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

Optimizing First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the most lethal tumors in Europe with an overall 5-year survival rate of 5%. Since 1992, gemcitabine (Gem) has been the treatment of choice for metastatic disease with significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) compared to fluorouracil. A good performance status (PS) at diagnosis appears to be a strong predictive factor for better survival. Overall, 50% of PC are metastatic or locally advanced at diagnosis, and more than 70% of the resected patients will experience a recurrence, with a median OS ranging from 4 to 10 months (mos). FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-p) plus Gem have recently increased survival of patients with metastatic PC, over Gem. Treatment with FOLFIRINOX is generally considered more effective with respect to the doublet, with toxicity concerns, FOLFIRINOX achieves an overall response rate (ORR) of 31.6%, while for Nab-p plus Gem ORR is 23%; however, FOLFIRINOX was associated with higher rates of grade 3 and higher adverse events. Although the international guidelines indicate that both regimens can be used as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic PC, FOLFIRINOX is the most widely used; Nab-p plus Gem is more frequently used in patients with lower PS. In this review, we critically analyze these two regimens to give a pragmatic guide to treatment options.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Tailored Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Strategy Among Patients With New-Onset Diabetes

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in asymptomatic adults is not recommended, however, patients with new-onset diabetes (NoD) have an 8 times higher risk of PDAC than expected. A novel risk-tailored early detection strategy targeting high-risk NoD patients might improve PDAC prognosis. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

We compared PDAC early detection strategies targeting NoD individuals age 50 years and older at various minimal predicted PDAC risk thresholds vs standard of care in a Markov state-transition decision model under the health care sector perspective using a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy targeting patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1% was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $116,911). At a WTP threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the early detection strategy at the 2% risk threshold was cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $63,045). The proportion of PDACs detected at local stage, costs of treatment for metastatic PDAC, utilities of local and regional cancers, and sensitivity of screening were the most influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that at a WTP threshold of $150,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (30.6%), followed by the 0.5% risk threshold (20.4%) vs standard of care (1.7%). At a WTP threshold of $100,000, early detection at the 1.0% risk threshold was favored (27.3%) followed by the 2.0% risk threshold (22.8%) vs standard of care (2.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-tailored PDAC early detection strategy targeting NoD patients with a minimum predicted 3-year PDAC risk of 1.0% to 2.0% may be cost effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.

METHODS

The eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC.

Equivalent Efficacy but Different Safety Profiles of Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GN) are the most common chemotherapy regimens in first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). They have not been compared each other in a prospective trial, but only in retrospective studies, which can thus be affected by several biases. In order to overcome these biases, we took advantage of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), that allows an indirect comparison by reducing cross-trial differences, and compared data from 268 patients treated with GN in a real-world setting with data from the 171 patients included in the FFX arm of the PRODIGE trial. Survival outcomes did not differ between the two populations. Overall survival was 11.1 months for both treatments (hazard ratio (HR) of FFX 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–1.49; p = 0.527). Progression-free survival was 6.0 months with GN and 6.4 months with FFX (HR of FFX 1.11, 95% CI 0.82–1.50; p = 0.520). On the other hand, we observed a difference in the toxicity profiles: grade 3/4 anemia was more frequent with GN, whereas a higher occurrence of grade 3/4 vomiting and diarrhea was reported with FFX. FFX and GN show an equivalent efficacy but different safety profiles in the first-line therapy of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Searching for reliable predictive biomarkers is advised in order to improve therapeutic strategy in metastatic PC.

Association between Low-Grade Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CINP) and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas

The combination of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine demonstrated greater efficacy than gemcitabine alone but resulted in higher rates of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CINP) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). We aimed to evaluate the correlation between the development of treatment-related peripheral neuropathy and the efficacy of nab-P/Gem combination in these patients. mPC patients treated with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² as a first-line therapy were included. Treatment-related adverse events, mainly peripheral neuropathy, were categorized using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria scale, version 4.02. Efficacy outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PSF), and disease control rate (DCR), were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier model. A total of 153 patients were analyzed; of these, 47 patients (30.7%) developed grade 1–2 neuropathy. PFS was 7 months (95% CI (6–7 months)) for patients with grade 1–2 neuropathy and 6 months (95% CI (5–6 months)) for patients without peripheral neuropathy (p = 0.42). Median OS was 13 months (95% CI (10–18 months)) and 10 months (95% CI (8–13 months)) in patients with and without peripheral neuropathy, respectively (p = 0.04). DCR was achieved by 83% of patients with grade 1–2 neuropathy and by 58% of patients without neuropathy (p = 0.03). In the multivariate analysis, grade 1–2 neuropathy was independently associated with OS (HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.98; p = 0.03). nab-P/Gem represents an optimal first-line treatment for mPC patients. Among possible treatment-related adverse events, peripheral neuropathy is the most frequent, with different grades and incidence. Our study suggests that patients experiencing CINP may have a more favorable outcome, with a higher disease control rate and prolonged median survival compared to those without neuropathy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Background: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

