The impact of 2nd-line treatment (tx) after 1st-line Gemcitabine plus Nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients (pts).

Abstract

e16759 Background: Three main phase III randomized studies investigated the role of 2nd-line tx in APC pts. The PANCREOX study failed to demonstrate a survival advantage of mFOLFOX vs 5FU/LV. Conversely, the CONKO-003 and NAPOLI-1 trials, demonstrated a significant survival improvement from the combination regimen OFF and 5FU+Nal-IRI, respectively, in comparison to 5FU/LV alone. Recently, final OS analysis from NAPOLI-1 demonstrated an association of specific characteristics (ECOG PS, age, Ca 19.9 baseline level, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and no liver metastases (m)) with OS > 1 year. The main limit of all these studies was due to the period they were carried out: no pts received 1st-line GemNab. Hence, we retrospectively analysed an homogeneous population of APC treated with 1st-line GemNab at our Institution, investigating the impact of 2nd-line tx. Methods: APC pts receiving a 2nd-line tx after 1st-line GemNab were included in the analysis. The following variables were collected: gender; age ( > vs ≤ 55 years and ≥ vs < 70 years ); baseline ECOG PS (0-1 vs 2-3); Ca 19.9 baseline level (≥ vs < 200); anamnesis of diabetes; site of primary tumor (head/uncinate process vs body/tail); number of m sites (1 vs > 1); m sites (liver, peritoneum, lung, nodes); RECIST response and ETS during 1-line GemNab. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed. Results: Out of 167 APC pts progressed to 1st-line GemNab, 93 (56%) pts received a 2nd-line tx, specifically 58 pts received an oxa-based regimen, 11 FOLFIRINOX, 8 FOLFIRI and 16 pts received other tx. Median 2nd-line PFS and OS were 3.3 and 5.6 months, respectively. Out of 87 pts evaluable for response, 7 pts achieved a partial response and 27 a stable disease, with a RR and a disease control rate (DCR) of 8% and 39%, respectively. Pts with baseline ECOG PS 0-1 had a significant better outcome in comparison to pts with PS 3-4 (PFS 4.2 vs 1.2 months, p < 0.0001; OS 7.2 vs 2.6 months, p = 0.0001). This significant association with survival parameters and ECOG PS was confirmed at the multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Despite the limited number of pts evaluated and the restrospective nature of our analysis, our results are in line with previous evidences, confirming the importance of a 2nd-line combination tx, when feasible, as well in an homogeneous population of APC pts treated with 1st-line GemNab. On the basis of our results, ECOG PS may be considered a prognostic factor and the choice of 2nd-line tx should be guided in primis by the baseline general conditions of APC pts.