Lee, Woo Jin

LBA4005 Background: To date, no phase 3 clinical trial has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). TTFields are electric fields that disrupt cancer cell division. TTFields therapy is approved for glioblastoma, pleural mesothelioma, and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. A phase 2 trial in PAC demonstrated the safety and preliminary efficacy of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel. We report final data from PANOVA-3 (NCT03377491), the largest global, phase 3, randomized, open-label trial in LA-PAC to date. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed unresectable LA-PAC were randomized 1:1 to receive TTFields therapy (150 kHz) with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or GnP. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and pain-free survival. Distant PFS (metastases beyond the pancreas and regional lymph nodes) was assessed post hoc. Survival data were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test. Results: 571 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between the study arms. OS was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP than with GnP (median 16.2 [95% CI: 15.0, 18.0] vs 14.2 months [95% CI: 12.8, 15.4]; HR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68, 0.99], p=0.039). One-year survival rate was also significantly improved with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (68.1% [95% CI: 62.0-73.5] vs 60.2% [95% CI: 54.2-65.7], p=0.029). There was no significant difference in PFS or local PFS between arms. Pain-free survival was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (median 15.2 [95% CI: 10.3, 22.8] vs 9.1 months [95% CI: 7.4, 12.7]; HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.97], p=0.027). Post-hoc analysis showed significant distant PFS benefit (median 13.9 [95% CI: 12.2, 16.8] vs 11.5 months [95% CI: 10.4, 12.9], HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.96], p=0.022) with TTFields/GnP vs GnP. ORR was similar between arms (36.1% [95% CI: 30.0, 42.4] vs 30.0% [95% CI: 24.3, 36.2], p=0.094). 97.8% and 98.9% of patients who received TTFields/GnP and GnP, respectively, had adverse events (AEs) and 88.6% and 84.3% had grade ≥3 AEs. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (47.8% and 47.6%) and anemia (21.9% and 22.3). 81% of patients receiving TTFields/GnP had device-related AEs, mostly grade 1/2 skin AEs, e.g., dermatitis (27.7%), rash (17.5%), and pruritus (15.0%); grade 3 and grade 4 device-related AEs occurred in 9.1% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: PANOVA-3 is the largest phase 3 trial exclusively performed in patients with LA-PAC and the first to show a statistically significant OS benefit. With no additive systemic toxicity and a statistically significant pain-free survival benefit, TTFields therapy is a potential new standard treatment for LA-PAC. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 .

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.

4136 Background: NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235, N = 770), a global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study, demonstrated that NALIRIFOX significantly improved overall survival (OS, primary endpoint) and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with untreated mPDAC. Here, we report an updated analysis of OS. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 + leucovorin 400 mg/m2 + 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX, n = 383) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP, n = 387) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases. An updated OS analysis (data cutoff: 3 October 2023) was conducted. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS and hazard ratios (HRs [95% CI]) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard models. The difference between groups was tested using a stratified log-rank test. Results: The median follow-up for OS was 28.7 months in the NALIRIFOX arm and 29.7 months in the Gem+NabP arm. At data cutoff, 11 patients were still receiving study treatment, all of whom were in the NALIRIFOX arm. With a total of 673 OS events (NALIRIFOX, n = 328; Gem+NabP, n = 345), median OS was 11.1 months (95% CI 10.0–12.1) in the NALIRIFOX arm compared with 9.2 months (8.3–10.6) in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72–0.98]; nominal p = 0.026). At 12 months and 18 months, survival rates were 45.6% (95% CI 40.5–50.5) and 26.6% (22.2–31.1), respectively, in the NALIRIFOX arm and 39.6% (34.7–44.5) and 20.0% (16.1–24.1), respectively, in the Gem+NabP arm. Conclusions: In this 29-month follow-up of NAPOLI 3, NALIRIFOX continued to demonstrate improved OS compared with Gem+NabP, with 11 patients still receiving the NALIRIFOX regimen. These data confirm NALIRIFOX as a new possible standard of care and reference regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

687 Background: The NAPOLI 3 study (NCT04083235, N = 770) reported that NALIRIFOX improved overall survival (OS) vs Gem+NabP with manageable toxicity in 1L treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We explored changes in CA19-9 levels and their potential associations with efficacy as an important tumor marker in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: In NAPOLI 3, CA19-9 was evaluated at baseline and every 8 weeks until patients discontinued study treatment. The detection limit of CA19-9 was 8000 kU/L in this study. The Cox proportional hazards regression and logistic regression were employed to investigate the relationship between CA19-9 decrease and OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Patients with evaluable CA19-9 (levels =< 8000) at baseline and additional measurements at weeks 8 and 16 were included in the analysis (NALIRIFOX, n = 179; Gem+NabP, n = 194). The median baseline CA19-9 level was 378.0 and 409.7 kU/L for the NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP arms, respectively. Overall, patients with (vs without) any CA 19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR (59.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.002), a longer median PFS (9.2 vs 6.2 months; p < 0.001) and a longer median OS (14.2 vs 8.7 months; p = 0.005), respectively in a pooled analysis of the treatments. In the NALIRIFOX arm, patients with any CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher confirmed ORR of 65.1% compared with those without at 42.4% ( p < 0.001), a median PFS of 9.5 vs 7.1 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 15.4 versus 8.4 months ( p = 0.004), respectively. In the Gem+NabP arm, patients with CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR of 55.5% compared with those without at 23.8% ( p = 0.012), a median PFS of 7.6 versus 5.8 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 13.7 versus 11.9 months ( p = 0.235), respectively. Conclusions: CA19-9 decrease by week 16 has the potential to be an early prognostic factor for OS, PFS and ORR. The results should be interpreted with caution as a considerable percentage of patients were excluded due to non-evaluable CA19-9 that exceeded the lab detection limit of 8000 kU/L. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

4006 Background: Liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Here, we present results from NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or Gem+NabP on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when at least 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall one-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. Median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIRIFOX group versus 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP group; median PFS was 7.4 months versus 5.6 months. Median (95% CI) duration of response was 7.3 (5.8–7.6) and 5.0 (3.8–5.6) months in patients who received NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 10% of patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in patients with mPDAC. The NALIRIFOX safety profile was consistent with the profiles of the regimen components and generally manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 . [Table: see text]

LBA661 Background: Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (Wainberg et al. Eur J Cancer 2021;151:14–24; NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Herein, we present results from NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated metastatic PDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence or absence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when ≥ 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. The median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIFIROX arm as compared with 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.71–0.99]; p = 0.04); PFS was also significantly improved (7.4 months vs 5.6 months; HR 0.70 [0.59–0.84]; p = 0.0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ≥ 10% frequency in patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in treatment-naïve patients with mPDAC. The safety profile of NALIRIFOX was manageable and consistent with the profiles of the treatment components. Funding: Funded by Ipsen. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .[Table: see text]