Safety assessment of metarrestin in dogs: A clinical candidate targeting a subnuclear structure unique to metastatic cancer cells

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. Ninety percent of patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer die within one year of diagnosis due to complications of metastasis. A metastatic potential of cancer cells has been shown to be closely associated with formation of perinucleolar compartment (PNC). Metarrestin, a first-in-class PNC inhibitor, was evaluated for its toxicity, toxicokinetics, and safety pharmacology in beagle dogs following every other day oral (capsule) administration for 28 days to support its introduction into clinical trials. The study consisted of four dose groups: vehicle; 0.25, 0.75 and 1.50 mg/kg/dose. Metarrestin reached its maximum concentration in blood at 3 h (overall median Tmax) across all doses with a mean t1/2 over 168 h of 55.5 h. Dose dependent increase in systemic exposure (Cmax and AUClast) with no sex difference was observed on days 1 and 27. Metarrestin accumulated from Day 1 to Day 27 at all dose levels and in both sexes by an overall factor of about 2.34. No mortality occurred during the dosing period; however, treatment-related clinical signs of toxicity consisting of hypoactivity, shaking/shivering, thinness, irritability, salivation, abnormal gait, tremors, ataxia and intermittent seizure-like activity were seen in both sexes at mid and high dose groups. Treatment-related effects on body weight and food consumption were seen at the mid and high dose levels. Safety pharmacology study showed no treatment-related effects on blood pressure, heart rate, corrected QT, PR, RR, or QRS intervals, or respiratory function parameters (respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume). There were no histopathological changes observed, with the exception of transient thymic atrophy which was considered to be non-adverse. Based primarily on clinical signs of toxicity, the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) in dogs was considered to be 0.25 mg/kg metarrestin after every other day dosing for 28 days with a mean of male and female Cmax = 82.5 ng/mL and AUClast = 2521 h*ng/mL, on Day 27.

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.

Real World Outcomes Associated with Idarucizumab: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Idarucizumab reverses the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran, but few comparative studies have reported on clinical outcomes with idarucizumab.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine the effect of idarucizumab on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a nationally representative sample of hospitals in the United States. The study population included adults ≥ 18 years who were hospitalized for dabigatran-associated major bleeding between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. We compared idarucizumab-exposed patients to the unexposed group. Our primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We included 266 exposed and 1345 non-exposed participants across 271 hospitals. Among participants with gastrointestinal bleeding, there was no statistically significant difference in the odds of in-hospital mortality [9/153 (5.9%) vs 37/1124 (3.3%); adjusted odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval 0.51-3.45] between the idarucizumab-exposed and non-exposed groups. Among participants with intracranial bleeding, there was an excess of in-hospital mortality [13/112 (11.6%) vs 6/217 (2.8%)] associated with idarucizumab exposure, but limitations include sparse data and the inability to rule out residual confounding or confounding by disease severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a large nationally representative sample of adult patients with dabigatran-associated major bleeding in the United States, we found no difference in in-hospital mortality among patients with gastrointestinal bleeding associated with idarucizumab exposure. An excess risk of in-hospital mortality associated with idarucizumab exposure among participants with intracranial bleeding deserves further exploration.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in pancreatic cancer: Retrospective claims analysis

Background

Pancreatic cancer represents the third leading cause of US cancer deaths, with median survival <1 year. The goal of this study was to describe systemic treatments, healthcare utilization and costs, and overall survival among patients with unresectable/metastatic disease.

Methods

This study used healthcare claims for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (at index date) during January 01 2010 to 31 May 2017. Included patients were aged ≥18 years, with continuous 6‐month preindex enrollment. Patients were excluded by resectable disease, another primary cancer, or pregnancy. Cohorts were based on first‐line (LOT1) chemotherapy regimen.

Results

Overall, 12 978 patients (mean age 70 years, 51% male) were included, among which 5610 (43%) received chemotherapy. Of those, 23% received gemcitabine monotherapy, 22% gemcitabine‐nab paclitaxel, 22% FOLFIRINOX, 3% FOLFOX, and 29% received other regimens. Mean LOT1 duration was 112 days; 60% did not undergo subsequent lines of therapy. Moreover, 50% of patients had an emergency room visit and 45% were hospitalized during LOT1. Among treated and untreated patients, mean total 6‐month costs were $52 101. We found that patients receiving FOLFIRINOX had the highest costs, whereas those who received gemcitabine monotherapy had the lowest. Median overall survival (mOS) was 335 days with any first‐line treatment. FOLFIRINOX‐treated patients had the highest mOS (492 days), whereas gemcitabine monotherapy‐treated patients had the lowest (223 days).

Conclusions

A large proportion (57%) of patients with unresectable/metastatic pancreatic cancer did not receive chemotherapy. Healthcare costs were higher for fluorouracil‐based regimens, while lower for gemcitabine‐based regimens. Survival rates were within expectations for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

No clinical trial has directly compared nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P/G) with FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer (mPC or aPC). We conducted a systematic review of real-world studies comparing these regimens in the first-line setting.

METHODS

Embase and MEDLINE databases through 22 January 2019, and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2019 abstracts were searched for real-world, retrospective studies comparing first-line nab-P/G versus FOLFIRINOX in mPC or aPC that met specific parameters. Studies with radiotherapy were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 818 records initially identified, 35 were duplicates and 749 did not meet the eligibility criteria, mostly because they were either not comparative (n = 356) or not first line (n = 245). The remaining 34 studies (21 mPC; 13 aPC) assessed >6915 patients who received nab-P/G or FOLFIRINOX. In the studies identified, the median overall survival (OS) reached 14.4 and 15.9 months with nab-P/G and FOLFIRINOX, respectively, and median progression-free survival reached 8.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. Safety data were reported in 14 studies (2205 patients), including 8 single-institutional studies. In most single-institutional studies that reported safety data, rates were higher with FOLFIRINOX versus nab-P/G for grade 3/4 neutropenia (five of six studies) and febrile neutropenia (all three studies), while rates of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy were higher with nab-P/G in four of seven studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although FOLFIRINOX was associated with slightly longer median OS in more studies, the differences, when available, were not statistically significant. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial is warranted. Toxicity profile differences represent key considerations for treatment decisions.

Modified FOLFIRINOX for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. A real-world comparison of an attenuated with a full dose in a single center experience

Purpose: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a very poor prognosis. Although irinotecan, oxaliplatin and leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX) significantly increases survival in advanced pancreatic cancer, compared to employing only gemcitabine (GEM), toxicities have tempered enthusiasm for its use. Methods: This study retrospectively analyses the real-world clinical practice with full and attenuated doses of FOLFIRINOX in unselected patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer, treated at an Italian general hospital. Efficacy, tolerability, and toxicity were evaluated, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Fifty consecutive patients with advanced (13) or metastatic (37) pancreatic adenocarcinomas were treated with FOLFIRINOX at the Medical Oncology Unit, Piacenza General Hospital, North Italy. The first enrolled consecutive 18 patients (36%) of this series started the treatment with a full dose of the regimen, while the subsequent 32 (64%) consecutive patients received dose attenuation (-20% bolus fluorouracil and -25% irinotecan). In the entire group, the response rate, median OS, and median PFS were 30%, 10.1 months, and 5.6 months, respectively, with no differences in objective response in the 32 patients that received an attenuated dose compared with the 18 patients receiving a full dose of chemotherapy. However, neutropenia, anemia, fatigue, and vomiting were statistically increased in the 18 patients receiving a full dose compared with the 32 patients receiving an attenuated dose of FOLFIRINOX (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the efficacy and tolerability of modified FOLFIRINOX in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08⁻2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84⁻1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71⁻1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3⁻4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized "real world" studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other.

The Benefit-Risk Balance of Nab-Paclitaxel in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The benefit-risk balance of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin versus gemcitabine assessed using generalized pairwise comparison was strongly positive. We sought to assess the benefit-risk balance of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine using the data of the MPACT trial, as it is an alternative to 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin.

METHODS

This statistical method allows for the simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcomes. The first priority outcome was survival time (overall survival). The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the overall net benefit. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the consistency of the results according to possible patients' preferences.

RESULTS

In this trial, 861 patients received nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone. The overall net benefit favored strongly and significantly the combination group. When only large survival differences were considered clinically relevant, the net benefit was not in favor of the combination group.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall net benefit is a clinically intuitive way of comparing patients with respect to all important efficacy and toxicity outcomes. The nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination has a positive benefit-risk balance, but it might not be suitable for patients who would consider losing several months of survival to avoid a significant toxic event.

