Alternating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone versus continuous gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel after induction treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (ALPACA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

IF 30.9 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-16 DOI:10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00197-3
Klara Dorman, Stefan Boeck, Karel Caca, Maximilian Reichert, Thomas J Ettrich, Helmut Oettle, Oliver Waidmann, Dominik P Modest, Lothar Müller, Patrick Michl, Stephan Kanzler, Daniel Pink, Anke Reinacher-Schick, Michael Geißler, Henning Pelz, Volker Kunzmann, Swantje Held, Thomas Schichtl, Volker Heinemann, Frank Kullmann
{"title":"Alternating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone versus continuous gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel after induction treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (ALPACA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.","authors":"Klara Dorman, Stefan Boeck, Karel Caca, Maximilian Reichert, Thomas J Ettrich, Helmut Oettle, Oliver Waidmann, Dominik P Modest, Lothar Müller, Patrick Michl, Stephan Kanzler, Daniel Pink, Anke Reinacher-Schick, Michael Geißler, Henning Pelz, Volker Kunzmann, Swantje Held, Thomas Schichtl, Volker Heinemann, Frank Kullmann","doi":"10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00197-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m<sup>2</sup> and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m<sup>2</sup> administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.</p>","PeriodicalId":56028,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":30.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(24)00197-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination.

Methods: ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed.

Findings: Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease).

Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment.

Funding: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转移性胰腺癌诱导治疗(ALPACA)后吉西他滨加纳布-紫杉醇和吉西他滨单药交替治疗与吉西他滨加纳布-紫杉醇连续治疗:一项多中心、随机、开放标签的 2 期试验。
背景:对于转移性胰腺导管腺癌患者广泛使用的吉西他滨加纳布-紫杉醇方案,尚未建立标准化的剂量减少策略。我们旨在研究纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨联合疗法和吉西他滨单药交替治疗周期与纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨联合疗法连续治疗的疗效和耐受性:ALPACA是一项随机、开放标签的2期试验,在德国的29个研究中心进行。年龄在18岁或18岁以上、组织学或细胞学确诊为转移性胰腺导管腺癌、既往未接受过晚期治疗的患者均被纳入其中。经过三个周期的纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨联合疗法(纳布-紫杉醇 125 毫克/平方米和吉西他滨 1000 毫克/平方米,在每个 28 天周期的第 1、8 和 15 天静脉给药)诱导阶段后,患者被随机分配(1:通过分层包块随机分配(1:1),患者要么继续接受标准的纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨治疗,要么交替接受纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨和吉西他滨单药治疗。患者和研究人员不对治疗分配进行蒙蔽。随机分配由研究统计人员使用计算机生成的随机名单集中进行,并根据卡诺夫斯基表现状态和是否存在肝转移进行分层。主要终点是得出随机化后总生存期危险比(HR)的无偏点估计值和相关置信区间(置信系数为80%),无需测试特定假设,对所有开始随机治疗的患者进行意向治疗分析。安全性根据所接受的治疗进行分析。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02564146)注册,并已完成:2016年5月27日至2021年5月27日期间,共有325名患者入组。经过三个周期的诱导治疗后,174 名患者被随机分配:85人继续接受标准纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨治疗,其中79人开始治疗;89人接受交替治疗方案,其中88人开始治疗。在开始接受随机治疗的167名患者中,88人(53%)为女性,79人(47%)为男性。随机分组后,接受标准治疗组的中位总生存期为10-4个月(80% CI 9-2-12-0),接受交替治疗组的中位总生存期为10-5个月(10-2-11-1)(HR 0-90,80% CI 0-72-1-13;P=0-56)。最常见的任何级别的不良事件是周围神经病变(持续治疗组 80 名患者中的 59 [74%] 对交替治疗组 85 名患者中的 53 [62%] )和疲劳(43 [54%] 对 44 [52%])。随机分组后,连续治疗组有 40 例(50%)患者发生了治疗突发严重不良事件,交替治疗组有 28 例(33%)患者发生了治疗突发严重不良事件。与接受标准疗法的患者相比,接受交替周期疗法的患者发生的3级或以上治疗突发不良事件较少,尤其是周围神经病变(连续治疗组17例[21%],交替治疗组12例[14%])和感染(16例[20%],交替治疗组9例[11%])。随机分组后有两例与治疗相关的死亡,均发生在连续治疗组(一例为多器官功能障碍综合征,随机分组后未接受治疗;一例为间质性肺病):我们的研究结果表明,在三个诱导周期后交替使用纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨和吉西他滨单药的剂量递减方案与纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨标准治疗的总生存期相似,但耐受性更好。因此,我们建议临床上可以考虑对经过纳布-紫杉醇-吉西他滨三个周期治疗后病情至少稳定的转移性胰腺癌患者改用交替疗法:资金来源:Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
50.30
自引率
1.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology is an authoritative forum for key opinion leaders across medicine, government, and health systems to influence clinical practice, explore global policy, and inform constructive, positive change worldwide. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology publishes papers that reflect the rich variety of ongoing clinical research in these fields, especially in the areas of inflammatory bowel diseases, NAFLD and NASH, functional gastrointestinal disorders, digestive cancers, and viral hepatitis.
期刊最新文献
Augmenting colonoscopy with AI: insights and future directions. Blood tests for colorectal cancer: practical or premature? Irritable bowel syndrome: an urgent issue. Natural history and progression of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Nocebo, gut disorders, and diet.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1