Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel or Gemcitabine alone after FOLFIRINOX failure in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world AGEO study.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (Gem) alone or with Nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is used as second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA) after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) failure; however, no comparative data exist. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of adding Nab-paclitaxel to Gem for mPA after FFX failure. METHODS: In this retrospective real-world multicenter study, from 2011 to 2019, patients with mPA receiving Gem-Nab (Gem 1000 mg/m² + Nab 125 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks) or Gem alone were included after progression on FFX. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were included. Patients receiving Gem-Nab had more metastatic sites, peritoneal disease and less PS 2 (24% vs. 35%). After median follow-up of 22 months, Gem-Nab was associated with better disease control rate (DCR) (56% vs. 32%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS) (3.5 vs. 2.3 months; 95% CI: 0.43-0.65) and overall survival (OS) (7.1 vs. 4.7 months; 95% CI: 0.53-0.86). After multivariate analysis, Gem-Nab and PS 0/1 were associated with better OS and PFS. Grade 3/4 toxicity was more frequent with Gem-Nab (44% vs. 29%). CONCLUSION: In this study, Gem-Nab was associated with better DCR, PFS and OS compared with Gem alone in patients with mPA after FFX failure, at the cost of higher toxicity.

Precision medicine for patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer: A subset analysis of the ProfiLER program.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy, anti-HER2 and PD-1 antibodies are standard treatments but only a minority of patients derive long-term benefit from these agents. METHODS: In this report we describe the mutational landscape and outcome of patients with gastroesophageal cancers enroled in the ProfiLER program. RESULTS: Adenocarcinoma (n = 86, 59%), signet-cell (n = 37, 25%) and squamous-cell (n = 21, 14%) were the dominant histology amongst 147 patients. Genomic analyses could be performed for 114 (78%) patients. The most common genomic alterations involved ERBB2 (15%), KRAS (12%), CCND1 (7%), FGFR1-3 (8%), EGFR (5%) and MET (3%), TP53 (51%) and CDKN2A/B (10%). ERBB2, MET and FGFR alterations were found exclusively in the adenocarcinoma and signet-cell subtypes, while CCND1 amplification, TP53 mutations and CDKN2A/B loss were found in both adenocarcinoma and squamous-cell subtypes. Nine patients (8%) received therapy matched to their genomic alteration, with 5 of them achieving disease control. In an exploratory analysis, patients with stage IV disease at diagnosis who had an actionable alteration had longer overall survival compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Genomic profiling for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancers allows the identification of actionable alterations in large proportion of patients. Increased accessibility to molecularly matched therapy may improve survival in this disease.