Werner Scheithauer1, Ramesh K Ramanathan1, Malcolm Moore1, Teresa Macarulla1, David Goldstein1, Pascal Hammel1, Volker Kunzmann1, Helen Liu1, Desmond McGovern1, Alfredo Romano1, Daniel D Von Hoff1. 1. 1 Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria ; 2 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA ; 3 BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ; 4 Vall d'Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain ; 5 Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia ; 6 Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy, France ; 7 Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany ; 8 Celgene Corporation, Summit, New Jersey, USA ; 9 Celgene Corporation, Boudry, Switzerland ; 10 Translational Genomics Research Institute and Honor Health, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dose modifications following adverse events (AEs) are an important part of the management of patients with pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy. While dose modifications are utilized to ensure patient safety, the subsequent influence of dose adjustments on treatment exposure and efficacy have not been reported in detail. This exploratory analysis examined the influence of dose modifications on treatment exposure and efficacy in the phase III MPACT trial, which demonstrated superior efficacy of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) to Gem alone for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients received either nab-P 125 mg/m(2) + Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for the first 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle ≥2). The protocol allowed up to 2 dose reductions per agent. Dose delays were also used to manage toxicities. RESULTS:Toxicities that most commonly led to dose modifications were neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue for nab-P and neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue for Gem alone. Baseline characteristics were similar in patients with dose modifications and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Among the 421 treated patients in the nab-P + Gem arm, all patients initiated treatment at the per-protocol nab-P starting dose of 125 mg/m(2); 172 (41%) had a nab-P dose reduction, and 300 (71%) had a nab-P dose delay during the study. Most dose modifications occurred after the first 3 months (2 cycles) of treatment. The majority of patients (104/172, 60%) required only 1 nab-P dose reduction, and over half of patients (163/300) had either 1 or 2 dose delays. Patients who underwent dose modifications of nab-P had greater treatment exposure than those who did not in terms of treatment duration, number of cycles administered, and cumulative dose of nab-P delivered. Overall survival (OS) was shorter in the nab-P + Gem arm for patients who did not vs. did undergo dose reduction [median, 6.9 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 1.93; 95% CI, 1.53-2.44; P<0.0001] and for those who did not vs. did undergo a dose delay (median, 6.2 vs. 10.1, HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.63; P<0.0001). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were also improved in patients with dose modifications. Similar trends were observed in the Gem-alone arm. Multivariate analyses confirmed that both dose delay and dose reduction were significantly associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that although most doses of nab-P were given at the starting dose of 125 mg/m(2) the first 3 of 4 weeks, dose reductions and delays were effective when necessary to ameliorate toxicity allowing greater treatment exposure without compromising efficacy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dose modifications following adverse events (AEs) are an important part of the management of patients with pancreatic cancer treated with chemotherapy. While dose modifications are utilized to ensure patient safety, the subsequent influence of dose adjustments on treatment exposure and efficacy have not been reported in detail. This exploratory analysis examined the influence of dose modifications on treatment exposure and efficacy in the phase III MPACT trial, which demonstrated superior efficacy of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) to Gem alone for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS:Patients received either nab-P 125 mg/m(2) + Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for the first 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle ≥2). The protocol allowed up to 2 dose reductions per agent. Dose delays were also used to manage toxicities. RESULTS:Toxicities that most commonly led to dose modifications were neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue for nab-P and neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue for Gem alone. Baseline characteristics were similar in patients with dose modifications and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Among the 421 treated patients in the nab-P + Gem arm, all patients initiated treatment at the per-protocol nab-P starting dose of 125 mg/m(2); 172 (41%) had a nab-P dose reduction, and 300 (71%) had a nab-P dose delay during the study. Most dose modifications occurred after the first 3 months (2 cycles) of treatment. The majority of patients (104/172, 60%) required only 1 nab-P dose reduction, and over half of patients (163/300) had either 1 or 2 dose delays. Patients who underwent dose modifications of nab-P had greater treatment exposure than those who did not in terms of treatment duration, number of cycles administered, and cumulative dose of nab-P delivered. Overall survival (OS) was shorter in the nab-P + Gem arm for patients who did not vs. did undergo dose reduction [median, 6.9 vs. 11.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 1.93; 95% CI, 1.53-2.44; P<0.0001] and for those who did not vs. did undergo a dose delay (median, 6.2 vs. 10.1, HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.63; P<0.0001). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were also improved in patients with dose modifications. Similar trends were observed in the Gem-alone arm. Multivariate analyses confirmed that both dose delay and dose reduction were significantly associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that although most doses of nab-P were given at the starting dose of 125 mg/m(2) the first 3 of 4 weeks, dose reductions and delays were effective when necessary to ameliorate toxicity allowing greater treatment exposure without compromising efficacy.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Thierry Conroy; Françoise Desseigne; Marc Ychou; Olivier Bouché; Rosine Guimbaud; Yves Bécouarn; Antoine Adenis; Jean-Luc Raoul; Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade; Christelle de la Fouchardière; Jaafar Bennouna; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Faiza Khemissa-Akouz; Denis Péré-Vergé; Catherine Delbaldo; Eric Assenat; Bruno Chauffert; Pierre Michel; Christine Montoto-Grillot; Michel Ducreux Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: H Oettle; D Richards; R K Ramanathan; J L van Laethem; M Peeters; M Fuchs; A Zimmermann; W John; D Von Hoff; M Arning; H L Kindler Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Richard Letourneau; Graydon Harker; Manuel Modiano; Herbert Hurwitz; Nerses Simon Tchekmedyian; Kevie Feit; Judie Ackerman; Robert L De Jager; S Gail Eckhardt; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Philip A Philip; Jacqueline Benedetti; Christopher L Corless; Ralph Wong; Eileen M O'Reilly; Patrick J Flynn; Kendrith M Rowland; James N Atkins; Barry C Mirtsching; Saul E Rivkin; Alok A Khorana; Bryan Goldman; Cecilia M Fenoglio-Preiser; James L Abbruzzese; Charles D Blanke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Twelves; W Scheithauer; J McKendrick; J-F Seitz; G Van Hazel; A Wong; E Díaz-Rubio; F Gilberg; J Cassidy Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jordan D Berlin; Paul Catalano; James P Thomas; John W Kugler; Daniel G Haller; Al Bowen Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Caio M Rocha Lima; Mark R Green; Robert Rotche; Wilson H Miller; G Mark Jeffrey; Laura A Cisar; Adele Morganti; Nicoletta Orlando; Gabriela Gruia; Langdon L Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel D Von Hoff; Thomas Ervin; Francis P Arena; E Gabriela Chiorean; Jeffrey Infante; Malcolm Moore; Thomas Seay; Sergei A Tjulandin; Wen Wee Ma; Mansoor N Saleh; Marion Harris; Michele Reni; Scot Dowden; Daniel Laheru; Nathan Bahary; Ramesh K Ramanathan; Josep Tabernero; Manuel Hidalgo; David Goldstein; Eric Van Cutsem; Xinyu Wei; Jose Iglesias; Markus F Renschler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Guido Giordano; Massimo Pancione; Nunzio Olivieri; Pietro Parcesepe; Marianna Velocci; Tania Di Raimo; Luigi Coppola; Giuseppe Toffoli; Mario Rosario D'Andrea Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: E Gabriela Chiorean; Daniel Von Hoff; Yin Wan; Sandra Margunato-Debay; Marc Botteman; David Goldstein Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Jane E Rogers; Jonathan D Mizrahi; Rachna T Shroff; Douglas A Nelson; Janet Tu; Milind M Javle; Robert A Wolff; Shubham Pant Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2020-02