Citations

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

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.

PURPOSE The microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually regarded as a single biologic entity, given the absence of comparative analyses regarding prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon cancers were randomly assigned to FOLFOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab in 2 large adjuvant phase III trials (N = 5,577). Among patients with MSI and KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumors, the prognostic and predictive impacts of sporadic versus familial dMMR cancers and BRAF V600E mutational status were determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment arm, adjusting for age, sex, tumor grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pT/pN stage, and primary tumor location. RESULTS Among patients with MSI status with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (n = 354), 255 (72%) had sporadic ( BRAF mutation and/or MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) had familial tumors ( BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1 or loss of MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 protein expression). A large proportion of dMMR sporadic tumors were mutated for BRAF (n = 200). In patients treated with FOLFOX, DFS did not differ statistically by dMMR mechanism, whereas in patients treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab, those with sporadic tumors had worse DFS than those with familial cancers (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.08; P = .04). Considering the predictive utility, the interaction between treatment and dMMR mechanism was significant ( P = .03). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend toward a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in patients with BRAF-mutant but not BRAF WT tumors. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to adjuvant FOLFOX was associated with shorter DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR colon cancer. Additional studies are needed to validate these results in metastatic disease.

3583 Background: The Microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually taken as a single biological entity whereas no data are available concerning prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cases. Methods: Resected KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumor stage III colon cancers (N = 4596) from patients (pts) randomly assigned to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant large phase III trials were prospectively analyzed for MSI status and dMMR mechanism (sporadic vs familial). Stratified Cox models were used to assess prognostic and predictive values of dMMR mechanism by treatment arms, adjusting for age, gender, tumor grade, ECOG PS, pT/pN stage and primary tumor location. Results: Among dMMR patients with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (N = 354), there were 255 (72%) sporadic ( BRAF mutated or WT with MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) familial (loss of MSH2 or MSH6, or loss MLH1 with BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1) cases. A large proportion of dMMR sporadic cases were mutated for BRAF (n = 200; 80%). In pts treated with FOLFOX, the disease-free survival (DFS) was not statistically different by dMMR mechanism, while for pts treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab, the sporadic cases did worse than familial cases (DFS; adjusted (adj) HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02-7.08; P= 0.04). Considering the predictive value, a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in sporadic (DFS; adjHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.79; P= 0.04) but not in familial dMMR pts (interaction P value regarding treatment effect = 0.03). Furthermore, a non-significant trend to a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in BRAF mutant (DFS; adjHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95-2.92; P= 0.07) but not in BRAF WT pts. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX was associated with reduced DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR cases. Further studies including the methylator phenotype (CIMP) analysis are needed to validate these results. Clinical trial information: NCT00265811 and NCT00079274.