6 to 7.3). The age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) per 100,000 population from 2002 to 2018 of each cancer had declined, excluding pancreatic cancer (5.5 to 5.6). The predicted ASIR of pancreatic cancer per 100,000 population from 2018 to 2040 increased (7.5 to 8.2), but that of other cancers decreased. Furthermore, the predicted ASMR per 100,000 population from 2019 to 2040 decreased in all types of cancers: liver (6.5 to 3.2), GB (1.4 to 0.9), bile ducts (4.3 to 2.9), AoV (0.3 to 0.2), and pancreas (5.4 to 4.7). However, in terms of sex, the predicted ASMR of pancreatic cancer per 100,000 population in females increased (3.8 to 4.9).

CONCLUSION

The annual incidence and mortality cases of HBP cancers are generally predicted to increase. Especially, pancreatic cancer has an increasing incidence and will be the leading cause of cancer-related death among HBP cancers.

Treatment optimization of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer (Review)

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal malignant tumor types, being the sixth leading cause of mortality worldwide and the fourth in Europe. Globally, it has a mortality/incidence ratio of 98%, and the 5‑year survival rate in Europe is only 3%. Although risk factors, such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, alcohol consumption and genetic factors, have been identified, the causes of PDAC remain elusive. Additionally, the only curative treatment for PDAC is surgery with negative margins. However, upon diagnosis, ~30% of the patients already present with locally advanced disease. In these cases, a multidisciplinary approach is required to improve disease‑related symptoms and prolong patient survival. In the present article, a comprehensive review of PDAC epidemiology, physiology and treatment is provided. Moreover, guidelines on patient treatment are suggested. Among the different available therapeutic options for the treatment of advanced PDAC, results are modest, most likely due to the complexity of the disease, and so the prognostic remains poor. Molecular approaches based on multi‑omics research are promising and will contribute to groundbreaking personalized medicine. Thus, economic investment that promotes research of pancreatic cancer will be critical to the development of more efficient diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Evolution of Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is characterized by early systemic dissemination, a complex tumor microenvironment, as well as significant intratumoral and intertumoral heterogeneity. Treatment options and survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have improved steadily over the last 3 decades. Although cytotoxic chemotherapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, evolving therapeutic strategies are aimed at targeting the tumor microenvironment, metabolism, and the tumor-host immune balance.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Beyond first line, where are we?

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most aggressive cancers, with an increasing incidence in recent years. To date, chemotherapy is still the standard of care for advanced metastatic disease, unfortunately providing only a slight advantage in terms of survival. The molecular and cellular characteristics of pancreatic cancer cells, as well as the cells that characterize the pancreatic tumour microenvironment, are the basis of the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. After progression during first-line treatment, few patients are eligible for second-line treatment due to the loss of performance status. To date, a clear survival advantage has not yet been demonstrated for second-line chemotherapy. Precision medicine could be the key to increasing responses to cancer treatment and finally impacting survival in this difficult-to-treat disease. In this review, we analyze current recommendations in the second-line setting and potential future prospects.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus FOLFIRINOX as the second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a multicenter retrospective study of the Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG)

Background

There is no clear consensus on the recommended second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have disease progression following gemcitabine-based therapy. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FL) and FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) in patients who had failed on the first-line gemcitabine-based therapy.

Patients and methods

From January 2015 to August 2019, 378 patients with MPC who had received nal-IRI/FL (n = 104) or FOLFIRINOX (n = 274) as second-line treatment across 11 institutions were included in this retrospective study.

Results

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, except age and first-line regimens. With a median follow-up of 6 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 4.6 months with FOLFIRINOX (P = 0.44). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 9.7 months with FOLFRINOX (P = 0.13). There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two regimens in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The subgroup analysis revealed that younger age (<70 years) was associated with better OS with FOLFIRINOX. In contrast, older age (≥70 years) was associated with better survival outcomes with nal-IRI/FL. Adverse events were manageable with both regimens; however, the incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX than with nal-IRI/FL.

Conclusions

Second-line nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX showed similar effectiveness outcomes after progression following first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. Age could be the determining factor for choosing the appropriate second-line therapy.

•

This multicenter retrospective study investigated nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX outcomes after gemcitabine-based therapy.

•

We found no significant differences in outcome between nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX treatment.

•

Both regimens were well tolerated; however, neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with FOLFIRINOX.

•

Age (cut-off, 70 years) showed differential efficacy between chemotherapy regimens.

Phase II clinical trial of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in elderly patients with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the BIBABRAX study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL), global health status (GHS), and deterioration-free survival of an elderly population (> 70 years) with unresectable locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treated with nab-paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine.

