160130-173

Comparative effectiveness and resource utilization of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P+G) versus FOLFIRINOX (FFX) in first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in a U.S. community oncology setting.

Category: 
Cancers of the Pancreas, Small Bowel, and Hepatobiliary Tract
Session Type and Session Title: 
Poster Session B: Cancers of the Pancreas, Small Bowel, and Hepatobiliary Tract
Abstract Number: 

433

Poster Board Number: 
Poster Session B Board #M5
Citation: 
J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl 4S; abstr 433)
Author(s): 
Fadi S. Braiteh, Manish Patel, Monika Parisi, Quanhong Ni, Si yeon Park, Claudio Faria; Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV; Celgene, Summit, NJ; Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

Abstract Disclosures

Abstract: 

Background: Both nab-P+G and FFX demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) over gemcitabine monotherapy for the treatment of PDAC; but there is no real-world effectiveness and utilization study of nab-P+G vs. FFX. The objective of this study is to compare real-world treatment patterns of patients receiving nab-P+G vs. FFX as first-line treatment for advanced PDAC. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using fully de-identified data from a nationally representative electronic medical record platform of 1,300 community oncology physicians. Patients diagnosed with PDAC between September 2013 and October 2014 who received either nab-P+G or FFX as 1st line therapy were included in the analysis. We calculated median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and database persistence (DP), a proxy for OS, using the Kaplan Meier method, and assessed supportive care usage with Poisson regression. Results: 202 (out of 851) patients met eligibility criteria (nab-P+G, n = 122; FFX, n = 80). Patients on nab-P+G were older than patients on FFX (mean age 67.0 v 61.4; p < 0.01), but other baseline characteristics were comparable. TTD (3.4 v 3.8 mos) and DP (8.6 v 8.6 mos) were not statistically different for nab-P+G and FFX, respectively. The rate of AE-related discontinuation was similar in patients on nab-P+G and FFX (18% v 21%); however patients on nab-P+G utilized less doses of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) agents (2.0 v 4.4; p < 0.01), but needed more doses of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESA) (0.9 v 0.1; p < 0.01) and steroids (7.9 v 5.8; p < 0.01) per 100 days. Conclusions: TTD and DP for patients with advanced PDAC did not differ significantly between nab-P+G and FFX, although supportive care medications differed. Patients treated with nab-P+G required fewer doses of GCSF and more doses of ESA and steroids, though AEs leading to discontinuation was not statistically different. Management of chemotherapy related toxicities may incur substantial burden on the U.S. healthcare system, especially if an alternative therapy exists with similar clinical outcomes.