Early progression (progr) in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPaC) and a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAm): Phase III POLO trial of olaparib (O) versus placebo (P)

750

Background: In POLO (NCT02184195), maintenance O was associated with significant progr-free survival benefit vs P in pts with a gBRCAm and mPaC (Golan NEJM 2019). Early progr or death (within 4 months [m]) occurs in ~35−45% of pts on standard-of-care first-line (1L) chemotherapy for mPaC (Conroy NEJM 2011; von Hoff NEJM 2013); however, predictive factors are currently unknown and early progr has not been addressed in the maintenance setting. We examined factors potentially associated with early progr in POLO. Methods: Following ≥16 weeks of 1L platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) without progr, pts were randomized to maintenance O (tablets; 300 mg bd) or P until progr or unacceptable toxicity. Early progr was defined as progr (by blinded independent central review) or death within 4 m of randomization. A stepwise logistic regression model included baseline (BL) factors age, albumin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), global health status (GHS) and physical functioning (PhysF) as continuous variables, and discrete variables listed in the Table. Results: 62/154 randomized pts (40%) were defined as early progressors (EP; Table). Due to missing BL data, the multivariate analysis included 127 pts (56 EPs [44%]). Lower BL PhysF score (continuous) was significantly associated with early progr ( P= 0.02); no difference for partial/complete response (PR/CR) vs stable disease (SD). Conclusions: While small sample size limited analysis power, PhysF score was the only BL factor significantly associated with early progr in pts with a gBRCAm and mPaC in the POLO trial of maintenance O vs P. Clinical trial information: NCT02184195 . [Table: see text]

HALO 109-301: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) + nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG) in patients (pts) with previously untreated hyaluronan (HA)-high metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA)

638

Background: HA is a major component of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in PDA. PEGPH20 degrades tumor HA, remodeling the TME. In PDA models, PEGPH20 has shown antitumor activity and increased TME delivery of anticancer agents to improve efficacy. A randomized phase 2 study showed promising results for PEGPH20+AG (PAG) in mPDA and identified HA accumulation as a biomarker. We present results from a phase 3 study (NCT02715804) of PAG for pts with HA-high mPDA. Methods: Pts ≥18 years with untreated HA-high mPDA were randomized (stratified by geographic region) 2:1 to PAG or placebo+AG (AG). HA status was prospectively determined with VENTANA HA RxDx Assay, with HA-high defined as ≥50% staining of a tumor sample. Treatment was administered IV in 4-wk cycles (3 wks on, 1 wk off) until progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs): PEGPH20 3.0 µg/kg twice wkly for Cycle 1 and once wkly (QW) thereafter, A 125 mg/m2 QW and G 1000 mg/m2 QW. Prophylactic enoxaparin 1 mg/kg was given daily for thromboembolism (TE) risk. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Response was independently assessed per RECIST v1.1. The estimated sample size was ~500 pts to detect a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 0.67 (93% power, 2-sided α = 0.05) after 330 deaths. Results: As of 20 May 2019, 494 pts were randomized with 492 (327 for PAG and 165 for AG) included in ITT analyses (2 pts excluded due to site violations). Baseline characteristics were balanced for PAG vs AG. After 330 deaths, median OS for PAG vs AG was 11.2 vs 11.5 mo (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80–1.27; P = 0.97); median PFS was 7.1 vs 7.1 mo (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75–1.26); confirmed ORR was 34% vs 27%. Grade (G) 3+ AEs (PAG vs AG) included neutropenia (44% vs 47%), thrombocytopenia (21% vs 16%) and fatigue (16% vs 10%); G3+ rates were 6% vs 7% for TE events, 5% vs 2% for bleeding events and 13% vs 5% for musculoskeletal events. Conclusions: PAG did not improve clinical outcomes vs AG. The PAG safety profile was consistent with that of previous studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02715804.