METHODS

In this open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial, patients received 4-week cycles of intravenous (i.v.) nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 125 mg/m², followed by i.v. injections of gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m² on days 1, 8 and 15 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was observed. The primary outcome was the HRQoL (deterioration-free rate at 3 months as evaluated with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (median age: 74.6 years) were enrolled (56 with mPC, 24 with LAPC). The percentage of patients who had not experienced deterioration at 3 months was 54.3% (95% CI 41.6-67.0%). The median (interquartile range) time until definite deterioration was 1.6 (1.1-3.7) months. The objective response rate and clinical benefit rate were achieved by 11 (13.8%, 95% CI 6.2-21.3%) and 54 patients (67.5%, 95% CI 57.2-77.8%), respectively. The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% CI 6.9-11.5), and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% CI 5.8-8.5). Only fatigue and neutropenia demonstrated a grade 3-4 toxicity incidence > 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the clinical benefit of the combination of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in an elderly population with pancreatic cancer in terms of improved survival and clinical response. However, we were unable to confirm a benefit in terms of quality-of-life.

Laparoscopic repeated pancreatectomy for isolated local recurrence in remnant pancreas following laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Two cases report

Typical treatment for recurrent pancreatic cancer is potent chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. However, recent clinical investigations suggest a potential therapeutic role of local resection in recurrent pancreatic cancer. Based on accumulating surgical experience of minimally invasive pancreatectomy, we report cases of two patients who underwent successful laparoscopic re-resection of isolated local recurrence following laparoscopic radical pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.

FOLFIRINOX after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparison with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI schedules

Background

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. In cases with metastasis, the combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens are considered the standard of care. However, the optimal sequence of these regimens is unclear.

Methods

This retrospective study initially evaluated 186 patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer at three Italian institutions between February 2013 and October 2019. All patients had progressed after receiving gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy and were subsequently offered second-line FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX-6, or FOLFIRI treatment. This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival from the start of second-line treatment (OS2), overall survival from the start of first-line treatment (OS1), and safety outcomes.

Results

A total of 77 patients received ⩾4 cycles of second-line chemotherapy and were considered eligible: 15 patients received FOLFIRINOX, 32 patients received FOLFOX-6, and 30 patients received FOLFIRI. The FOLFIRINOX group had median PFS of 26.29 weeks and median OS2 of 47.86 weeks, while the FOLFIRI group had median PFS of 10.57 weeks and median OS2 of 25.00 weeks (p = 0.038). No significant differences were observed between the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups in terms of PFS (26.29 weeks versus 23.07 weeks) or OS2 (47.86 weeks versus 42.00 weeks). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups.

Conclusion

Relative to the FOLFIRI regimen, the FOLFIRINOX regimen had a favorable toxicity profile and better survival outcomes. No significant differences were observed relative to the FOLFOX-6 regimen.

Real World Evidence on Second-Line Palliative Chemotherapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Background: The outcome and tolerability of palliative second line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) in real life patients are largely unknown. Prognostic parameters for risk stratification and treatment guidance are lacking.

Materials and Methods: A population based multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted, covering all APC patients who received palliative second-line chemotherapy between 2011 and 2018 at any cancer center in the South East Region of Sweden. Primary outcome was overall survival after second-line therapy (OS2). Time to treatment failure after second-line therapy (TTF2), hematological toxicity, and unplanned hospitalizations were key secondary outcomes. A number of baseline potentially prognostic parameters were assessed.

Results: A total of 509 patients received first-line palliative chemotherapy, and of these 167 (33%) received at least one dose of second-line therapy and formed the final study population. Median OS2 was 5.2 months (95% CI = 4.7–5.7) and median TTF2 was 1.9 months (1.5–2.2). OS2 and TTF2 were similar regardless regimen, including comparison of the two most common regimens (fluoropyrimidine monotherapy vs. fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin doublet). Multivariate analysis revealed that normal plasma albumin (≥35) and serum CA-19-9 above median (>1,550) were independent predictors for OS2 (HR = 0.21, p < 0.001 and HR = 2.03, p = 0.009) and TTF2 (HR = 0.22, p < 0.001 and HR = 2.03, p = 0.01), while ECOG performance status >1 was predictive for TTF2 (HR = 2.05, p = 0.032). Grade 3–4 hematological toxicity was registered in 17 patients (10%). 50 (30%) had at least one event of hospitalization.

Conclusion: The real world outcome of second line palliative chemotherapy for refractory APC remains dismal. Baseline plasma albumin, serum CA-19-9, and performance status emerge as key prognostic factors, and should be further studied as tools for individualized treatment decisions.