Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose In patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, this trial compares the efficacy of second-line therapy with FOLFIRI vs. OFF (1:1 randomisation) with cross-over to the vice-versa regimen as third-line therapy. Patients and Methods The primary endpoint was PFS (progression-free survival: time from randomization until progression or death) of second-line therapy. The trial aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of FOLFIRI vs OFF (non-inferiority margin of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5, power of 80% and a significance level of 5%, 196 events needed). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival of third-line therapy and safety. The trial is registered with EudraCT Nr. 2016–004640-11. Results The trial was terminated with 60 evaluable (37 with FOLFIRI, 23 with OFF) patients due to insufficient recruitment. PFS of second-line therapy was 2.4 (95% CI 2.3–2.6) months with FOLFIRI vs 2.4 (95% CI 2.2–2.7) months with OFF (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.45–1.42, P = 0.43). OS was comparable between the arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.54–1.66), P = 0.84). Only 4 out of 28 (14%) patients receiving third-line therapy achieved a disease control (partial remission or stable disease). Both second-line regimens were well tolerated without new or unexpected safety signals being observed. Conclusion The exploratory analysis of this early terminated trial suggests that FOLFIRI and OFF have similar efficacy ant toxicity as second-line therapy of PDAC after failure of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Third-line therapy regardless of regimen does not provide satisfactory efficacy in this sequential treatment algorithm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Modest et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: