Fuloria, Jyotsna

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

9513 Background: The need for more research in N/V control is exemplified by agents that are costly, interfere with cytochrome P450 metabolism, and inadequately address delayed N/V. Based on pilot data, there was justification for evaluating whether gabapentin could improve the prevention of delayed N/V from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: Patients (pts) about to receive HEC were randomized to prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone (dex) and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by either gabapentin (gaba) 300 mg BID and dex or placebo (plac) and dex. Gaba/plac was started the evening of the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 of the first chemotherapy cycle. Dex was given at 8 mg BID days 2-3, then 4 mg BID for day 4, in both arms. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications day 2-6, using a nausea and vomiting diary. The percent of CR were compared in each group by Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes included the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), satisfaction, and a side effect questionnaire. Results: 430 pts were enrolled in this study between 5/2009 and 2/2011. 47% of pts in the gaba arm and 41% in the plac arm had a CR (p=.23). At some time during days 2-6, 30% in the gaba and plac arms experienced emesis, and 45% and 53% in the gaba and plac arms, respectively, took rescue medication. Mean diary nausea scores over days 2-6 ranged from 0.9 – 1.2 (gaba arm) and 1.0-1.3 (plac arm)(7 = the worst); mean number of diary emetic episodes ranged from 0.1 -0.3 (gaba arm) and 0.1-0.2 (plac arm). The FLIE was not significantly different between arms. Mean vomiting satisfaction was 9.1 in both arms and for nausea was 8.3 for gaba, 8.1 for plac (10= totally satisfied). There were no significant differences in toxicities by CTCAE provider grading or by self-report. Conclusions: In this study, gaba did not improve delayed N/V. Overall, there was little emesis and nausea severity was low. Patients were satisfied with the control of their N/V, irrespective of arm. The use of standard prophylactic guidelines that include a 5HT3RA and dex provided good control of N/V for most patients. Clinical trial information: NCT00880191.

767 Background: The CORRECT trial (NCT01103323) showed that REG improves overall survival (OS) vs placebo (PBO) in patients with mCRC who failed approved therapies (OS HR 0.77; 1-sided p=0.0052; Grothey 2013). A total of 760 patients were randomized to REG (n=505) or PBO (n=255) in more than 100 centers across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. We conducted a post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of the 83 (11%) patients from 18 US centers. Methods: Eligible patients had an ECOG PS ≤1 and had received approved therapies, including a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab, and if KRAS wild-type cetuximab and/or panitumumab. Data from the overall cohort, including US patients, are provided for perspective. Descriptive statistics are shown. Results: Of the 83 US patients, 36 (43%) were randomized to PBO and 47 (57%) to REG. Baseline characteristics of the US group were consistent with the overall cohort: median age in the US was 58 yr (range, 34 – 85) vs 61 (22 – 85) overall, 49% of US patients were ECOG PS1 (vs 46%), and 46% received ≤ 3 treatments for mCRC (vs 52%). KRAS status mutant/wild-type was 57%/34% in the US vs 57%/39% overall. All patients in the trial had prior bevacizumab and 57% of US patients also had prior cetuximab and/or panitumumab (vs 51% overall). However, higher proportion of patients in the US were Black (11% vs 2%), KRAS status unknown (10% vs 4%), and had colon as the primary disease site (82% vs 65%). Mean percentages of planned REG dose were similar (76% US vs 79% overall) and mean REG treatment duration was 3.1 mos in US vs 2.8 mos overall. Rates of dose modifications REG/PBO were 87%/47% in the US vs 76%/38% overall and grade ≥3 adverse events REG/PBO were 74%/64% vs 78%/49%, respectively. Based on 44 total death events, the HR for OS in the US subgroup was 0.46 (95%CI 0.25 – 0.84) favoring REG; median OS was 4.7 mos for PBO, but could not be estimated for REG due to censored data. However, this analysis was based on a relatively small sample size and event count. Conclusions: Patients treated in the CORRECT study in the US appear similar to the overall cohort and results are generally consistent with the overall findings of the trial. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.

735 Background: In the phase III CORRECT study, regorafenib significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC. CONSIGN (NCT01538680) was a large phase IIIb study that included 2872 patients from 25 countries; it was designed to provide continued access to regorafenib for patients with mCRC who failed standard therapy and to further characterize the safety of regorafenib. In CONSIGN, adverse events (AEs) and PFS were consistent with those reported in phase III studies. We present a retrospective subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in CONSIGN in the USA. Methods: Patients with mCRC who progressed on standard therapies and had an ECOG PS 0─1 received regorafenib 160 mg QD for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. PFS (per investigator) was the only efficacy variable assessed. Results: A total of 364 patients in the USA were assigned to treatment (all evaluable for safety). The median age was 60 years; 38% and 62% had ECOG PS 0 and 1, respectively. KRAS mutation was present in 59%, KRAS wt in 38%; 74% had ≥ 3 prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median duration of treatment was 2.3 months (range: 0–30). Median PFS (95% CI) was 2.3 (2.0–2.6) months (2.1 months KRAS wt; 2.3 months KRAS mutant). NCI-CTCAE v4.0 grade ≥ 3 AEs occurred in 81% of patients and were considered drug-related in 53% (Table). Grade ≥ 3 hepatobiliary disorders occurred in 2%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent laboratory toxicities included bilirubin (9%), AST (6%), and ALT (3%). Conclusions: In patients from the USA enrolled in CONSIGN, the safety profile of regorafenib was consistent with that of the overall population and the known safety profile of regorafenib in mCRC. Median PFS was in the range of that reported in phase III trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01538680. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUNDDespite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).METHODSParticipants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2‐4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2‐6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test.RESULTSFour hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty‐seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects.CONCLUSIONSIn this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients. Cancer 2014;120:3575–3583. © 2014 American Cancer Society.