The NAPOLI-3 study assessed FOLFOX+ liposomal irinotecan vs. gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel. NALIRIFOX was superior, with an OS of 11.1 vs. 9.2 months. Criticisms of modern gem trials are often that of rigid dosing requirements that differ from modern clinical practice. Additionally, it is unclear whether NALIRIFOX provides any meaningful benefit over FOLFIRINOX, and the cost is always a consideration.
Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (Wainberg et al. Eur J Cancer 2021;151:14–24; NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Herein, we present results from NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC.
Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated metastatic PDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence or absence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when ≥ 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall 1-sided significance level of 0.025.
Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. The median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIFIROX arm as compared with 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.71–0.99]; p = 0.04); PFS was also significantly improved (7.4 months vs 5.6 months; HR 0.70 [0.59–0.84]; p = 0.0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ≥ 10% frequency in patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%).
First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in treatment-naïve patients with mPDAC. The safety profile of NALIRIFOX was manageable and consistent with the profiles of the treatment components. Funding: Funded by Ipsen. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235.
CAR-T agent for refractory met-pancreas showing a median duration of response of 9.5 months. These treatments are far from widely available, but the proof of principle is nice to see in a disease that otherwise has not had responses to immunotherapy. Hopefully more agents to come.
Asian study of nimotuzumab (humanized EGFR-inhibitor) + gemcitabine (gem) vs. gem alone. The overall survival (OS) was 10.9 vs. 8.5 months in favor of the combination arm. While the OS difference is small, recall that the OS in the NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX studies are similar. The safety profile of nimotuzumab + gemcitabine is superior to a triplet or double cytotoxic chemotherapy combination regimen. This drug is currently not available in the USA but is approved for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China.
You may have enrolled a patient in this trial, but it seems we may have a new first line regimen. Surprisingly toxicity simar in both arms, but there was improvement in PFS and OS (17% reduction in death) although it wasn’t statistically significant in OS.
More diarrhea with nalirifox, but more neutropenia with gem abraxane.
Somewhat disappointing as this was a negative study, however it is still an option for patients who are not candidates for mFOLFIRINOX.
Positive study for the combo of TMZ + cape vs. TMZ alone in met-pNET, confirming a regimen that is already widely used. Patients were first-line, and those with MGMT-def had a better response.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
