RESUMEN
This study aimed to compare second-line treatment outcomes for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy. We conducted an integrated analysis of two retrospective studies included 318 patients receiving nanoliposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (NFF) (n = 102), S-1 (n = 57), or FOLFIRINOX (n = 14) as second-line treatment. Median overall survival (OS) in the NFF group was 9.08 months, significantly better than S-1 (4.90 months, P = 0.002). FOLFIRINOX had a median OS of 4.77 months, not statistically different from NFF. Subgroup analyses of OS indicated NFF was generally superior, however, a statistical interaction was observed between the treatment regimen in serum Alb < 3.5 g/dL (P = 0.042) and serum CRP ≥ 0.3 mg/dL (P = 0.006). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.93 months for NFF, significantly better than S-1 (2.53 months, P = 0.024), while FOLFIRINOX had a comparable PFS (3.04 months, P = 0.948). Multivariate analysis identified the serum CRP, serum CA19-9, duration of first-line GnP therapy, and use (yes/no) of S-1 for second-line treatment as independent predictors for OS. This study concludes that second-line NFF therapy demonstrated a more favorable OS compared to S-1 therapy, however, it is still important to consider the patient background characteristics while selecting the most appropriate treatment.
Asunto(s)
Albúminas , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Desoxicitidina , Combinación de Medicamentos , Fluorouracilo , Gemcitabina , Irinotecán , Leucovorina , Oxaliplatino , Paclitaxel , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/administración & dosificación , Irinotecán/administración & dosificación , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Paclitaxel/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Albúminas/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Desoxicitidina/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Oxaliplatino/administración & dosificación , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ácido Oxónico/administración & dosificación , Ácido Oxónico/uso terapéutico , Tegafur/administración & dosificación , Tegafur/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Liposomas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid (NFF) is a standard regimen after gemcitabine-based therapy for patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer. However, there are limited clinical data on its efficacy and safety in the real-world. We therefore initiated a retrospective and prospective observational study (NAPOLEON-2). The results of the retrospective part were reported herein. In this retrospective study, we evaluated 161 consecutive patients who received NFF as second-or-later-line regimen. The main endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the other endpoints were response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), dose intensity, and adverse events (AEs). The median age was 67 years (range, 38-85 years). The median OS and PFS were 8.1 and 3.4 months, respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were 5% and 52%, respectively. The median relative dose intensity was 81.6% for nanoliposomal irinotecan and 82.9% for fluorouracil. Grade 3 or 4 hematological and nonhematological AEs occurred in 47 and 42 patients, respectively. Common grade 3 or 4 AEs included neutropenia (24%), anorexia (12%), and leukocytopenia (12%). Subanalysis of patients treated with second-line and third-or-later-line demonstrated no statistical significant difference in OS (7.6 months vs. 9.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.35; p = 0.68). In conclusion, NFF has acceptable efficacy and safety profile even in real-world clinical settings. The prospective study is in progress to validate these findings.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Fluorouracilo , Irinotecán , Leucovorina , Liposomas , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Fluorouracilo/efectos adversos , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Leucovorina/administración & dosificación , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/efectos adversos , Irinotecán/administración & dosificación , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Irinotecán/efectos adversos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus bevacizumab (BEV) to irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine plus BEV in metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in the phase III TRUSTY study, and we conducted a phase II study of FOLFIRI (5-FU+leucovorin+irinotecan) plus zib-aflibercept (AFL) after FTD/TPI plus BEV. However, the TRUSTY study failed during the recruitment of our patients. OBJECTIVE: We present the findings of a phase II study on the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus zib-aflibercept (AFL) after FTD/TPI plus BEV, including clinical results with plasma biomarker analyses. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, phase II study in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory or intolerant to oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine, BEV, and FTD/TPI. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Fifteen plasma angiogenesis-associated biomarkers were analyzed using a Luminex® multiplex assay U-kit. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and May 2022, 26 patients (median age, 68 years) from 15 sites were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (85% confidence interval, 3.4 month-not estimated). The overall response and disease control rates were 8% and 62%, respectively. The median levels of vascular endothelial growth factor-A and placental growth factor, both targets of AFL, were below the measurable limit of 30 pg/mL and 16 pg/mL, respectively. Patients were divided into two groups at the median levels of baseline biomarkers. The progression-free survival did not differ between high and low expressers of placental growth factor (p = 0.7), while it tended to be shorter in those with high levels of osteopontin (p = 0.05), angiopoietin-2 (p = 0.07), and tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 (p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet the primary endpoint. Hence, FOLFIRI plus AFL should not be used after FTD/TPI plus BEV for metastatic colorectal cancer. Further studies are needed to determine factors not targeted by AFL that may affect the efficacy of the treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCTs041190100.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Colon , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Demencia Frontotemporal , Pirrolidinas , Receptores de Factores de Crecimiento Endotelial Vascular , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusión , Timina , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/farmacología , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Bevacizumab/farmacología , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Biomarcadores , Neoplasias del Colon/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Demencia Frontotemporal/tratamiento farmacológico , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/farmacología , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Factor de Crecimiento Placentario/uso terapéutico , Trifluridina/farmacología , Trifluridina/uso terapéutico , Factor A de Crecimiento Endotelial VascularRESUMEN
First-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) includes gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX). However, the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy and the role of combination chemotherapy in clinical practice is still unknown. Data was gathered from 14 hospitals in the Kyushu area of Japan from December 2013 to March 2017. The median overall survival (mOS) from second-line treatment was contrasted between patients who received second-line chemotherapy (CT group) and those who received the best supportive care (BSC group). Furthermore, the mOS of combination chemotherapy was compared to mono chemotherapy in the CT group. To control possible bias in the selection of treatment, we performed a propensity score-adjusted analysis. A total of 255 patients received GnP or FFX as first-line chemotherapy. There were 156 in the CT group and 77 in the BSC group of these. The CT group had a significantly longer mOS than the BSC group (5.2 vs. 2.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38; 95% CI 0.27-0.54). In the CT group, 89 patients received combination chemotherapy while 67 received mono chemotherapy. The mOS did not differ significantly between the combination and mono chemotherapy groups (5.5 vs. 4.8 months; adjusted HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.58-1.33). Among patients with MPC receiving second-line treatment, the CT group had a significantly longer mOS than the BSC group, but combination chemotherapy conferred no improvement in survival compared to mono chemotherapy.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Gemcitabina , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Colorectal cancer is the third most common disease and the second most common cause of death around the world. The drug for second-line treatment depends on the drugs used in first-line treatment and the biomarker status. As biomarkers, the RAS gene, BRAF gene, and dMMR/MSI-H, TMB-H, and HER2 statuses have been established in clinical practice, and the corresponding molecularly targeted therapeutic agents are selected based on the biomarker status. Given the frequency of biomarkers, it is assumed that when patients move on to second-line treatment, an angiogenesis inhibitor is selected in many cases. For second-line treatment, three angiogenesis inhibitors, bevacizumab (BEV), ramucirumab (RAM), and aflibercept (AFL), are available, and one of them is combined with cytotoxic agents. These three angiogenesis inhibitors are known to inhibit angiogenesis through different mechanisms of action. Although no useful biomarkers have been established for the selection of angiogenesis inhibitors, previous biomarker studies have suggested that angiogenesis-related factors such as VEGF-A and VEGF-D might be predictors of the therapeutic efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors. These biomarkers are measured as protein levels in plasma and are considered to be promising biomarkers. We consider that the rationale for selecting among these three angiogenesis inhibitors should be clarified to benefit patients.
