Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 20;111(2):513–527. doi: 10.1111/cas.14264

Table 2.

Summary of efficacy for Asia region patients and the overall population (ITT population)

  Asia region population Overall ITT population
Combination therapy Monotherapy Combination therapy Monotherapy

nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV

n=34

5‐FU/LV

n=35

nal‐IRI

n=50

5‐FU/LV n=48

nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV

n=117

5‐F/LV

n=119

nal‐IRI

n=151

5‐FU/LV

n=149

Overall survival
Median OS time, mo 8.9 3.7 5.8 4.3 6.1 4.2 4.9 4.2
95% CI 4.4–10.4 2.7–6.4 4.8–7.4 3.1–5.7 4.8–8.9 3.3–5.3 4.2–5.6 3.6–4.9
HRa 0.51 0.83 0.67 0.99
95% CI 0.28–0.93 0.53–1.31 0.49–0.92 0.77–1.28
P‐valueb .025 .423 .012 .942
Progression‐free survival
Median PFS time, mo 4.0 1.4 2.8 1.4 3.1 1.5 2.7 1.6
95% CI 1.5–5.7 1.3–2.0 1.5–4.1 1.3–1.9 2.7–4.2 1.4–1.8 2.1–2.9 1.4–1.8
HRa 0.48 0.69 0.56 0.81
95% CI 0.27–0.85 0.44–1.07 0.41–0.75 0.63–1.04
P‐valueb .011 .155 <.001 .100
Best overall response, n (%)
ORR 8.8 0 10.0 0 16.2 0.8 6.0 0.7
P‐value .114 .056 <.001 .020
PR 3 (8.8) 0 5 (10.0) 0 19 (16.2) 1 (0.8) 9 (6.0) 1 (0.7)
SD 15 (44.1) 5 (14.3) 18 (36.0) 8 (16.7) 39 (33.3) 26 (21.8) 54 (35.8) 35 (23.5)
Non‐CR/non‐PD 0 0 2 (4.0) 0 3 (2.6) 2 (1.7) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3)
PD 11 (32.4) 18 (51.4) 20 (40.0) 24 (50.0) 34 (29.1) 56 (47.1) 51 (33.8) 71 (47.7)
NE 5 (14.7) 12 (34.3) 5 (10.0) 16 (33.3) 22 (18.8) 34 (28.6) 34 (22.5) 40 (26.8)
CBR 18 (52.9) 5 (14.3) 23 (46.0) 8 (16.7) 58 (49.5) 27 (22.6) 63 (41.8) 36 (24.2)
Tumor marker (CA19‐9) response
CA19‐9 response rate, n/N (%) 8/25 (32.0) 2/26 (7.7) 12/41 (29.3) 4/36 (11.1) 28/97 (28.9) 7/81 (8.6) 29/123 (23.6) 12/105 (11.4)
P‐valuec <.001 .024 <.001 .024

Best overall response is based on RECIST criteria v1.1.

Abbreviations: 5‐FU, 5‐fluorouracil; CBR, clinical benefit response (PR + SD); CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention‐to‐treat; LV, leucovorin (folinic acid); mo, months; nal‐IRI, liposomal irinotecan; NE, not evaluable; ORR, objective response rate; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

a

Unstratified hazard ratios were derived using Cox’s proportional hazards model, with treatment as the independent variable.

b

Two‐sided P‐values from log‐rank test.

c

Two‐sided P‐values from pairwise comparisons of tumor marker response rates using Fisher’s exact test.