Nomogram for Estimating Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigated nomogram use to evaluate metastatic pancreatic cancer prognosis. METHODS: Thirty-four baseline factors were examined in the Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial (MPACT) (nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine) data set. Factors significantly (P < 0.1) associated with overall survival (OS) in a univariable model or with known clinical relevance were tested further. In a multivariable model, factors associated with OS (P < 0.1) were selected to generate the primary nomogram, which was internally validated using bootstrapping, a concordance index, and calibration plots. RESULTS: Using data from 861 patients, 6 factors were retained (multivariable analysis): neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, albumin level, Karnofsky performance status, sum of longest diameter of target lesions, presence of liver metastases, and previous Whipple procedure. The nomogram distinguished low-, medium-, and high-risk groups (concordance index, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.69; median OS, 11.7, 8.0, and 3.3 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This nomogram may guide estimates of the range of OS outcomes and contribute to patient stratification in future prospective metastatic pancreatic cancer trials; however, external validation is required to improve estimate reliability and applicability to a general patient population. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these results for treatment decisions: patient characteristics could differ from those included in the nomogram development.

Performance status dynamics during treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis examined changes in Karnofsky performance status (KPS) as a surrogate for patient's well-being during treatment with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the Phase III MPACT trial. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Descriptive analyses were performed for KPS at three time points (3 and 6 months after randomization and 1 month before disease progression) and for time to any KPS deterioration. Time to definitive KPS deterioration (≥10-point KPS decrease from baseline) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A larger decrease from baseline (≥20 points) was investigated as a sensitivity analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model analyzed the effect of baseline factors (including treatment) potentially associated with time to definitive deterioration. RESULTS: The two treatment arms had generally comparable time to any KPS deterioration, similar KPS at 3 and 6 months after randomization and at 1 month before disease progression, and no significant difference in time to definitive deterioration. Baseline KPS, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, age, liver metastases, and region had a significant effect on time to definitive KPS deterioration, but treatment arm did not. CONCLUSION: The increased survival observed with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was not associated with adverse effects on performance status.

nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Australian subset analyses of the phase III MPACT trial.

AIM: The phase III MPACT trial (N = 861) demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone (median, 8.7 months vs 6.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.83; P < 0.001) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The efficacy benefit of the combination over gemcitabine alone was observed across patient subgroups, including those based on region. This subset analysis was designed to examine the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients treated in Australia to understand whether differences in patient population or regional variations in patient care had any impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer received first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or gemcitabine alone in the MPACT study; this analysis focused on those treated in Australia. RESULTS: In the Australian cohort, 120 patients were randomized to receive nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (n = 61) or gemcitabine alone (n = 59). Median OS was 9.4 months with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus 6.7 months with gemcitabine alone (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.94; P = 0.022). Progression-free survival (median, 5.5 months vs 3.6 months; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.00; P = 0.049) and the overall response rate (23% vs 2%; P < 0.001) were significantly improved with the combination. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this subset analysis confirm the efficacy and manageable safety profile of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated in Australia.

Quality-adjusted Outcomes Stratified by Response in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer Receiving First-line nab-Paclitaxel/Carboplatin or Paclitaxel/Carboplatin.

BACKGROUND: First-line nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin was associated with a significantly improved overall response rate (primary endpoint) versus paclitaxel/carboplatin in a phase III trial of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the results of an analysis evaluating the correlation of response and the time to response with survival and quality-adjusted outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a landmark approach, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) were compared between patients with a confirmed partial or complete response at or before 6 weeks (≤ 6-week responders) and those without (≤ 6-week nonresponders). The outcomes were also analyzed in two 12-week landmark analyses: ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders and early responders (≤ 6 weeks) versus late responders (6-12 weeks) versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders. RESULTS: The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 6-week responders versus ≤ 6-week nonresponders were 14.5 versus 10.3 months (P < .001) and 5.5 versus 4.5 months (P = .002), respectively. The ≤ 6-week responders gained 2.1 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS and PFS for the ≤ 12-week responders versus ≤ 12-week nonresponders were 16.3 versus 8.4 months and 5.3 versus 2.8 months (both P < .001), respectively, and the ≤ 12-week responders gained 3.2 months of mean Q-TWiST. The median OS was 13.1, 16.6, and 8.4 months (P < .001), the median PFS was 4.1, 6.7, and 2.8 months (P < .001), and the mean Q-TWiST was 10.2, 11.7, and 7.8 months for the early responders, late responders, and ≤ 12-week nonresponders, respectively. Both early and late responders had significantly longer Q-TWiST compared with the ≤ 12-week nonresponders (difference, +2.4 and +3.9 months, respectively; P < .05). CONCLUSION: These results underscore response as an important surrogate for assessment of long-term treatment outcomes in advanced NSCLC.