RESUMEN
Chemotherapy plus antiangiogenic agents, including bevacizumab, ramucirumab and aflibercept, is a standard second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, but which specific agents should be selected is ambiguous due to a lack of clear evidence from prospective studies. Previous reports have suggested ramucirumab and aflibercept could be more effective than bevacizumab in patients with high VEGF-D and high VEGF-A, respectively. JCOG2004 is a three-arm, randomized, phase II study to identify predictive biomarkers for these agents in patients who have failed first-line treatment. The study will enroll 345 patients from 52 institutions for 2 years, with progression-free survival in high VEGF-D (bevacizumab vs ramucirumab) and high VEGF-A (bevacizumab vs aflibercept) serving as the primary end point. Clinical Trial Registration: jRCTs031220058 (www.jrct.niph.go.jp).
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Colon , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias del Recto , Humanos , Bevacizumab/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Factor D de Crecimiento Endotelial Vascular/uso terapéutico , Factor A de Crecimiento Endotelial Vascular , Oxaliplatino , Camptotecina/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Fluorouracilo/efectos adversos , Neoplasias del Colon/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias del Recto/tratamiento farmacológico , Biomarcadores , Leucovorina/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como AsuntoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cisplatin plus pemetrexed followed by pemetrexed is an efficacious platinum combination regimen for advanced non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data regarding the addition of bevacizumab, especially in maintenance treatment, are insufficient. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included: no prior chemotherapy; advanced, non-squamous, NSCLC; performance status ≤1; and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-negative. Patients (N = 108) received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab every 3 weeks for four cycles, and tumor response was needed to confirm four-week response duration. Patients with at least stable disease were randomized to pemetrexed/bevacizumab or pemetrexed alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) after induction chemotherapy. Myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) counts of peripheral blood samples were also analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients each were randomized to the pemetrexed/bevacizumab group and the pemetrexed alone group. PFS was significantly better in the pemetrexed/bevacizumab group than in the pemetrexed alone group (7.0 vs. 5.4 months, hazard ratio: 0.56 [0.34-0.93], log-rank p = 0.023). In patients with partial response to induction therapy, median overall survival was 23.3 months in the pemetrexed alone group and 29.6 months in the pemetrexed/bevacizumab group (log-rank p = 0.077). Pretreatment monocytic (M)-MDSC counts tended to be greater in the pemetrexed/bevacizumab group with poor PFS than in those with good PFS (p = 0.0724). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed as maintenance therapy prolonged PFS in patients with untreated, advanced, non-squamous NSCLC. Furthermore, an early response to induction therapy and pretreatment M-MDSC counts may be related to the survival benefit of the addition of bevacizumab to the combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Cisplatino/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Pemetrexed , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer refractory to first-line chemotherapy (CTx) have few treatment options. It is unclear what kind of patients could be brought about survival benefit by 2nd-line CTx after refractory to gemcitabine + nab-PTX (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: This analysis was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of GnP or FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Excluding censored cases, 156 and 77 patients, respectively, received second-line chemotherapy (CTx) and best supportive care (BSC). Using prognostic factors for post-discontinuation survivals (PDSs) at the first-line determination in multivariate analysis, we developed a scoring system to demonstrate the benefit of second-line CTx. RESULTS: The second-line CTx group had a median PDS of 5.2 months, whereas the BSC group had a median PDS of 2.7 months (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.57; p < 0.01). According to the Cox regression model, serum albumin levels below 3.5 g/dL, and CA19-9 levels above 1000 U/mL were independent prognostic factors (p < 0.01). Serum albumin (≥ and < 3.5 g/dL allotted to scores 0 and 1) and CA19-9 (< and ≥ 1000 U/mL allotted to scores 0 and 1) at first-line determination were used to develop the scoring system. The PDSs of patients with scores of 0 and 1 were significantly better than those of the BSC group; however, there was no significant difference between the PDSs of patients with score 2 and the BSC group. CONCLUSION: The survival advantage of second-line CTx, was observed in patients with scores of 0 and 1 but not in those with score 2.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Antígeno CA-19-9 , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Albúmina Sérica , Estudios Retrospectivos , Gemcitabina , Fluorouracilo , Leucovorina , PaclitaxelRESUMEN
There are limited absolute biomarkers for determining the prognosis before first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in unresectable pancreatic cancer (urPC) patients. To find the best prognostic inflammatory marker, we investigated relationships between overall survival (OS) and six inflammatory markers; C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), and prognostic index (PI). We examined 255 patients who received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy and 159 patients who subsequently underwent second-line chemotherapy. First-line patients with lower CAR had better OS compared to those with a higher CAR (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidential index 0.42-77; P < 0.01). Similarly, lower NLR (P = 0.01), higher PNI (P = 0.04), lower PLR (P = 0.03), GPS score of 0 (P < 0.01) and PI score of 0 (P < 0.01) were all associated with better OS. CAR demonstrated the best superiority for determining survival prognosis through the use of area under the curve of time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curves. Furthermore, a lower CAR before second-line therapy exhibited better OS versus higher CAR (P < 0.01). Therefore, CAR might be a useful biomarker for predicting urPC patient prognosis in both first- and second-line chemotherapy.
