MRI-guided stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy versus CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (CROSSFIRE): a single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease with a dismal prognosis. Stage III locally advanced pancreatic cancer is considered unresectable and current palliative chemotherapy regimens only modestly improve survival. Guidelines suggest chemoradiation or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) could be beneficial in certain circumstances. Other local treatments such as irreversible electroporation could enhance patient outcomes by extending survival while preserving quality of life. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MRI-guided SABR versus CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation following standard FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy.

METHODS

CROSSFIRE was an open-label, randomised phase 2 superiority trial conducted at the Amsterdam University Medical Centre (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with confirmed histological and radiological stage III locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The maximum tumour diameter was 5 cm and patients had to be pretreated with three to eight cycles of FOLFIRINOX. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to MRI-guided SABR (five fractions of 8 Gy delivered on non-consecutive days) or CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation using a computer-generated variable block randomisation model. The primary endpoint was overall survival from randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the per-protocol population. A prespecified interim futility analysis was done after inclusion of half the original sample size, with a conditional probability of less than 0·2 resulting in halting of the study. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02791503.

FINDINGS

Between May 1, 2016, and March 31, 2022, 68 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to SABR (n=34) or irreversible electroporation (n=34), of whom 64 were treated according to protocol. Of the 68 participants, 36 (53%) were male and 32 (47%) were female, with a median age of 65 years (IQR 57-70). Median overall survival from randomisation was 16·1 months (95% CI 12·1-19·4) in the SABR group versus 12·5 months (10·9-17·0) in the irreversible electroporation group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·39 [95% CI 0·84-2·30]; p=0·21). The conditional probability to demonstrate superiority of either technique was 0·13; patient accrual was therefore stopped early for futility. 20 (63%) of 32 patients in the SABR group versus 19 (59%) of 32 patients in the irreversible electroporation group had adverse events (p=0·8) and five (16%) patients in the SABR group versus eight (25%) in the irreversible electroporation group had grade 3-5 adverse events (p=0·35). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were cholangitis (two [6%] in the SABR group vs one [3%] in the irreversible electroporation group), abdominal pain (one [3%] vs two [6%]), and pancreatitis (none vs two [6%]). One (3%) patient in the SABR group and one (3%) in the irreversible electroporation group died from a treatment-related adverse event.

INTERPRETATION

CROSSFIRE did not identify a difference in overall survival or incidence of adverse events between MRI-guided SABR and CT-guided percutaneous irreversible electroporation after FOLFIRINOX. Future studies should further assess the added value of local ablative treatment over chemotherapy alone.

FUNDING

Adessium Foundation, AngioDynamics.