Prediction of Adjuvant Gemcitabine Sensitivity in Resectable Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Using the GemPred RNA Signature: An Ancillary Study of the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 Clinical Trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 2026
Patient-derived Heterogeneous Xenograft Model of Pancreatic Cancer Using Zebrafish Larvae as Hosts for Comparative Drug Assessment
Published on: April 30, 2019
Rémy Nicolle1, Jean-Baptiste Bachet2, Alexandre Harlé3
1Université Paris Cité, Centre de Recherche sur l'Inflammation (CRI), INSERM, U1149, CNRS, ERL 8252, F-75018, Paris, France.
Purpose:
GemPred, a transcriptomic signature predictive of the efficacy of adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM), was developed from cell lines and organoids and validated retrospectively. The phase III PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial has demonstrated the superiority of modified folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) over GEM as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at the expense of higher toxicity. We evaluated the potential predictive value of GemPred in this population.
Patients And Methods:
Routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical specimens of 350 patients were retrieved for RNA sequencing and GemPred prediction (167 in the GEM arm and 183 in the mFOLFIRINOX [mFFX] arm). Survival analyses were stratified by resection margins, lymph node status, and cancer antigen 19-9 level.
Results:
Eighty-nine patients' tumors (25.5%) were GemPred+ and were thus predicted to be gemcitabine-sensitive. In the GEM arm, GemPred+ patients (n = 50, 30%) had a significantly longer disease-free survival (DFS) than GemPred- patients (n = 117, 70%; median 27.3 v 10.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.65]; P < .001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS; median 68.4 v 28.6 months, HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.27 to 0.66]; P < .001). GemPred had no prognostic value in the mFFX arm. DFS and CSS were similar in GemPred+ patients who received adjuvant GEM and mFFX (median 27.3 v 24.0 months, and 68.4 v 51.4 months, respectively). The statistical interaction between GEM and GemPred+ status was significant for DFS (P = .008) and CSS (P = .004). GemPred+ patients had significantly more adverse events of grade ≥3 in the mFFX arm (76%) compared with those in the GEM arm (40%; P = .001).
Conclusion:
This ancillary study of a phase III randomized trial demonstrates that among the quarter of patients with a GemPred-positive transcriptomic signature, survival was comparable with that of mFOLFIRINOX, whereas those receiving adjuvant gemcitabine had fewer adverse events.
