Rainer Fietkau, MD, on Pancreatic Cancer: Initial Trial Results on Sequential Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
Rainer Fietkau, MD, of Germany’s University Hospital Erlangen, discusses phase III findings of the CONKO-007 trial, which examined the role of sequential chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy administered to patients with nonresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer following standard-of-care chemotherapy (Abstract 4008).
Transcript
Disclaimer: This video transcript has not been proofread or edited and may contain errors.
So CONKO-007 study compared in a randomized Phase III trial the effect of chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy following induction chemotherapy. We included the patients with nonresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Following three months of induction therapy, restaging was performed and patients with new detected metastasis or insufficient dosage of chemotherapy were included. 525 patients were included. 366 patients were randomized.
Important, we had the following feature of the study. Nonresectability was confirmed a panel of five experienced surgeons. This was checked again following the whole therapy and surgery was recommended if an R0 resection seems to be possible. And, we succeeded, that in both arms about 36% of the patients were then treated with surgery. We think that this high number was due to the fact that surgery was often recommended in the second surgical evaluation.
The primary end point, the R0 resection, was evaluated in the 122 patients with resection. Following chemoradiotherapy, more R0 resections were possible. The rate of R1 resections was significantly lower. The OS rate of CRM negative tumor was significantly higher. Furthermore, we found significantly more complete remissions following chemoradiotherapy.
In a second analysis, for all randomized patients nearly all statistically different parameters remained significant. Complete remission rate, R1 resection rate, CRM positive or negative status, all in favor of chemoradiotherapy. Only the R0 resection rate was no more statistically different, but this did not translate into a better overall progression free survival or overall survival. But what is very important, is the effect of additional surgery. None of the patients without surgery survived five years, but 17.5% with additional surgery. Of course, these are no randomized data and are biased by patient selection, but it may show the important role of surgery of these patients.
Moreover, the best survival data we achieved for CRM or R0 resected patients was a five year survival rate of 35 to 27%. We found some hints that chemoradiotherapy improves this long term survival of surgically treated patients. Five year survival following chemoradiotherapy is 24% compared to 20% following chemotherapy alone. Of course, these results are not statistically different but may be a hint how the better R0 resection rate may potentially translate into a better survival.
In conclusion, we found that additional chemoradiotherapy to chemotherapy improves significantly the R0 resected rate, in surgically treated group but not in all randomized patients. Additional chemoradiotherapy improves the rate of R0 CRM negative resected significantly and very importantly, 36% of all randomized patients can be treated additionally with surgery, the five year survival of 17.5% compared to 0% without surgery. Overall this concept of induction chemotherapy, additional chemoradiotherapy and surgery, is visible, with a five year survival rate of 9.6% and selects a favorable subgroup of patients that has an impressive long term survival rate of up to 26%.
And the next steps in our analysis will be a further evaluation of prognostic parameters to select better patients who will benefit most from surgery and chemoradiotherapy.
The ASCO Post Staff
Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, of Flatiron Health, discusses the use of telemedicine services in community oncology clinics for patients initiating treatments for 21 common cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Black, uninsured, non-urban, and less affluent patients were less likely to use telemedicine services. Although telemedicine may expand access to specialty care, the proliferation of these services may widen cancer care disparities if equitable access to these services is not ensured, according to Dr. Guadamuz (Abstract 6511).
The ASCO Post Staff
Michael J. Overman, MD, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Jeanne Tie, MBChB, MD, of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, discuss results from the DYNAMIC trial, in which a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided approach reduced the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising recurrence-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer (Abstract LBA100).
The ASCO Post Staff
Stephen M. Ansell, PhD, MD, of Mayo Clinic, discusses updated data from the ECHELON-1 trial, which showed that, when administered to patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma, the combination of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine resulted in a 41% reduction in the risk of death. These outcomes, says Dr. Ansell, confirm A+AVD as a preferred option for previously untreated disease (Abstract 7503).
The ASCO Post Staff
Bradley J. Monk, MD, of the University of Arizona College of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine, discusses phase III findings from the ATHENA–MONO (GOG-3020/ENGOT-ov45) trial. It showed that rucaparib as first-line maintenance treatment, following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, improved progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer, irrespective of homologous recombination deficiency status (Abstract LBA5500).
The ASCO Post Staff
Sumanta K. Pal, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, discusses findings from the COSMIC-021 study, which showed that cabozantinib plus atezolizumab demonstrated encouraging clinical activity with manageable toxicity in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The combination was administered as first-line therapy in cisplatin-based chemotherapy–eligible and –ineligible patients and as second- or later-line treatment in those who received prior immune checkpoint inhibitors (Abstract 4504).