Real world evidence on gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

Background

In the recent phase III trial MPACT the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem/NabP) showed increased overall survival compared to gemcitabine alone in the treatment of advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDA). Until now there has been limited information on the clinical benefit and toxicity of the combination regimen in a real world setting. In addition the value for patients with locally advanced rather than metastatic aPDA has been unclear, since the former category of patients was not included in the MPACT trial.

Methods

A multicentre retrospective observational study in the South Eastern Region of Sweden was performed, with the first 75 consecutive patients diagnosed with aPDA (both locally advanced and metastatic disease) who received first-line treatment with Gem/NabP.

Results

In the overall population median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.2 (3.4–7.0 95% CI) and 10.9 (7.8–14.0 95% CI) months, respectively. Patients with metastatic disease displayed a median OS of 9.4 (4.9–13.9) and a median PFS of 4.5 (3.3–5.7) months whereas the same parameters in the locally advanced subgroup were 17.1 (7.6–26.6) and 6.8 (5.2–8.4) months, respectively. Grade 3–4 hematologic toxicity was recorded: Neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and anaemia were observed in 23, 20, 5, and 4% of patients, respectively. Dose reductions were performed in 80% of the patients.

Conclusion

This study confirms the effectiveness and safety of first-line Gem/NabP in both locally advanced and metastatic PDA in a real world setting.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5244-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evodiamine inactivates NF-κB and potentiates the antitumor effects of gemcitabine on tongue cancer both in vitro and in vivo

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether evodiamine (EVO) could potentiate the antitumor activity of gemcitabine (GEM) in tongue cancer cells and determine its potential underlying mechanisms.

Materials and methods

Human Tca8113 and CAL-27 tongue squamous carcinoma cell lines were treated with EVO and GEM in different sequences and doses, after which cell proliferation was measured. Drug interactions were analyzed using the Chou–Talalay method with CompuSyn software. Clonality, apoptosis, and migration were measured using the plate clone formation assay, annexin V/propidium iodide (PI) staining, Hoechst 33342 staining, and the wound-healing test. The activity of the nuclear factor kappa light-chain enhancer of activated B cell (NF-κB) p65 subunit and its downstream proteins was quantified by Western blotting. The effects of the drug combination in vivo were assessed using a CAL-27 heterotopic xenograft model.

Results

EVO and GEM had synergistic effects on CAL-27 and Tca8113 cell lines in time- and concentration-dependent manners. Combination of drugs inhibited cell proliferation and migration and reduced the expression of NF-κB p65, B cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2), and B cell lymphoma extra large (Bcl-xl) compared with the control and either drug alone. In vivo, combination treatment of the xenograft model with EVO and GEM led to a significant reduction in tumor volume growth and inhibited the activation of NF-κB p65 with no obvious adverse reactions.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that EVO may inhibit cancer cells by suppressing NF-κB activity, and in combination with GEM, it may increase the chemosensitivity of tongue squamous cancer cells, thereby improving the treatment response.

Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Chemotherapy in a Large Retrospective Study of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a US Community Oncology Setting

Background

The combination chemotherapy regimens of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-p + G) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have each demonstrated improved survival compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in clinical trials for metastatic pancreatic cancer; however, limited comparative data exist.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes including time to treatment failure and overall survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the community.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, multi-site, observational cohort study of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line nab-p + G, FFX, or gemcitabine monotherapy between April 2013 and October 2015, using data from the iKnowMed electronic health record database. Patients on clinical trials or with other cancer diagnoses were excluded. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan–Meier methods.

Results

Four hundred and eighty-six patients met selection criteria, 255 nab-p + G, 159 FFX, and 72 gemcitabine patients. Median age was 61, 68, and 73 years for FFX, nab-p + G, and gemcitabine patients, respectively (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 was 91% for FFX, 77% for nab-p + G, and 68% for gemcitabine patients (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). For the nab-p + G vs. FFX cohorts, respectively, time to treatment failure was 3.7 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.25); and OS was 9.8 vs. 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.38). Among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, time to treatment failure was 4.2 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.47); and overall survival was 12.1 vs 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.68).

Conclusions

The nab-p + G patients were older and had worse performance status than FFX patients. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were not observed to be significantly different in first-line nab-p + G and FFX patients. Results were similar after stratifying by performance status.

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.