Is It Worth It?
During a presentation of the phase 3 findings last year, study author Zev A. Wainberg, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said the NALIRIFOX regimen can be considered the new reference regimen for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
The study discussant, Laura Goff, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, agreed that the results support the NALIRIFOX regimen as “the new standard for fit patients.”
However, other oncologists remain skeptical about the benefits of the new regimen over FOLFIRINOX for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and University of Utah gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Nevala-Plagemann, MD, compared the evidence for both regimens.
The experts pointed out that overall response rates were assessed by investigators in NAPOLI 3 and not by an independent review committee, as in PRODIGE 4, and might have been overestimated.
Although the lack of an age limit was touted as a benefit of NAPOLI 3, Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann doubt whether enough patients over 75 years old participated to draw any meaningful conclusions about using NALIRIFOX in older, frailer patients. If anything, patients in PRODIGE 4 might have been less fit because, among other things, the trial allowed patients with serum albumins < 3 g/dL.
On the adverse event front, the authors highlighted the higher incidences of grade 3 or worse diarrhea with NALIRIFOX (20% vs 12.7%) and questioned if there truly is less neutropenia with NALIRIFOX because high-risk patients in NAPOLI 3 were treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor to prevent it. The pair also questioned whether the differences in neuropathy rates between the two trials were big enough to be clinically meaningful.
Insights from a recent meta-analysis may further clarify some of the lingering questions about the efficacy of NALIRIFOX vs FOLFIRINOX.
In the analysis, the team found no meaningful difference in overall and progression-free survival between the two regimens. Differences in rates of peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were not statistically significant, but NALIRIFOX did carry a statistically significant advantage in lower rates of febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and vomiting.
The team concluded that “NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX may provide equal efficacy as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer, but with different toxicity profiles,” and called for careful patient selection when choosing between the two regimens as well as consideration of financial toxicity.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna had a different take. With the current data, NALIRIFOX does not seem to “add anything substantially different to what we already” have with FOLFIRINOX, he told this news organization. Given that, “we can’t really justify NALIRIFOX over FOLFIRINOX without more of a head-to-head comparison.”
The higher cost of NALIRIFOX, in particular, remains a major drawback.
“We think it would be an economic disservice to our healthcare systems if we used NALIRIFOX instead of FOLFIRINOX for these patients on the basis of [NAPOLI 3] data,” Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, and Christopher Booth, MD, gastrointestinal oncologists at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, said in a recent essay.
Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann reiterated this concern.
Overall, “NALIRIFOX does not seem to raise the bar but rather exposes patients and healthcare systems to financial toxicities,” Dr. Garrido-Laguna and Dr. Nevala-Plagemann wrote in their review.
NAPOLI 3 was funded by Ipsen and PRODIGE 4 was funded by the government of France. No funding source was reported for the meta-analysis. NAPOLI 3 investigators included Ipsen employees. Dr. O’Reilly disclosed grants or contracts from Ipsen and many other companies. Dr. Garrido-Laguna reported institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies, but not Ipsen. Dr. Nevala-Plagemann is an advisor for Seagen and reported institutional research funding from Theriva. Dr. Gyawali is a consultant for Vivio Health; Dr. Booth had no disclosures. Two meta-analysis authors reported grants or personal fees from Ipsen as well as ties to other companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
