Dataset Information

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first-line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real-world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC.

Methods

Patients receiving first-line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox proportional hazard models, weighted by the inverse propensity score adjusting for baseline characteristics. Weighted odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization and emergency department visits (EDV) were estimated from weighted logistic regression models.

Results

For 1130 patients (632 FFX, 498 GnP), crude median OS was 9.6 and 6.1 months for FFX and GnP, respectively. Weighted OS was improved for FFX vs GnP (HR = 0.77, 0.70-0.85). Less frequent EDV and hospitalization were observed in FFX (EDV: 67.8%; Hospitalization: 49.2%) than GnP (EDV: 77.7%; Hospitalization: 59.3%). More frequent febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was observed in FFX (5.8%) than GnP (3.3%). Risk of EDV and hospitalization were significantly lower for FFX vs GnP (EDV: OR = 0.68, P = .0001; Hospitalization: OR = 0.76, P = .002), whereas the risk of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was significantly higher (OR = 2.12, P = .001). Outcomes for uLAPC and mPC were similar.

Conclusion

In the real world, FFX had longer OS, less frequent all-cause EDV and all-cause hospitalization, but more febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization compared to GnP.

SUBMITTER: Chan KKW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6943167 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis.

Chan Kelvin K W KKW Guo Helen H Cheng Sierra S Beca Jaclyn M JM Redmond-Misner Ruby R Isaranuwatchai Wanrudee W Qiao Lucy L Earle Craig C Berry Scott R SR Biagi James J JJ Welch Stephen S Meyers Brandon M BM Mittmann Nicole N Coburn Natalie N Arias Jessica J Schwartz Deborah D Dai Wei F WF Gavura Scott S McLeod Robin R Kennedy Erin D ED

Cancer medicine 20191113 1

<h4>Background</h4>In Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first-line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real-world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients receiving first-line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program databa ...[more]

PMID: 31724340

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceFOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are the 2 common first-line therapies for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (mPC), but they have not been directly compared in a clinical trial, and comparative clinical data analyses on their effectiveness are limited.ObjectiveTo compare the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel treatments of mPC in clinical data and evaluate whether there are differences in overall survival and posttreatment complications between them.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study used data from the AIM Specialty Health-Anthem Cancer Care Quality Program and from administrative claims of commercially insured patients, spanning 388 outpatient centers and clinics for medical oncology located in 44 states across the US. Effectiveness and safety of the treatments were analyzed by matching or adjusting for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, ECOG performance status (PS) score, Social Deprivation Index (SDI), liver and lymph node metastasis, prior radiotherapy or surgical procedures, and year of treatment. Patients with mPC treated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, and followed up until June 30, 2020, were included in the analysis.InterventionsInitiation of treatment with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were overall survival and posttreatment costs and hospitalization. Median survival time was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates adjusted with inverse probability of treatment weighting and 1:1 matching.ResultsAmong the 1102 patients included in the analysis (618 men [56.1%]; median age, 60.0 [IQR, 55.5-63.7] years), those treated with FOLFIRINOX were younger (median age, 59.1 [IQR, 53.9-63.3] vs 61.2 [IQR, 57.2-64.3] years; P < .001), with better PS scores (226 [39.9%] with PS of 0 in the FOLFIRINOX group vs 176 [32.8%] in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group; P = .02), fewer comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index, 0.0 [IQR, 0.0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR, 0.0-1.0]), and lower SDI (median, 36.0 [IQR, 16.2-61.0] vs 42.0 [IQR, 23.8-66.2]). After adjustments, the median overall survival was 9.27 (IQR, 8.74-9.76) and 6.87 (IQR, 6.41-7.66) months for patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, respectively (P < .001). This survival benefit was observed among all subgroups, including different ECOG PS scores, ages, SDIs, and metastatic sites. FOLFIRINOX-treated patients also had 17.3% fewer posttreatment hospitalizations (P = .03) and 20% lower posttreatment costs (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness cohort study, FOLFIRINOX was associated with improved survival of approximately 2 months compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and was also associated with fewer posttreatment complications. A randomized clinical trial comparing these first-line treatments is warranted to test the survival and posttreatment hospitalization (or complications) benefit of FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

Project description:ImportanceFluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel (GA) are first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer. Their relative efficacy in the setting of localized disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiographic and serologic measures of responses associated with first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GA, and to determine the association between these drug regimens, putative measures of response, and survival.Design, setting, and participantsThis case series assessed 485 consecutive patients who were diagnosed as having previously untreated localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and who received at least 3 cycles of first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX or GA. The median (range) follow-up duration was 33 (2-28) months.ExposuresAdministration of FOLFIRINOX (285 patients [59%]) or GA (200 patients [41%]) as first-line chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresResection rate, radiographic metrics (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.1, and change in tumor volume or anatomic staging), a serologic metric (serum cancer antigen 19-9 level), and overall survival after administration of first-line chemotherapy.ResultsIn total, 485 patients (266 [55%] male) were included in the analysis. Patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were generally younger (median [range] age at diagnosis: 61 [30-81] vs 71 [36-89] years; P = .001) and had better performance status as indicated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale (range 0-4, with lower numbers representing better performance) score of 2 or lower (274 patients [96%] vs 165 patients [82%] P = .001) but more invasive tumors than patients who received GA (91 [32%] vs 90 [45%] resectable tumors; P = .01). After propensity score matching to control for these biases, many objective serologic and radiographic metrics of response associated with administration of FOLFIRINOX or GA-including low rates of local tumor downstaging-did not differ. However, RECIST partial response was more common among patients treated with FOLFIRINOX (27 of 140 patients [19%]) than with GA (8 of 140 patients [6%]; P = .001). Moreover, (chemo)radiation (50% vs 34%; P = .001) was more commonly administered to and pancreatectomy (27% vs 16%; P = .01) was subsequently performed more frequently for patients initially treated with FOLFIRINOX. The overall survival duration of patients treated with either regimen was similar (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.97-2.26; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received FOLFIRINOX or GA as their first line of therapy, FOLFIRINOX was associated with higher rates of RECIST partial response and subsequent pancreatectomy than GA, but the overall survival associated with these regimens was similar.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.MethodsWe conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.ResultsA total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).ConclusionFFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.

Dataset Information

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets