Search

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of algenpantucel-L (HAPa; IND# 12311) immunotherapy combined with standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy and chemoradiation to SOC chemotherapy and chemoradiation therapy alone in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Summary background data To date, immunotherapy has not been shown to benefit patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced unresectable PDAC. HAPa is a cancer vaccine consisting of allogeneic pancreatic cancer cells engineered to express the murine α(1,3)GT gene. Methods A multicenter, phase 3, open label, randomized (1:1) trial of patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced unresectable PDAC. Patients received neoadjuvant SOC chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel) followed by chemoradiation (standard group) or the same standard neoadjuvant regimen combined with HAPa immunotherapy (experimental group). The primary outcome was overall survival. Results Between May 2013 and December 2015, 303 patients were randomized from 32 sites. Median (IQR) overall survival was 14.9 (12.2-17.8) months in the standard group (N=158) and 14.3 (12.6-16.3) months in the experimental group (N = 145) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.66-1.58; P = 0.98). Median progression-free survival was 13.4 months in the standard group and 12.4 months in the experimental group (HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.72-1.78; P = 0.59). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 105 of 140 patients (75%) in the standard group and in 115 of 142 patients (81%) in the experimental group (P > 0.05). Conclusions Algenpantucel-L immunotherapy did not improve survival in patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced unresectable PDAC receiving SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01836432.

4618 Background: APACT was a phase III trial of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine ( nab-P + Gem) vs Gem alone in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (PC) and the first adjuvant PC trial to use independently assessed DFS as the primary endpoint (DFS by investigator review was a prespecified sensitivity analysis). We examined concordance between independent and investigator DFS review. Methods: For the independent assessment, reviewers determined recurrence by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging but were blinded to treatment and clinical data. Investigator-assessed DFS was based on all available data. Concordance was summarized by κ statistics. Patients who did not have recurrence or were alive were censored at the last tumor assessment date with disease-free status or the randomization date if the last tumor assessment with disease-free status was missing. Patients who received new anticancer therapy or cancer-related surgery prior to recurrence or death were censored at the date of last tumor assessment with disease-free status prior to the start of new anticancer therapy or cancer-related surgery or the randomization date if the last tumor assessment date with disease-free status prior to the start of subsequent new anticancer therapy or cancer-related surgery was missing. All censoring rules were the same for analysis of DFS by independent and investigator review. Results: Median DFS by independent review was 19.4 ( nab-P + Gem) vs 18.8 (Gem) months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 - 1.06; P = 0.18); median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 ( nab-P + Gem) vs 13.7 (Gem) months (HR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 - 0.97; nominal P = 0.017). Moderate concordance was found between independent- and investigator-assessed DFS (Table); similar results were observed in the nab-P + Gem (concordance, 78%; κ coefficient, 0.56) and Gem alone (concordance, 76%; κ coefficient, 0.53) arms. Conclusions: The results reflect the complexities of defining the recurrence timepoint accurately and suggest that radiological review in the absence of clinical context is suboptimal for recurrence detection in resected PC. These findings may inform future clinical trial design. Registration: EudraCT (2013-003398-91); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01964430). Clinical trial information: NCT01964430 . [Table: see text]