Dataset Information

Nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 versus oxaliplatin plus S-1 as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: results of a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial (GAPSO study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aimed to investigate the superiority of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) over oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, phase III superiority trial, eligible patients with unresectable, locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (nab-paclitaxel 260 mg/m² on day 1 or 130 mg/m² on days 1 and 8; oral S-1 40-60 mg twice daily for 14 days) or SOX (130 mg/m² oxaliplatin on day 1; oral S-1 40-60 mg twice daily for 14 days) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival, objective response rate, and safety.

Results

Owing to slow enrolment, an unplanned interim analysis was performed, resulting in the early termination of the study on 31 December 2021 (data cutoff). Between March 2019 and March 2021, 97 patients (AS, n = 48; SOX, n = 49) were treated and evaluated for efficacy and safety of AS and SOX. As of the data cutoff, the median follow-up was 23.13 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.39-32.87]. The median PFS was 9.03 months (95% CI, 6.50-11.56) in the AS group and 5.07 months (95% CI, 4.33-5.81) in the SOX group, demonstrating a better PFS tendency following AS treatment than SOX treatment (hazard ratio = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.94; p = 0.03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anemia, neutropenia, and leukopenia in both groups, with a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia in the SOX group.

Conclusion

Although this study was terminated early, the results demonstrated a better PFS tendency in patients with AGC who were treated with AS than in those treated with SOX, with controllable toxicities.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov identifiers: NCT03801668. Registered January 11, 2019.

SUBMITTER: Dai YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9379568 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 <i>versus</i> oxaliplatin plus S-1 as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: results of a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial (GAPSO study).

Dai Yu-Hong YH Yu Xiong-Jie XJ Xu Hui-Ting HT Zhuang Liang L Zhang Ming-Sheng MS Zou Yan-Mei YM Fu Qiang Q Qiu Hong H Yuan Xiang-Lin XL

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20220812

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to investigate the superiority of <i>nab</i>-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) over oxaliplatin plus S-1 (SOX) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).<h4>Methods</h4>In this multicenter, randomized, phase III superiority trial, eligible patients with unresectable, locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (<i>nab</i>-paclitaxel 260 mg/m<sup>2</sup> on day 1 or 130 mg/m<sup>2</sup> on days 1 and 8; oral S-1 ...[more]

PMID: 35983025

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPancreatic cancer is mostly diagnosed in an advanced stage and treated with systemic therapy with palliative intent. Nowadays, the doublet chemotherapy of Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is one of the most frequently used regimens worldwide, but is not ubiquitarily available or reimbursed. Therefore, we compared the clinical efficacy of Gem-Nab to a historical control of patients treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Gem-Ox) at our tertiary cancer center, which was the standard treatment prior to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX.MethodsThis single-center retrospective real world study includes 121 patients diagnosed with locally advanced or primary metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were treated with chemotherapy doublet, with either Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox in palliative first-line. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were made with log-rank tests. Gem-Ox was considered as standard first line therapy at our institution for patients who were deemed fit for doublet chemotherapy between the years 2006 to 2012. These patients were compared to a cohort of patients treated with the new standard first-line therapy of Gem-Nab between 2013 and 2020.ResultsA total of 554 patients with pancreatic cancer of all stages were screened, and 73 patients treated with Gem-Nab and 48 patients treated with Gem-Ox in the palliative first-line setting were identified and included in this analysis. Patients receiving Gem-Ox had a statistically significantly better performance score (ECOG PS) when compared to the Gem-Nab group (Odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, p = 0.005), more often suffered from locally advanced than metastatic disease (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.27-7.91, p = 0.019) and were younger in age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, p = 0.013). Median overall survival (OS) of the whole study cohort was 10.3 months (95% CI 8.5-11.6). No statistically significant difference in OS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median OS: 8.9 months (95% CI 6.4-13.5) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 9.5-13.87, p = 0.794, HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.91)). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months in the entire cohort (95% CI 4.9-8.4). No statistically significant difference in PFS could be observed between the Gem-Nab and the Gem-Ox cohort (median PFS: 5.8 months (95% CI 4.3-8.2) versus 7.9 months (95% CI 5.4-9.5) p = 0.536, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74-1.67). Zero-truncated negative binomial regressions on OS and PFS adjusting for gender, age, performance status (ECOG PS), and CA19-9 levels yielded no significant difference between Gem-Nab or Gem-Ox.ConclusionFrom our analysis, we could evidence no difference in outcome parameters in this retrospective analysis despite the worse prognostic pattern for GemOX. Therefore, we suggest Gem-Ox as potential first line treatment option for inoperable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, especially if Gem-Nab is not available.

Project description:BackgroundThere are no randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) and fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Although it is well known that RCT-based efficacy often does not translate to real-world effectiveness, there is limited literature investigating comparative cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC. We aimed to examine the real-world cost-effectiveness of Gem-Nab vs FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario, Canada.MethodsThis study compared patients treated with first-line Gem-Nab or FOLFIRINOX for APC in Ontario from April 2015 to March 2019. Patients were linked to administrative databases. Using propensity scores and a stabilizing weights method, an inverse probability of treatment weighted cohort was developed. Mean survival and total costs were calculated over a 5-year time horizon, adjusted for censoring, and discounted at 1.5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit were computed to estimate cost-effectiveness from the public health-care payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the propensity score matching method.ResultsA total of 1988 patients were identified (Gem-Nab: n = 928; FOLFIRINOX: n = 1060). Mean survival was lower for patients in the Gem-Nab than the FOLFIRINOX group (0.98 vs 1.26 life-years; incremental effectiveness = -0.28 life-years [95% confidence interval = -0.47 to -0.13]). Patients in the Gem-Nab group incurred greater mean 5-year total costs (Gem-Nab: $103 884; FOLFIRINOX: $101 518). Key cost contributors include ambulatory cancer care, acute inpatient hospitalization, and systemic therapy drug acquisition. Gem-Nab was dominated by FOLFIRINOX, as it was less effective and more costly. Results from the sensitivity analysis were similar.ConclusionsGem-Nab is likely more costly and less effective than FOLFIRINOX and therefore not considered cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Project description:ImportanceRamucirumab, a human IgG 1 antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, has been shown to improve progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer in the second-line setting.ObjectiveTo compare progression-free survival for S-1 and oxaliplatin plus ramucirumab with that for S-1 and oxaliplatin plus placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2, double-blind randomized clinical trial (RAINSTORM [First-line S-1 Plus Oxaliplatin With or Without Ramucirumab Followed by Paclitaxel Plus Ramucirumab in Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer]) was conducted from October 12, 2015, to April 11, 2018, at 36 sites in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Participants were chemotherapy-naive patients (n = 189) with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Analyses of the full analysis set and safety population were conducted between November 27, 2017, and June 4, 2018.InterventionsPatients randomized to the ramucirumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm received S-1, 80 to 120 mg/d twice daily, on days 1 to 14 and oxaliplatin, 100 mg/m2, on day 1 with ramucirumab, 8 mg/kg, on days 1 and 8 in part A (21-day cycle). Patients randomized to the placebo plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm received the same S-1 and oxaliplatin dosage as well as placebo on days 1 and 8 in part A. Eligible patients received second-line paclitaxel, 80 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 and ramucirumab, 8 mg/kg, on days 1 and 15 in part B (28-day cycle).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival, analyzed using the stratified log-rank test; the hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. Secondary end points included overall survival and adverse events.ResultsIn total, 189 patients were randomized and received treatment: 96 to the ramucirumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm and 93 to the placebo plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm. Among the 189 patients, 121 (64.0%) were male, and the median (range) age was 62.0 (26-84) years. Median progression-free survival was not prolonged in the ramucirumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm compared with the placebo plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm (6.34 [80% CI, 5.65-6.93] vs 6.74 [80% CI, 5.75-7.13] months; HR, 1.07; 80% CI, 0.86-1.33; P = .70). Median overall survival was 14.65 (80% CI, 12.39-15.67) months in the ramucirumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm and 14.26 (80% CI, 13.83-17.31) months in the placebo plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm (HR, 1.11; 80% CI, 0.89-1.40; P = .55). The most commonly reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events in the ramucirumab plus S-1 and oxaliplatin arm in part A were decreased neutrophil count (14 patients [14.6%]), hypertension (10 patients [10.4%]), and anemia (10 patients [10.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, the addition of ramucirumab to first-line S-1 and oxaliplatin treatment did not prolong progression-free survival or overall survival compared with S-1 and oxaliplatin alone among East Asian patients with advanced gastric cancer; no new safety signals for ramucirumab were identified.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02539225.

Project description:BackgroundIn our previous phase II study, nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (NPS) showed encouraging objective response rate (ORR) as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (APAC). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of S-1 maintenance after NPS in APAC and to explore factors predicting survival benefits when using S-1 maintenance.MethodsBetween 2014 and 2018 a total of 182 patients with APAC, who were primarily treated with NPS, were included. For patients without progression or with treatment discontinuation due to any reasons within 4 months during NPS treatment, S-1 monotherapy was administrable as maintenance therapy at the physicians' discretion based on the patients' preference and performance status. Efficacy and safety of S-1 maintenance were investigated.ResultsIn 123 patients without progression within 4 months during NPS treatment, 74 received S-1 maintenance and had median progression-free survival of 9.6 months and median overall survival of 16.7 months. Multivariable analysis showed that in patients receiving S-1 maintenance after first-line NPS therapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score of 0, non-metastatic disease, and complete or partial response as best response to NPS chemotherapy were independently associated with better survival. The most common all-grade hematological and non-hematological adverse events were neutropenia (82.4%) and peripheral neurotoxicity (66.2%), respectively, and the most common ≥Grade 3 hematological and non-hematological adverse events were neutropenia (40.5%) and peripheral neurotoxicity (6.8%), respectively in patients who received S-1 maintenance.ConclusionsOur real-world study showed that S-1 maintenance after tumor response or stable disease induced by first-line NPS treatment was effective and well-tolerated for some patients with APAC, which offers a promising alternative treatment strategy with encouraging survival for APAC.