Early Tumor Shrinkage and Depth of Response as Predictors of Survival for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis of JCOG1113.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) reflect outcomes of chemotherapy in various cancers. This study evaluated the association of ETS and DpR with clinical outcomes using data from JCOG1113, which demonstrated the non-inferiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) for chemotherapy-naïve advanced biliary tract cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 354 (289 with measurable target lesions) patients enrolled in JCOG1113 were divided into ETS-unachieved and ETS-achieved groups (≥20% tumor reduction at week 6) and DpR-low and DpR-high groups (≥40% maximum shrinkage) until 12 weeks after enrollment. The impact of ETS and DpR on survival outcome was evaluated using the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The proportions of patients in the ETS-achieved and DpR-high groups were similar between the 2 treatment arms. The hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the ETS-achieved group were 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.93) and 0.60 (95%CI, 0.44-0.81), respectively. The HRs of PFS and OS for the DpR-high group were 0.67 (95%CI, 0.48-0.94) and 0.64 (95%CI, 0.46-0.90), respectively. In the subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot analysis, most patients in the ETS-achieved group in the GC arm did not experience disease progression after 12 weeks from the landmark. CONCLUSION: As on-treatment markers, ETS and DpR were effective tools. ETS was clinically useful, because it can be used to evaluate the outcomes of treatment early at a specific time.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel versus Gemcitabine Alone in Older Adults with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) has been a standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC); however, the current treatment status and usefulness in older adults with uPC remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the patient background and compare the efficacy and safety of GnP versus other treatments in older adults with uPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 233 eligible patients aged ≥76 years with pathologically proven, clinically uPC, and no history of chemotherapy from 55 Japanese centers during September 2018-September 2019. The main endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Geriatric assessments were performed upon registration and after 3 months. To adjust for confounders, we conducted propensity score-matched analyses. RESULTS: GnP, gemcitabine alone (Gem), best supportive care, and other therapies were administered to 116, 72, 16, and 29 patients, respectively. In the propensity score-matched analysis, 42 patients each were selected from the GnP and Gem groups. The median OS was longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (12.2 vs. 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.13). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GnP group than in the Gem group (9.2 vs. 3.7 months; HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.64). The incidence of severe adverse events was higher with GnP than with Gem; however, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: GnP is more efficacious than Gem in patients aged ≥76 years with uPC despite demonstrating a higher incidence of severe adverse events.

The clinical outcomes of combination chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: an exploratory analysis of JCOG1113.

In the FUGA-BT trial (JCOG1113), gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) showed non-inferiority to gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) in overall survival (OS) with good tolerance for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). We performed a subgroup analysis focused on the elderly cohort of this trial. All 354 enrolled patients in JCOG1113 were classify into two groups; < 75 (non-elderly) and ≥ 75 years (elderly) group. We investigated the influence of age on the safety analysis, including the incidence of chemotherapeutic adverse events and the efficacy analysis, including OS. There were no remarkable differences in OS between the elderly (n = 60) and the non-elderly groups (n = 294). In the elderly group, median OS was 12.7 and 17.7 months for those who received GC (n = 20) and GS (n = 40), respectively. The prevalence of all-grade adverse events was similar between the elderly and the non-elderly groups. However, among the elderly group, Grade ≥ 3 hematological adverse events were more frequently observed in the GC arm than in the GS arm. The clinical outcomes of combination chemotherapy in elderly patients with advanced BTC were comparable to non-elderly patients. GS may be the more favorable treatment for elderly patients with advanced BTC.