Early-onset pancreatic cancer: Defining contemporary presentation, treatment, and outcomes in the under 50 age group using real-world data.

Abstract

533 Background: The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing in younger patients (pts). Early onset pancreatic cancer (EOPC) is reportedly diagnosed at a later stage, potentially compromising outcomes compared to later onset pts (LOPC). With recent gains in staging and neo/adjuvant regimens, we sought to elaborate on the characteristics of EOPC and LOPC in a contemporary real-world cohort. Methods: The PURPLE registry, a prospectively collected multi-site data set on consecutive pancreatic cancer pts was interrogated. Patient, tumor, treatment and outcome data were extracted for EOPC vs LOPC. EOPC were those diagnosed prior to age 50 and LOPC after age 50. Resectability status was per MDT consensus. Results: Of 1534 pts, 93 (6%) were EOPC (51% male) and 1442 (94%) LOPC (51% male). EOPC had better ECOG performance status (0-1: 95% vs 81%, Relative Risk [RR] 1.2, p < 0.001) and Charlson Comorbidity Index Score (0-2: 98% vs 28%, RR 3.5, p < 0.001). Primary tumor site (head/body/tail: 66%/11%/20% for EOPC and 68%/17%/14% for LOPC), and staging (resectable/borderline resectable/locally advanced/metastatic: 29%/16%/14%/41% for EOPC vs 28%/9%/21%/41% for LOPC) did not differ. 25 (93%) of EOPC and 320 (79%) LOPC resectable pts underwent resection (p = 0.13). 12 (80%) EOPC and 36 (26%) LOPC borderline resectable pts underwent resection (RR 3.0, p < 0.001). Resection margin status (R0 vs R1 vs R2) did not differ. Resected EOPC more frequently received neoadjuvant therapy (30% vs 9%, RR 3.2, p = 0.001). EOPC were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting (77% vs 49%, RR 1.6, p < 0.001), and were more likely to receive first line (1L) FOLFIRINOX than gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (36% vs 18%, RR 2, p = 0.019). Median overall survival (OS) was superior for EOPC (24 vs 12 months, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001). For resectable pts, relapse free survival (RFS) did not differ but OS was superior for EOPC (undefined vs 27.7 months, HR 0.26, p = 0.004). In borderline resectable pts, RFS was similar and OS only numerically superior for EOPC (31.2 vs 17.7 months, p = 0.20). For locally advanced disease, 1L progression free survival (PFS1) was similar and OS was superior for EOPC (27.8 vs 11 months, HR 0.40, p = 0.008). There was no difference in PFS1/OS for metastatic pts. Conclusions: EOPC are fitter, with similar stage at diagnosis as LOPC. EOPC are more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and undergo resection when presenting with borderline resectable disease. EOPC receive more treatment and have superior OS, with RFS/PFS1 not statistically different to LOPC.