The Postoperative Occurrence or Worsening of Diabetes Mellitus May Increase the Risk of Recurrence in Resected Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this retrospective study was to investigate the potential link between diabetes mellitus (DM) and the recurrence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) following curative intent surgery.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent surgical resection of nonmetastatic well-differentiated PanNET. Exacerbation of DM was defined as the postoperative occurrence of DM or worsening of preexisting DM. We explored the variables associated with PanNET recurrence-free survival (RFS). RFS was compared in a subset of patients with and without DM operated on by anatomical resection, after matching for the main prognostic factors. The impact of antidiabetic therapy on RFS was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 268 patients (median age 54.7, 40% men) were included. Most PanNET were sporadic (85%), G1 (61%), pT1/pT2 (79%), and pN0 (76%). Postoperative DM exacerbation occurred in 38 patients (14%), including 27 with new-onset DM. On multivariable analysis, DM exacerbation was independently associated with an increased risk of PanNET recurrence (HR 2.35, 95% CI [1.24-4.47], p = 0.009) after adjustment for age, multiplicity of tumors, grade, pT, and pN stages. Similar results were found when 27 patients with and 48 patients without DM exacerbation, matched for grade, pT stage and pN stage, were compared (HR 3.03, 95% CI [1.05-8.77], p = 0.032). The postoperative use of metformin tended to decrease the risk of recurrence (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24-1.47, p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Patients with postoperative DM exacerbation may have an increased risk of PanNET recurrence. Closer follow-up might be beneficial in these patients. The protective role of metformin should be further explored.

Chemotherapy in Resected Neuroendocrine Carcinomas of the Digestive Tract: A National Study from the French Group of Endocrine Tumours

BACKGROUND

Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) of the digestive tract are rare and aggressive tumours. In localised disease the treatment is surgery. Based on expert consensus, international guidelines recommend the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy combining etoposide and platinum derivatives, justified by the high risk of metastatic relapse. However, no clinical study has proven the benefit of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant +/- adjuvant and adjuvant therapy in this indication.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational French study to evaluate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), prognostic factors for survival, and chemotherapy toxicity.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients had surgical resection of a localised digestive NEC between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016. The majority of patients presented colorectal (35%) tumours and the median Ki-67 value was 70%. Forty-three patients received chemotherapy, either perioperative (neoadjuvant +/- adjuvant) or adjuvant. The median OS and DFS for the whole population was 24 and 9 months, respectively. The median OS and DFS for patients receiving chemotherapy was 62 and 13 months, respectively. Positive postoperative node status and Ki-67 ≥80% had a negative prognostic impact on OS and DFS. Administration of chemotherapy had a positive prognostic impact on OS and DFS. Sixteen grade 3/4 toxicities were reported without toxic death.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a positive effect on survival of chemotherapy in resected digestive NECs, but further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract B22: Trybeca-1: A randomized, phase 3 study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441)

Background: Second-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma are currently limited. Eryaspase, asparaginase (ASNase) encapsulated in red blood cells (RBCs), is an investigational product under development. Following infusion, asparagine and glutamine are actively transported into RBCs where they are hydrolyzed by the encapsulated ASNase. We have recently reported the outcome of a randomized phase 2b study in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose disease progressed following first-line treatment (NCT02195180). Eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine monotherapy or FOLFOX combination therapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The safety profile of eryaspase was acceptable. The results of this phase 2b study provided a rationale for initiating this confirmatory phase 3 pivotal trial (TRYbeCA-1).

Methods: TRYbeCA-1 is an international, randomized, open-label phase 3 trial (N= ~500) of eryaspase combined with chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who have failed only one prior line of systemic anticancer therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and have measurable disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine/abraxane or irinotecan-based therapy (FOLFIRI [FOLinic acid-Fluorouracil-IRInotecan regimen] or irinotecan liposome injection/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) with or without eryaspase, administered as IV infusion on Day 1 and Day 15 of each 4-week cycle. Key eligibility criteria include performance status 0 or 1, stage IV disease, documented evidence of disease progression, available tumor tissue, and adequate organ function. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS and objective response rate, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and biomarker research. A hazard ratio in OS of 0.725 is being targeted, which represents a conservative estimate based on the phase 2b data and is viewed as being highly clinically relevant. An IDMC will be established to review safety at regular intervals and to review efficacy data at the planned interim and final analyses.

