Advertisement


Alfredo Carrato, MD, PhD, on Pancreatic Cancer: Nab-Paclitaxel, Gemcitabine, and FOLFOX for Metastatic Disease

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Advertisement

Alfredo Carrato, MD, PhD, of Alcala de Henares University in Spain, discusses phase II results from the SEQUENCE trial, which showed that nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and modified FOLFOX showed significantly higher clinical activity than the standard nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in the first-line setting of patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (Abstract 4022).



Transcript

Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
It's a pleasure for me to show the results of the SEQUENCE trial. The SEQUENCE trial was a randomized phase two trial in pancreatic cancer patients, metastatic ones on first line and we tried to increase the efficacy of the regimens used for treating these patients. So the rational that there were two subtypes of pancreatic cancer, the basal one responded better to Nab-Paclitaxel Gemcitabine and the classical one better to FOLFIRINOX. So as it was impossible to give both regimens at the same time for toxicity issues, we decided to give them sequentially first Nab-Paclitaxel Gemcitabine, and then not FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX because we thought that the oxaliplatin was the main drug of the combination. And on top of that, we had that Nab-Paclitaxel was given up front and it was depleting this trauma and allowing the drugs to get in touch more efficiently with the tumor cells. So we performed a phase I trial, and we were surprised because we were expecting some neurological toxicity, but no neurologic toxicity appeared and it was safe at full doses and it was published at the European General Cancer two years ago. Then we designed this randomized phase two trial, trying to increase 50% the survival of patients at one year. It was from 35% to 50%, more or less. So with these things in mind, we designed a trial in which 78 patients per arm were needed and the safety results showed that neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were higher in the experimental arm, significantly higher, 47% and 26% and the efficacy at 12 months hypothesis was met. We found that 55.5% of patients were alive at one year in the experimental arm and only 35% in the control arm, which was Nab-Paclitaxel and gem without FOLFOX. So we looked for other efficacy parameters, like time to progression free survival, overall survival, and all of them were positive. In favor of the experimental arm. We reached a median overall survival of 13.2 months versus 9.5 months in the control arm. The hazard ratio was lower to 0.65 and this was real good surprise because we have discovered a new treatment option for our patients and pancreatic cancer patients have few good news. In the last 20 years, just two trials demonstrated an increase in efficacy rates. One of them was the Nab-Paclitaxel Gemcitabine and now against this regimen, we have demonstrated a superiority in efficacy. So we are happy about that and because our patients will live longer and have another option for treatment. This is only for a core zero and one patients, it's only for well fit patients, not for performance status, middle, core two, or very old patients but when you have these patients, this regimen provides excellent results.

Related Videos

Prostate Cancer

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, and Michael S. Hofman, MBBS, on Prostate Cancer: New Data on Lutetium-177–PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) vs Cabazitaxel

Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Michael S. Hofman, MBBS, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, discuss follow-up results on LuPSMA vs cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment. The findings suggest that LuPSMA is a suitable option for this population, with fewer adverse events, higher response rates, improved patient-reported outcomes, and similar overall survival compared with cabazitaxel (Abstract 5000).

Pancreatic Cancer

Rainer Fietkau, MD, on Pancreatic Cancer: Initial Trial Results on Sequential Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy

Rainer Fietkau, MD, of Germany’s University Hospital Erlangen, discusses phase III findings of the CONKO-007 trial, which examined the role of sequential chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy administered to patients with nonresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer following standard-of-care chemotherapy (Abstract 4008).

COVID-19

Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, on Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Telemedicine Use Among U.S. Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, of Flatiron Health, discusses the use of telemedicine services in community oncology clinics for patients initiating treatments for 21 common cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients were less likely to use telemedicine services. Although telemedicine may expand access to specialty care, the proliferation of these services may widen cancer care disparities if equitable access to these services is not ensured, according to Dr. Guadamuz (Abstract 6511).

Breast Cancer

Richard Finn, MD, on Advanced Breast Cancer: New Data on Palbociclib Plus Letrozole From PALOMA-2

Richard Finn, MD, of the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, discusses analyses from the PALOMA-2 trial on overall survival with first-line palbociclib plus letrozole vs placebo plus letrozole in women with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The study met its primary endpoint of improving progression-free survival but not the secondary endpoint of overall survival. Although patients receiving palbociclib plus letrozole had numerically longer overall survival than those receiving placebo plus letrozole, the results were not statistically significant (Abstract LBA1003).

Breast Cancer

Nancy Davidson, MD: In It for the Long Haul: Outcomes in Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Nancy Davidson, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, reviews results from four abstracts about the importance of long-term follow-up in studies of adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. Because the natural history of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer is long, an effort is underway to improve selection of patients by clinical parameters or biomarkers, refine the endocrine therapy background, and administer more effective combinations of endocrine therapy with other agents.

Advertisement

Advertisement




Advertisement