Search

Background: Subgroup analyses of the NAPOLI-1 study identified that among patients who were irinotecan naïve prior to entering the clinical trial, a survival benefit was observed between the study arm and control arm. This treatment benefit was not observed among those previously exposed to irinotecan. This study sought to understand the impact of prior exposure to irinotecan on clinical outcomes among patients treated with liposomal irinotecan in the real-world setting., Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database. Data for adult patients with mPDAC treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens between January 2016 and October 2020 were analyzed. Patient characteristics, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). HRs were adjusted for demographics and relevant clinical covariates., Results: Six hundred and seventy-five patients with mPDAC treated with a liposomal irinotecan-based regimen were included. The unadjusted OS HR was 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1-1.6, p < 0.001) and unadjusted PFS was HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the adjusted OS HR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.8-1.3, p = 0.8836) and the adjusted PFS HR was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.8-1.4, p = 0.5626)., Conclusions: Prior irinotecan was not found to be a significant predictor of patient outcomes in those later treated with liposomal irinotecan. Thus, the results may inform the rationale for utilizing liposomal irinotecan combination therapy following prior irinotecan exposure in mPDAC, in particular where the prior irinotecan exposure was more distant in time., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Chemotherapy-related adverse events (AEs) can negatively impact the care of patients. The prevention and management of AEs often require additional medications. This study evaluated the percentages of patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) undergoing second-line therapy with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimens that experienced AEs during treatment and received medication to manage those AEs., Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis utilizing the Flatiron Health database of adult patients with mPDAC who started second-line therapy between January 2016 and August 2020. The occurrence of diarrhea, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, neuropathy, and hematologic AEs including G3/G4 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia was assessed. The use of concomitant medications including atropine and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was assessed., Results: Of the 825 eligible patients, 29.0% ( n  = 239) received FOLFIRINOX, 24.0% ( n  = 198) received FOLFOX, 6.8% ( n  = 56) received FOLFIRI, and 40.2% ( n  = 332) received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens. FOLFIRI and FOLFIRINOX regimens were associated with the highest rates of anemia (16.1% and 15.5%), neutropenia (19.6% and 22.6%), and thrombocytopenia (14.3% and 9.6%). The liposomal irinotecan and FOLFOX regimens were associated with lower rates of anemia (11.8% and 12.1%), neutropenia (12.4% and 14.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.4% and 8.1%). G-CSF use was observed among 63.6%, 34.9%, 33.9%, and 44.9% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Diarrhea was observed among 12.5%, 4.5%, 12.5%, and 10.2% of patients who were treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 14.9%, 12.6%, 10.5%, and 13.1% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and liposomal irinotecan-based regimens, respectively. Atropine use was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI (90.8% and 94.6%, respectively) than in patients treated with liposomal irinotecan-based regimens (75.6%)., Conclusions: In patients with mPDAC who received second-line therapy, those who received liposomal irinotecan-based regimens had the lowest rates of anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia compared to FOLFIRI, FOLFIRINOX, and FOLFOX, while requiring a similar or lower level of medication to treat and manage those adverse events. Patients treated with FOLFIRI received the highest dose of pegfilgrastim to manage neutropenia. The results of this real-world analysis are consistent with prior evaluations of patients with mPDAC and highlight the importance of managing adverse events and associated cost implications.

Background: Sixty-eight percent of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are 65 years and older. Older adults are under-represented in clinical trials and their care is complicated with multiple age-related conditions. Research suggests that older patients can experience meaningful responses to treatment for PDAC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics, rate of treatment, and survival outcomes of patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) based on age at diagnosis., Materials and Methods: Data were extracted for patients diagnosed with mPDAC between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2020, from the Flatiron Health database. Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: <70 years old, 70-79 years, and ≥80 years. The proportion of patients who received first-line therapy, the types of regimens received in the metastatic setting, overall survival (OS) from the start of treatment were evaluated., Results: Of the 8382 patients included, 71.3% (n = 5973) received treatment. Among patients who received treatment 55.5% (n = 3313) were aged <70 years at diagnosis, 33.0% (n = 1972) were 70-79 years, and 11.5% (n = 688) were ≥80 years. Patients ≥80 years of age were more likely to receive gemcitabine monotherapy and less likely to receive FOLFIRINOX. Among first-line treated patients, median OS significantly decreased with age. However, when comparing patients treated with the same first-line regimen, no significant differences in median OS were observed by age., Conclusions: This study highlights that older adults with mPDAC can benefit substantially by receiving appropriate levels of treatment., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care patterns and outcomes for patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) in 2020 compared with those diagnosed with mPDAC in 2019., Patients and Methods: We used the Flatiron Health database to identify adults diagnosed with mPDAC from March 1 to September 30, 2019 (pre-COVID-19 cohort) and March 1 to September 30, 2020 (post-COVID-19 cohort). Between-cohort comparisons included demographic and clinical characteristics and year-over-year data for diagnosis of mPDAC, newly treated patients, time to and types of first-line therapy, and adverse events (AEs) during first-line therapy. Overall survival (OS) and milestone survival rates were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess OS., Results: Pre-COVID-19 (n = 923) and post-COVID-19 (n = 796) cohorts had similar baseline demographic characteristics. A smaller proportion of patients in the pre-COVID-19 cohort were initially diagnosed with stage IV disease versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (62.2% vs 69.7%). Between 2019 and 2020, there was a 13.8% decrease in diagnosis of mPDAC and a 13.0% decrease in newly treated patients. Median (interquartile range) times to first-line treatment were similar (21 [13-40] and 19 [12-32] days). Median OS (months) was significantly longer in the pre-COVID-19 cohort (8·4 [95% CI: 7·5, 9·0]) versus the post-COVID-19 cohort (6·1 [95% CI: 5·4, 6·9]; P < .001). Survival rates were higher in the pre-COVID-19 versus post-COVID-19 cohorts., Conclusions: During the pandemic, patients were initially diagnosed with PDAC at more advanced stages. While patients in both cohorts appeared to receive similar care, survival outcomes were adversely affected., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Aim: This study sought to understand the association between liposomal irinotecan dose reductions (DRs) and clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Materials & methods: A retrospective study of adult patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with liposomal irinotecan in the Flatiron Health database was conducted to assess treatment and clinical outcomes. Results: DRs occurred in 28.4% of the 320 patients in the study. Patients with DRs had longer overall survival (7.7 [95% CI: 6.2-10.2]) vs 3.6 [3.2-4.1] months) and time to discontinuation (4.2 [3.0-4.9] vs 1.4 [1.0-1.5] months) than patients without DRs. Results were consistent in a validation analysis requiring three cycles of treatment. Conclusion: Liposomal irinotecan DRs were associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with patients without DRs.

Background: Real-world practice patterns, treatment sequencing, and outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer remain unclear. Previous research indicates that the likelihood of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving or continuing cancer-directed therapy is low-a phenomenon called nihilism. This retrospective, descriptive analysis examined clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC)., Methods: Treatment patterns were examined using electronic health records from the Flatiron Health database covering the period from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Real-world overall survival [rwOS]) was compared for a subgroup of patients receiving treatment and a matched subgroup not receiving treatment., Results: Of 7666 patients, 5687 (74.2%) received at least one line of systemic therapy. A greater proportion of patients receiving treatment than not receiving treatment had an initial diagnosis of stage IV disease (68.8% vs 61.2%, respectively). Among patients receiving an initial therapy, fewer than half (38.2%; 2174/5687) received second-line treatment, mostly because they died, and only 34.3% (745/2174) of those receiving second-line treatment advanced to third-line treatment. The rwOS for patients receiving at least one line of systemic therapy was 8.1 months versus 2.6 months for matched patients not receiving treatment (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.45; 1470 patients per group)., Conclusions: Systemic therapy provided significant clinical benefit for patients who were eligible and chose to receive it, particularly when treatment was consistent with guideline recommendations. The large proportion of patients initiating treatment suggests that nihilism with mPDAC is diminishing., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) is a topoisomerase inhibitor proven to improve survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). This study describes real-world characteristics of patients treated with nal-IRI for mPC., Methods: Patients 18 years or older diagnosed with stage IV mPC and treated with nal-IRI were selected retrospectively from a deidentified electronic health record database of more than 2 million US cancer patients. Demographics, clinical and dosing characteristics, and treatment outcomes were collected., Results: Of 257 total patients, 145 (57%) received nal-IRI as first- or second-line therapy. Median nal-IRI treatment duration was 51 days, longer when nal-IRI was used as first/second versus as third-line therapy or later (62 vs 44.5 days). Seventy patients (27.2%) experienced dose modification. Median time to treatment discontinuation was 2.3 versus 1.6 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Median overall survival from nal-IRI initiation was 5.6 versus 4.1 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Prior irinotecan treatment, baseline serum albumin less than 40 g/L, and baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 5 were associated with reduced overall survival., Conclusions: This is the first large US study of real-world US mPC patients treated with nal-IRI. These results, comparable to the NAPOLI-1 trial, can help inform future studies and the efficacy of nal-IRI in mPC therapy.