Citation Format: Pascal Hammel, Rosanna Berardi, Eric Van Cutsem, Jaime Feliu, Richard Greil, Harpreet Wasan, Jean-Philippe Metges, Peter Nygren, Pia Österlund, Marcus Noel, Thomas Seufferlein, Geert-Jan Creemers, Anu Gupta, Sophie Salesse, Nigel Biswas-Baldwin, Hedy Dion, Hagop Youssoufian, Iman El-Hariry, Manuel Hidalgo. Trybeca-1: A randomized, phase 3 study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Pancreatic Cancer: Advances in Science and Clinical Care; 2019 Sept 6-9; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(24 Suppl):Abstract nr B22.

Health-related quality of life in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving maintenance olaparib

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer often have a detriment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In the randomized, double-blind, phase III POLO trial progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, than placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) and metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The prespecified HRQoL evaluation is reported here.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive maintenance olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.; tablets) or placebo. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module at baseline, every 4 weeks until disease progression, at discontinuation, and 30 days after last dose. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; a ≥10-point change or difference between arms was considered clinically meaningful. Adjusted mean change from baseline was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to sustained clinically meaningful deterioration (TSCMD) was analysed using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

Of 154 randomized patients, 89 of 92 olaparib-arm and 58 of 62 placebo-arm patients were included in HRQoL analyses. The adjusted mean change in Global Health Status (GHS) score from baseline was <10 points in both arms and there was no significant between-group difference [-2.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.27, 2.33; P = 0.31]. Analysis of physical functioning scores showed a significant between-group difference (-4.45 points; 95% CI -8.75, -0.16; P = 0.04). There was no difference in TSCMD for olaparib versus placebo for GHS [P = 0.25; hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% CI 0.41, 1.27] or physical functioning (P = 0.32; HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.73, 2.63).

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL was preserved with maintenance olaparib treatment with no clinically meaningful difference compared with placebo. These results support the observed efficacy benefit of maintenance olaparib in patients with a gBRCAm and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

CLINCALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER

NCT02184195.

Erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) combined with chemotherapy in second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: An open-label, randomized Phase IIb trial

PURPOSE

This Phase IIb (NCT02195180) open-label study evaluated erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) in combination with chemotherapy in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to either eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 (eryaspase arm), or to gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 alone (control arm). Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with low asparagine synthetase (ASNS) expression. Secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in the entire population.

RESULTS

141 patients were randomized (eryaspase arm, n = 95; control arm, n = 46). Median OS and PFS in patients with low ASNS expression were 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.8) in the eryaspase arm versus 4.9 months (3.1-7.1) in the control arm (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = 0.056) and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.4) in the eryaspase arm versus 1.8 months (1.4-3.8) in the control arm (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.12; P = 0.127), respectively. In the entire population, median OS and PFS for the eryaspase arm versus control were 6.0 months versus 4.4 months (HR, 0.60; P = 0.008) and 2.0 months versus 1.6 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.84; P = 0.005), respectively. The combination of eryaspase and chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most frequent Grade 3/4 adverse events in the eryaspase arm (n = 93) were gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (16 [17.2%]), neutropenia (12 [12.9%]), and physical health deterioration (12 [12.9%]).

CONCLUSION

Eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy is associated with improvements in OS and PFS, irrespective of ASNS expression in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A Phase III trial is underway.

Patterns of Recurrence After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Secondary Analysis of the ESPAC-4 Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial

Importance

The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear.

Objective

To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019.

Interventions

Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence.

