Citations

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.

LBA8003 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.