Asunto(s)
Proteína C-Reactiva , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Proteína C-Reactiva/análisis , Gemcitabina , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Albúminas , Pronóstico , Biomarcadores , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: Recent advances in chemotherapy have made significant progress in conversion surgery (CS) for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC). However, the success rate and efficacy of CS have not been fully demonstrated in patients with uPC treated with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 318 patients with uPC who received FFX or GnP as first-line chemotherapy. The efficacy in the CS group, defined as undergoing complete resection after chemotherapy, was analyzed, and compared with the non-CS group; then, contributing factors to achieving CS were extracted. We also analyzed differences in the efficacy of CS between locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). RESULTS: Overall, CS was achieved in 4.3% of cases, eight patients (13.3%) with LAPC and five (2.1%) with MPC. Contributing factors to CS were LAPC, no liver metastasis, CA19-9 ≤37, and chemotherapy response. After adjusting for these, overall survival was significantly better in the CS group than in the non-CS group [median of 32.9 vs. 11.3 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.14-0.70; p<0.01]. Median relapse-free survival duration after CS was 19.1 and 18.1 months in the LAPC-CS and MPC-CS group, respectively (p=0.84). The median post-conversion survival was 27.6 months in the entire CS group, 43.8 months in the LAPC-CS group and 21.3 months in the MPC-CS group. CONCLUSION: CS was achieved in 13.3% of LAPC and 2.1% of MPC cases. If possible, CS can markedly improve prognosis, even in MPC.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/cirugía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Gemcitabina , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Desoxicitidina , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Fluorouracilo , Paclitaxel/uso terapéutico , Albúminas/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina , Neoplasias PancreáticasRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Original FOLFIRINOX (oFFX) is more toxic than other regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC); therefore, a modified FFX (mFFX) regimen with a reduced dosage has been used in Japanese clinical practice. However, very few studies have compared these two regimens. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of 318 patients with mPC across 14 centers in Japan (NAPOLEON study). To control for potential bias and confounders, we conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: oFFX and mFFX were administered to 48 and 54 patients. More patients with younger age and poorer performance status were included in the oFFX group. The overall survival (OS; median, 11.6 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.40; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (median, 6.3 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.28; p = 0.44), and overall response rate (29 vs. 26%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different for the oFFX and mFFX groups. Thrombopenia and liver dysfunction were significantly more frequent with oFFX than with mFFX. The median received dose intensity of CPT-11 was higher with oFFX than with mFFX (299 vs. 270 mg/m2/week, p < 0.01). The propensity score-adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS and PFS between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In our data, there was no significant difference in efficacy between mFFX and oFFX, and mFFX has fewer adverse events.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Fluorouracilo , Irinotecán/efectos adversos , Leucovorina , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/secundario , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of unknown primary site are divided into two distinct groups, favourable and unfavourable subsets. For the unfavourable subset, empiric treatment or site-specific treatment is recommended, but limited knowledge exists about the efficacy of site-specific treatment compared with empiric treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with cancer of unknown primary site treated with chemotherapy (or chemoradiotherapy) as first-line treatment from eight institutions during 2006-18. We investigated the workup modality and categorized the patients into favourable and unfavourable subsets, which were further divided into site-specific and empiric treatment groups. Site-specific treatment is defined as a standard chemotherapy for an estimated primary site. We examined the efficacy in the favourable and unfavourable subsets and performed multivariable analysis for estimating the overall survival in the unfavourable subset. RESULTS: Of 177 patients with cancer of unknown primary site, 33 and 144 were categorized into favourable and unfavourable subsets, respectively. In the unfavourable subset, 84 patients (58.3%) received empiric therapy, and 60 patients (41.7%) received site-specific treatment. Median overall survival was 10.0 and 10.1 months in site-specific and empiric treatment groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.70-1.45, P = 0.95). Multivariable analysis revealed performance status, number of metastatic sites and hypoalbuminaemia as independent prognostic factors for overall survival in the unfavourable subset. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival in site-specific and empiric treatment groups was similar in the unfavourable cancer of unknown primary site subset in this study. Further research is needed to prolong overall survival in patients in the unfavourable cancer of unknown primary site subset.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Primarias Desconocidas , Humanos , Neoplasias Primarias Desconocidas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Primarias Desconocidas/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pronóstico , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary tumor location is considered a predictor of overall survival (OS) in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with bevacizumab (BEV) or an anti-epidermal growth factor antibody (cetuximab or panitumumab [CET/PAN]) as first-line molecularly targeted therapy. BEV is recommended for right-sided mCRC and CET/PAN for left-sided mCRC based on post-hoc analyses of clinical trial data, but real-world evidence is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of patients who started BEV or CET/PAN plus 5-fluorouracil-based doublet chemotherapy between January 2013 and December 2016 as first-line treatment for RAS WT mCRC at any of 24 Japanese institutions. OS was compared between the BEV and CET/PAN groups according to primary tumor location by Cox multivariate regression analysis in the full cohort and in a propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: In total, 935 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 24.6 months with BEV and 20.9 months with CET/PAN in right-sided mCRC (n = 213; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.06) and 35.7 months and 30.0 months, respectively, in left-sided mCRC (n = 722; adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.13). In the propensity score-matched cohort, OS was significantly better in the BEV group than in the CET/PAN group in right-sided mCRC (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96) but was not significantly different in left-sided mCRC (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53-1.07). CONCLUSION: Real-world data showed that OS was better with BEV than with CET/PAN in right-sided mCRC. However, there was no significant difference in OS in left-sided mCRC.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Colon , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Cetuximab/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias del Colon/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/genética , Fluorouracilo , Humanos , Japón , Panitumumab/uso terapéutico , Recto/patología , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: No reliable nomogram has been developed until date for predicting the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: This analysis was conducted using clinical data of Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing GnP or FOLFIRINOX treatment obtained from a multicenter study (NAPOLEON study). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the independent prognostic factors. A nomogram to predict 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival probabilities was generated, validated by using the concordance index (C-index), and calibrated by the bootstrapping method. And then, we attempted risk stratification for survival by classifying the patients according to the sum of the scores on the nomogram (total nomogram points). RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were enrolled. A prognostic nomogram was generated using data on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, liver metastasis, serum LDH, serum CRP, and serum CA19-9. The C-indexes of the nomogram were 0.77, 0.72 and 0.70 for 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival, respectively. The calibration plot showed optimal agreement at all points. Risk stratification based on tertiles of the total nomogram points yielded clear separations of the survival curves. The median survival times in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups were 15.8, 12.8 and 7.8 months (P<0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our nomogram might be a convenient and inexpensive tool to accurately predict survival in Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with GnP or FOLFIRINOX, and will help clinicians in selecting appropriate therapeutic strategies for individualized management.