Results

Of the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P = .04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P = .85 and P = .35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

There were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00058201, EudraCT 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN 96397434.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the screening and follow-up of high-risk individuals for familial pancreatic cancer

Managing familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) is challenging for gastroenterologists, surgeons and oncologists. High-risk individuals (HRI) for pancreatic cancer (PC) (FPC or with germline mutations) are a heterogeneous group of subjects with a theoretical lifetime cumulative risk of PC over 5%. Screening is mainly based on annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The goal of screening is to identify early-stage operable cancers or high-risk precancerous lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia). In the literature, target lesions are identified in 2%-5% of HRI who undergo screening. EUS appears to provide better identification of small solid lesions (0%-46% of HRI) and chronic-pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes (14%-77% of HRI), while MRI is probably the best modality to identify small cystic lesions (13%-49% of HRI). There are no specific studies in HRI on the use of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS. EUS can also be used to obtain tissue samples. Nevertheless, there is still limited evidence on the accuracy of imaging procedures used for screening or agreement on which patients to treat. The cost-effectiveness of screening is also unclear. Certain new EUS-related techniques, such as searching for DNA abnormalities or protein markers in pancreatic fluid, appear to be promising.

Efficacy and Safety of Aflibercept in Combination With Chemotherapy Beyond Second-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Patients: An AGEO Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Although no data have been reported beyond second-line therapy, aflibercept is approved in this setting in many countries. We conducted a multicenter study to analyze the efficacy and safety of a aflibercept-chemotherapy regimen beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with aflibercept beyond second-line therapy were included. Objective response rate, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were included. Median OS and PFS were 7.6 months (95% confidence interval, 6.2-9.3) and 3.3 months (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.8), respectively. The best response rates were partial response 6.9%, stable disease 38.5%, progressive disease 42.5%, and not evaluable 12%. According to whether patients received previous FOLFIRI (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin)-bevacizumab or not, OS was 7.7 and 8.1 months (P = .31), and PFS was 2.9 and 3.9 months (P = .02), respectively. Interestingly, PFS and OS were both significantly improved by 4% and 5% per month, respectively, without antiangiogenic treatment before the initiation of the aflibercept regimen. The negative effect of prior FOLFIRI-bevacizumab or shorter time since last bevacizumab was maintained in multivariate analysis for both OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

The aflibercept-chemotherapy regimen is a therapeutic option in patients with chemorefractory disease beyond second-line therapy, in particular in patients with an antiangiogenic-free interval.

Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation make up a small subgroup of those with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has had antitumor activity in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients who had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer and disease that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, to receive maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review.

RESULTS

Of the 3315 patients who underwent screening, 154 underwent randomization and were assigned to a trial intervention (92 to receive olaparib and 62 to receive placebo). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.82; P = 0.004). An interim analysis of overall survival, at a data maturity of 46%, showed no difference between the olaparib and placebo groups (median, 18.9 months vs. 18.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.46; P = 0.68). There was no significant between-group difference in health-related quality of life, as indicated by the overall change from baseline in the global quality-of-life score (on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (between-group difference, -2.47 points; 95% CI, -7.27 to 2.33). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 40% in the olaparib group and 23% in the placebo group (between-group difference, 16 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.02 to 31); 5% and 2% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial intervention because of an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer, progression-free survival was longer with maintenance olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; POLO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02184195.).

Impact on health-related quality of life deterioration-free survival of a first-line therapy combining nab-paclitaxel plus either gemcitabine or simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Results of the randomized phase II AFUGEM GERCOR clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The phase II AFUGEM GERCOR trial aimed to assess the efficacy of a first-line therapy combining nab-paclitaxel plus either gemcitabine (gemcitabine group) or simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil (sLV5FU2 group) in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Results of progression-free survival at 4 months (primary endpoint) were in favor of the sLV5FU2 group. This paper presents health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data as a secondary endpoint.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline and at each chemotherapy cycle until the end of treatment. The HRQoL deterioration-free survival (QFS) was used as a modality of longitudinal analysis. QFS was defined as the time between randomization and the first definitive HRQoL score deterioration as compared to the baseline score, or death. Sensitivity analysis was performed excluding death as an event. Univariate Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the treatment effect.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2014, 114 patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio (39 in the gemcitabine group and 75 in the sLV5FU2 group). Patients in the sLV5FU2 group seemed to present longer QFS than those of the gemcitabine group for 14 out of 15 dimensions, with HRs < 1. Results of the sensitivity analysis excluding death as an event were significantly in favor of the sLV5FU2 group for physical functioning (HR = 0.51 [90% CI 0.27-0.97]) and pain (HR = 0.26 [90% CI 0.09-0.74]).

