1 / 9

Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503. (Oral Presentation)

Gemcitabine With or Without Cisplatin in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC): Results of a Multicentre, Randomized Phase III Trial (The UK ABC-02 Trial). Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503. (Oral Presentation). Introduction.

lucia
Download Presentation

Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503. (Oral Presentation)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gemcitabine With or Without Cisplatin in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer (ABC): Results of a Multicentre, Randomized Phase III Trial (The UK ABC-02 Trial) Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503. (Oral Presentation)

  2. Introduction • Biliary tract cancers (BTC: cholangiocarcinoma, gall bladder cancer, ampullary cancer) are rare, lethal cancers with rising incidence • Cholangiocarcinoma, the most common BTC, accounts for 3% of all GI cancers globally (Vauthey Sem Liver Dis 1994) • 5-year survival: 5-10% • No standard of care exists for BTC • Few underpowered phase III chemotherapy studies • Small phase II studies, mostly 5-FU or gemcitabine-based • ABC-01: Randomized Phase II study (N = 86) - Cisplatin (Cis)/Gemcitabine (Gem) appeared superior to Gem (GI Cancers Symposium 2006;Abstract 98) • 6-mos PFS: 57.1% vs 47.7% • Median TTP: 8.0 mos vs 4.0 mos • ORR: 24% vs 15% • Tumor control rate: 76% vs 58% • Current study objectives: • Prospectively evaluate the activity and safety of Cis/Gem vs Gem in patients with advanced or metastatic BTC in a large, multicenter phase III study Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  3. ABC-02: Phase III Multicenter Study (N = 410*) Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 D1, 8, 15 q28 days 24 weeks (6 cycles) Primary site: Gallbladder/bile duct/ampulla 37%/58%/5% R Gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 Cisplatin 25 mg/m2 D1, 8 q21 days 24 weeks (8 cycles) Primary site: Gallbladder/bile duct/ampulla 36%/60%/4% *Includes 86 patients from ABC-01 Upon disease progression, management will be at clinician’s discretion (mostly best supportive care) Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  4. Grade 3/4 Adverse Events Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  5. Additional Grade 3/4 Adverse Events Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  6. Radiologic Response:Investigator-Assessed *Patients not required to have measurable disease at study entry and some patients still in follow-up Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  7. Progression-Free Survival: Intention-to-Treat 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Progression-free survival GemcitabineGemcitabine + Cisplatin 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Follow up time (days) Source: With permission from Valle JW. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  8. Overall Survival: Intention-to-Treat 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 Survival GemcitabineGemcitabine + Cisplatin 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Follow up time (days) Source: With permission from Valle JW. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

  9. Summary and Conclusions • Cis/Gem significantly improves OS and PFS compared to Gem • Median OS: 11.7 mos vs 8.3 mos • Reduced risk of death by 30% (HR = 0.70, p = 0.002) • Median PFS: 8.4 mos vs 6.5 mos • Reduced risk of disease progression by 28% (HR = 0.72, p = 0.003) • First demonstration of a survival benefit in advanced BTC • Benefit gained without additional clinically significant toxicity • Lethargy is the most common Grade 3/4 AE in both arms: Cis/Gem (18.6%) and Gem (16.6%) • Slight excess of Grade 3/4 neutropenia with Cis/Gem vs Cis: 22.6% vs 17.9%, respectively • Therapy withdrawal due to toxicity: Cis/Gem n=8, Gem n=11 • Cis/Gem is recommended as a worldwide standard of care and should serve as the backbone of future studies Source: Valle JW et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract 4503.

More Related