Quality-Adjusted Survival With nab-Paclitaxel Versus Standard Paclitaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Q-TWiST Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this analysis we compared quality-adjusted survival outcomes between nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and standard paclitaxel (Pac) using data from the nab-P phase III registration trial in metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Quality-adjusted overall survival was estimated using the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) approach. Overall survival was partitioned into time without progression/Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) toxicity (TWiST), time with Grade ≥ 3 AE toxicity (TOX), and time after relapse (REL). Q-TWiST was calculated by multiplying mean time in each health state by its assigned utility (base-case utility values: time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity of Grade ≥ 3 adverse events [TWiST] = 1.0, TOX = 0.5, and REL = 0.5). In threshold analyses, TOX and REL varied from 0.0 to 1.0 whereas TWiST was maintained at 1.0. Comparisons were made for the intent-to-treat population and the subset of patients initiating the study drugs as second or subsequent lines (2L+) of chemotherapy (per approved nab-P indication; 2L+ subpopulation). A ≥ 15% relative Q-TWiST gain (vs. mean Pac overall survival) was considered clearly clinically important. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, nab-P (n = 229) versus Pac (n = 225) resulted in nonsignificant gains of 1.4 months of mean Q-TWiST (11.6 vs. 10.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 2.8). In the 2L+ subpopulation, nab-P (n = 132) versus Pac (n = 136) resulted in a statistically significant gain of 2.2 months of mean Q-TWiST (10.5 vs. 8.4 months; 95% CI, 0.6-3.8), with a 17.1% relative Q-TWiST gain (threshold analysis range, 14.0%-19.5%, both figures significant). CONCLUSION: In its approved indication for metastatic breast cancer, nab-P showed a statistically significant and clearly clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival time versus Pac in the 2L+ subpopulation.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin vs gemcitabine plus carboplatin in first-line treatment of advanced squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer in a US community oncology setting.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world comparative effectiveness, safety, and supportive care use of nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin vs gemcitabine plus platinum were analyzed in patients with advanced or metastatic squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received ≥ 1 cycle of first-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine plus platinum were identified from the Navigating Cancer database. Clinical effectiveness endpoints included overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Other endpoints included safety and utilization of supportive care. Cox proportional hazards models were used to control for potential confounding effects of baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 193 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin, n = 61; gemcitabine plus platinum, n = 132). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between the cohorts. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin had a significantly longer OS than those receiving gemcitabine plus carboplatin (median, 12.8 vs 9.0 months; P = 0.03). However, the adjusted difference was not statistically significant (adjusted HR 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99-2.42; P = 0.06). nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin-treated patients had significantly longer TTD than gemcitabine plus carboplatin-treated patients (median, 4.3 vs 3.5 months; P = 0.03; adjusted HR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.90; P = 0.04). Grade 3 or 4 anemia and neutropenia were significantly lower in patients treated with nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin vs gemcitabine plus carboplatin. Nausea and neuropathy (grade not specified) were significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin than the gemcitabine plus carboplatin group. No differences in supportive care use were observed between the cohorts. CONCLUSION: These real-world data support the effectiveness and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin for first-line treatment of advanced squamous cell NSCLC.

Comparative Effectiveness and Resource Usage in Patients Receiving First-line Taxane-based Chemotherapy for Stage IV Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer in a US Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: Weekly (qw) nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel was approved for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer based on the results from a phase III trial in which nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin demonstrated a significantly greater response rate compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin every 3 weeks (q3w). Little information exists on relative real-world results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present retrospective study used data from a national electronic medical record database. Patients receiving first-line nab-paclitaxel qw, paclitaxel qw, or paclitaxel q3w for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were identified. The total cumulative dose, time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and database persistence (a proxy measure for survival) were analyzed for all patients and for the squamous and elderly subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 114, 208, and 153 patients received nab-paclitaxel qw, paclitaxel qw, and paclitaxel q3w, respectively. In the corresponding treatment arms, the median age was 72, 69, and 67 years; 56%, 48%, and 37% were aged ≥ 70 years; and 75%, 43%, and 23% had squamous cell NSCLC. The total cumulative dose was significantly greater with nab-paclitaxel qw. The TTD was longer with nab-paclitaxel qw than with paclitaxel qw (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.72; P < .001) or with paclitaxel q3w (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.73; P < .001). Database persistence was longer with nab-paclitaxel qw than with paclitaxel qw (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.79; P = .001) or with paclitaxel q3w (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.78; P = .002). The TTD after experiencing any hematologic adverse event was longer with nab-paclitaxel qw. The findings were consistent across the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, nab-paclitaxel qw was associated with a significantly greater cumulative dose and significantly longer TTD and database persistence compared with paclitaxel qw and paclitaxel q3w.