A randomised phase 2 study of liposomal irinotecan in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxalipalatin versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Authors: Gao Chuntao , Chen Xingyun , Hao Jihui , Zhang Yanqiao , Qu Xiujuan , Zhang Jingdong , Wu Heshui , Sun Meili , Zha Yong , Wang Junbin , Wang Yusheng , Li Zhihua , Cheng Ying , Liu Yanping , Miao Niu , Xie Yijiao 
Published: June 2024

4141 Background: FOLFIRINOX remained as first-line standard of care. However, FOLFIRINOX often requires dose modifications, delays and growth factor support due to excessive toxicity which can complicate care delivery. Liposomal irinotecan (HE072) is a liposomal formulation that encapsulates irinotecan in a lipid bilayer vesicle, as a generic drug, had been approved for marketing in China on September 15, 2022, and was used in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who progressed after receiving gemcitabine treatment. This study aims to compare with nab-paclitaxel+gemcitabine (AG), which is another first-line stand of care, through substitute HE072 for traditional irinotecan in the standard FOLFIRINOX regimen (NALIRIFOX) and to demonstrate safe and effective delivery. Methods: HE072-CSP-004 was a randomised, open-label, multi-center, phase 2 study. Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (HE072 50 mg/m², oxaliplatin 60 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m², administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or AG (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m²), administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Other key eligibility criteria include ECOG performance status of 0 to 1, untreated with systematic anti-tumor regimens; Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and duration of response (DOR). Results: As of Dec 12, 2023, 117 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 78; AG, 39). The two groups were comparable on baseline characteristics. The median PFS differences was statistically significant as 7.6 months (95%CI 5.49-9.17) with NALIRIFOX versus 3.7 months (95%CI 3.15-5.06) with AG (hazard ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p=0.0104). Median OS was 13.4 months (95%CI 9.89-NE) with NALIRIFOX versus 8.8 months (95%CI 6.87-12.16) with AG (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% CI 0.39-1.11; p=0.1125). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (TRAE) occurred in 52 (66.7%) of 78 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 30 (76.9%) of 39 patients receiving AG. No new safety signal was observed. Conclusions: The study met the primary endpoint of PFS demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PFS and with a trend of OS benefit for NALIRIFOX over AG. The safety profile was consistent with the known risks of the individual toxicity. This study is consistent with the existing NAPOLI 3 study. Clinical trial information: NCT05047991 .