Asunto(s)
Albúminas/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Nomogramas , Paclitaxel/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/mortalidad , Anciano , Biomarcadores de Tumor/análisis , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Japón , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , GemcitabinaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), especially those ≥75 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively enrolled 153 patients with MPC who received GnP as first-line chemotherapy. Patients ≥75 years old were allocated to the older group, and those <75 years old were assigned to the non-older group. We compared safety, antitumor efficacy, and survival between the two groups. In the older group, prognostic indicators of survival were also assessed. RESULTS: The pretreatment characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different excluding age, history of malignancy, and C-reactive protein levels. The initial dose and relative dose intensities of GnP were significantly lower in the older group. There were no significant differences in the adverse event and antitumor response rates between the two groups. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 and 12.0 months, respectively, in the older group, versus 6.0 and 11.1 months, respectively, in the non-older group. In the older group, a Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index (GNRI) of less than 86 was associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: GnP exhibited acceptable efficacy and safety in patients ≥75 years old with MPC. GNRI might be helpful for identifying older individuals at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Anciano , Albúminas , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Humanos , Paclitaxel , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , GemcitabinaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX (FFX, a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been used as standard, first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, no study has compared the efficacy of the 2 regimens. This study retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of the 2 regimens in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who started FFX or GnP as first-line chemotherapy as part of a multicenter retrospective study in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). RESULTS: Sixteen of the 63 patients were treated with FFX, and the other 47 patients were treated with GnP between December 2013 and March 2017. There were no significant differences in median overall survival rate between the GnP (15.5 months) and FFX (14.3 months, P = 0.60) groups or median progression-free survival rate between the GnP (8.8 months) and FFX (8.1 months, P = 0.51) groups. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, although anorexia was more severe in the FFX group than in the GnP group. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of FFX and GnP were similar but resulted in different toxicities, which could guide agent choice.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Albúminas/administración & dosificación , Anorexia/inducido químicamente , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Desoxicitidina/administración & dosificación , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Diarrea/inducido químicamente , Femenino , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Irinotecán/administración & dosificación , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Leucovorina/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neutropenia/inducido químicamente , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Oxaliplatino/administración & dosificación , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , GemcitabinaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX for recurrent pancreatic cancer (rPC) after resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with rPC and 211 with de novo metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) who received GnP or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: On crude analysis, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the rPC group than in the mPC group (14.0 vs. 10.6 months, respectively; p=0.02). However, the difference was not significant on adjusted analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted p=0.90). Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (n=10) and GnP (n=34) in the rPC group had comparable OS (medians, 12.2 vs. 14.4 months, respectively; p=0.82) even after adjusting for covariates using the Cox model (adjusted p=0.18). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of patients in the rPC and mPC groups were comparable following chemotherapy. Both FOLFIRINOX and GnP may be reasonable options for treating rPC.
Asunto(s)
Albúminas/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Nanopartículas/química , Paclitaxel/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Estudios Retrospectivos , GemcitabinaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX, FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) are considered standard treatments for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Direct comparisons are not available that establish which is optimal. METHODS: We conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify the therapeutic advantages of these standard therapies. We used clinical data as part of a multicenter retrospective study of patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). RESULTS: FFX and GnP were initially administered to 102 and 153 patients, respectively. The GnP group comprised more patients of advanced age, worse performance status, lower body mass index, recurrence, and lower albumin concentrations. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.5 months and 5.8 months in the FFX group and 11.1 months and 5.9 months in the GnP group, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted analysis indicated that the administration of FFX or GnP was not independently associated with OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.47; P = 0.73). Similarly, the difference in PFS was not significant between groups (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68-1.26; P = 0.62). Gastrointestinal disorders were more common in the FFX group, whereas the frequencies of hematological, nervous system, and skin disorders were higher in the GnP group. CONCLUSION: The efficacies of FFX and GnP were comparable, although safety profiles differed and should be considered in selecting treatment.