CONCLUSION

The nab-paclitaxel plus simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil combination had no negative impact in exploratory HRQoL analyses.

Olaparib as maintenance treatment following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) in patients (pts) with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC): Phase III POLO trial

LBA4

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) pts with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) have shown response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib (Kaufman 2015). POLO is the first phase III trial to evaluate efficacy of maintenance treatment with a PARP inhibitor in PC. Methods: POLO is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pts with a gBRCAm and pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had received ≥16 weeks of first-line PBC for metastatic disease without progression. Pts were randomized 3:2 to maintenance olaparib (O) tablets (300 mg bid) or placebo (P). Treatment began 4–8 weeks after last PBC dose, continuing until investigator-assessed progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (modified RECIST 1.1). Results: We screened 3315 pts, identified 247 with a gBRCAm, randomized 154 (O 92, P 62), and treated 151 (O 90, P 61). Pt characteristics (O/P): age, median (range) 57 (37–84)/57 (36–75); male, 58%/50%; ECOG performance status 0, 71%/61%. With 104 events, PFS was significantly improved with O vs. P (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.35, 0.82; p = 0.0038; median PFS was 7.4 vs. 3.8 months [mo], respectively) and consistent irrespective of response to prior PBC (complete/partial HR 0.62; stable disease HR 0.50). From 6 mo, the % of pts progression-free in the O arm was more than twice that in the P arm (Table). At the interim overall survival analysis (46% maturity), HR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.56, 1.46; p = 0.68). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AE) occurred in 40% of O- and 23% of P-treated pts; 5.5% and 1.7% of pts, respectively, discontinued treatment due to an AE. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib provided a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS in mPC pts with a gBRCAm who had not progressed on PBC. Safety was consistent with the known profile for olaparib. POLO is the first phase III trial to validate a biomarker-driven treatment in PC. Clinical trial information: NCT02184195. [Table: see text]

Optimizing the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer with a focus on induction chemotherapy: Expert opinion based on a review of current evidence

Surgical resection of pancreatic cancer offers a chance of cure, but currently only 15-20% of patients are diagnosed with resectable disease, while 30-40% are diagnosed with non-metastatic, unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Treatment for LAPC usually involves systemic chemotherapy, with the aim of controlling disease progression, reducing symptoms and maintaining quality of life. In a small proportion of patients with LAPC, primary chemotherapy may successfully convert unresectable tumours to resectable tumours. In this setting, primary chemotherapy is termed 'induction therapy' rather than 'neoadjuvant'. There is currently a lack of data from randomized studies to thoroughly evaluate the benefits of induction chemotherapy in LAPC, but Phase II and retrospective data have shown improved survival and high R0 resection rates. New chemotherapy regimens such as nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX have demonstrated improvement in overall survival for metastatic disease and shown promise as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable disease. Prospective trials are underway to evaluate these regimens further as induction therapy in LAPC and preliminary data indicate a beneficial effect of FOLFIRINOX in this setting. Further research into optimal induction schedules is needed, as well as guidance on the patients who are most suitable for induction therapy. In this expert opinion article, a panel of surgeons, medical oncologists and gastrointestinal oncologists review the available evidence on management strategies for LAPC and provide their recommendations for patient care, with a particular focus on the use of induction chemotherapy.

Temozolomide Alone or Combined with Capecitabine for the Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor

BACKGROUND

The combination of capecitabine (CAP) with temozolomide (TEM) chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNET) relies on limited evidence. We compared TEM-CAP to TEM alone in patients with advanced PanNET.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with advanced PanNET treated with TEM or TEM-CAP between 2004 and 2017 in three expert centers were included. Progression-free survival (PFS), tolerance, tumor response, and overall survival were compared between the two groups. Propensity-based analyses were performed to reduce confounding bias due to the nonrandomized setting.

