A multicenter retrospective observational NAPOLEON2 study of nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

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.

Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy after treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

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.

C-reactive protein/albumin ratio is the most significant inflammatory marker in unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

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.

Scoring model with serum albumin and CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in second-line treatment: results from the NAPOLEON study.

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.

Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer Treated With FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel.

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.

Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Original versus Modified FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the NAPOLEON Study.

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.

Prognostic nomogram for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter retrospective study in Japan (NAPOLEON study).

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.

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: A post-hoc analysis of the real-world data of a multicenter study (the NAPOLEON study).

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.

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel Versus FOLFIRINOX in Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Multicenter Observational Study (NAPOLEON Study).

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.

Gemcitabine Plus Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Versus FOLFIRINOX for Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer After Resection.

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.

A multicenter propensity score analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel administered to patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the NAPOLEON study.

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.

Retroperitoneal Bulky Histiocytic Sarcoma Successfully Treated with Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Curative Surgery.

Histiocytic sarcoma (HS) is a rare hematopoietic neoplasm. We report a patient with HS treated with induction chemotherapy followed by curative surgery. A 50-year-old man was referred to our hospital because of a retroperitoneal tumor. A computed tomography scan revealed a bulky retroperitoneal mass, infiltrating the surrounding organ. An excisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of HS. The tumor shrunk after multidrug chemotherapy. However, positron emission tomography showed uptake of fludeoxyglucose in the residual tumor. He underwent right nephrectomy to remove the tumor. Pathological examination showed complete response. Surgery combined with induction chemotherapy may be an effective way to manage HS.

Prostate-Specific Antigen Flare Phenomenon Induced by Abiraterone Acetate in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) flare is a well-known phenomenon in patients with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and chemotherapy. However, its incidence and the significance for the clinical outcomes of patients treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) are uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of chemotherapy-naive patients treated with AA for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was conducted. The baseline characteristics, treatment history of mCRPC, and serum PSA kinetics during AA treatment were collected. The log-rank test was applied to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between patient groups with a PSA flare according to the different definitions and immediate PSA declines. RESULTS: The data from 83 patients were analyzed. An immediate PSA decline of any amount was observed in 59 patients (71.1%). According to the various definitions of PSA flare, its incidence ranged from 6.0% to 10.8%. Although the median interval to the peak PSA level was 0.95 month, regardless of the PSA flare definition, the interval to the PSA nadir showed a wide range of 2.8 to 7.6 months. In PSA flare subgroup, the median PFS in patients with any PSA decline to less than the baseline and > 30% decline from the baseline was 12.4 months. The PFS duration of PSA flare patients did not significantly differ from that of patients with an immediate PSA decline of any amount and immediate > 30% decline without PSA flare. CONCLUSION: The PSA flare phenomenon is not rare event during AA treatment. A PSA decline during AA treatment, with or without a PSA flare, was associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Thus, AA should not be withdrawn early in patients with mCRPC in whom an initial, isolated PSA increase has been observed.

A multicenter retrospective analysis of sequential treatment of abiraterone acetate followed by docetaxel in Japanese patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel are promising treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. However, the optimal sequencing of these agents is unclear, and no previous reports discuss Japanese metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The purpose of this analysis is to reveal the outcomes of Japanese metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone acetate followed by docetaxel. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed Japanese Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone acetate until disease progression and subsequently treated with docetaxel. The primary outcome measure was the rates of prostate-specific antigen declines ