Folfirinox gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a comparative propensity score study

Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) are both standard first-line treatments in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, data comparing these two chemotherapeutic regimens and their sequential use remain scarce. Methods: Data from two independent cohorts...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nicolas Williet, Angélique Saint, Anne-Laure Pointet, David Tougeron, Simon Pernot, Astrid Pozet, Dominique Bechade, Isabelle Trouilloud, Nelson Lourenco, Vincent Hautefeuille, Christophe Locher, Jérome Desrame, Pascal Artru, Anne Thirot Bidault, Bertrand Le Roy, Denis Pezet, Jean-Marc Phelip, Julien Taieb
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-09-01
Series:Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/1756284819878660
Description
Summary:Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) are both standard first-line treatments in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, data comparing these two chemotherapeutic regimens and their sequential use remain scarce. Methods: Data from two independent cohorts enrolling patients treated with FFX ( n  = 107) or GN ( n  = 109) were retrospectively pooled. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. A propensity score based on age, gender, performance status (PS), and presence of liver metastases was used to make groups comparable. Results: In the whole study population, OS was significantly higher in FFX (14 months; 95% CI: 10–21) than in GN groups (9 months; 95% CI: 8–12) before ( p  = 0.008) and after ( p  = 0.021) adjusting for age, number of metastatic sites, liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis and CA19.9 level at baseline. PFS tends to be higher in FFX (6 months) than GN groups (5 months; p  = 0.053). After matching ( n  = 49/group), patients were comparable for all baseline characteristics including PS. In the matched population, there was a trend toward greater OS in patients treated with FFX (HR = 0.67; p  = 0.097). However, survival in each group was not solely a result of the first-line regimen. The proportion of patients who were fit for GN after FFX failure (FFX–GN sequence) was higher (46.9%) than the reverse sequence (20.4%; p  = 0.01), which suggests a higher feasibility for the FFX–GN sequence. Corresponding median OS were 19 months versus 9.5 months, respectively ( p  = 0.094). Conclusion: This study shows greater OS with FFX than with GN in patients with mPC. GN after FFX failure appears more feasible than the reverse sequence.
ISSN:1756-2848