RESULTS

TEM and TEM-CAP were administered to 38 patients and 100 patients, respectively, with a median age of 58 years. The patients in the TEM group more often had hormonal syndromes (p = 0.03), a longer median delay to diagnosis (p = 0.001), and a higher number of pretreatment lines (p < 0.001). The performance status was 0 in 58% versus 65% of the patients, and tumor's median Ki-67 index was 8% versus 11%, respectively. Tolerance was similar, except that there were more cases of asthenia in the TEM group (p = 0.017) and more cases of hand-foot syndrome in the TEM-CAP group (p = 0.025). The objective response rate was 34% versus 51% (p = 0.088). The raw median PFS was similar with TEM and with TEM-CAP (21.4 vs. 19.8 months, p = 0.84). Although CAP tended to decrease the risk of progression in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.65, p = 0.12), it had no effect after adjustment for the propensity score (HR 1.06, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

TEM-CAP might not prolong PFS but might achieve a higher response rate than TEM alone. Hence, TEM-CAP might be preferred when tumor shrinkage is the main therapeutic objective. Otherwise, TEM might be adequate for patients with an impaired performance status or in case of extrahepatic metastases.

Prognostic factors in patients treated with second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: results from the randomized prospective phase III FFCD-0307 trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine prognostic factors in patients treated with second-line therapy (L2) for locally advanced or metastatic gastric and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in a randomized phase III study with predefined L2.

METHODS

In the FFCD-0307 study, patients were randomly assigned to receive in L1 either epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX arm) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI arm). L2 treatment was predefined (FOLFIRI for the ECX arm and ECX for the FOLFIRI arm). Chi square tests were used to compare the characteristics of patients treated in L2 with those of patients who did not receive L2. Prognostic factors in L2 for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using a Cox model.

RESULTS

Among 416 patients included, 101/209 (48.3%) patients in the ECX arm received FOLFIRI in L2, and 81/207 (39.1%) patients in the FOLFIRI arm received ECX in L2. Patients treated in L2, compared with those who only received L1 had : a better ECOG score (0-1: 90.4% versus 79.7%; p = 0.0002), more frequent GEJ localization (40.8% versus 27.6%; p = 0.005), and lower platelet count (median: 298000 versus 335000/mm³; p = 0.02). In multivariate analyses, age < 60 years at diagnosis (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03, p = 0.013) and ECOG score 2 before L2 (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.41-4.84, p = 0.005) were the only significant poor prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSION

Age ≥ 60 years at diagnosis and ECOG score 0/1 before L2 were the only favorable prognostic factors for OS.

Can we classify ampullary tumours better? Clinical, pathological and molecular features. Results of an AGEO study

Background

Ampullary adenocarcinoma (AA) originates from either intestinal (INT) or pancreaticobiliary (PB) epithelium. Different prognostic factors of recurrence have been identified in previous studies.

Methods

In 91 AA patients of the AGEO retrospective multicentre cohort, we evaluated the centrally reviewed morphological classification, panel markers of Ang et al. including CK7, CK20, MUC1, MUC2 and CDX2, the 50-gene panel mutational analysis, and the clinicopathological AGEO prognostic score.

Results

Forty-three (47%) of the 91 tumours were Ang-INT, 29 (32%) were Ang-PB, 18 (20%) were ambiguous (Ang-AMB) and one could not be classified. Among these 90 tumours, 68.7% of INT tumours were Ang-INT and 78.2% of PB tumours were Ang-PB. MUC5AC expression was detected in 32.5% of the 86 evaluable cases. Among 71 tumours, KRAS, TP53, APC and PIK3CA were the most frequently mutated genes. The KRAS mutation was significantly more frequent in the PB subtype. In multivariate analysis, only AGEO prognostic score and tumour subtype were associated with relapse-free survival. Only AGEO prognostic score was associated with overall survival.

Conclusions

Mutational analysis and MUC5AC expression provide no additional value in the prognostic evaluation of AA patients. Ang et al. classification and the AGEO prognostic score were confirmed as a strong prognosticator for disease recurrence.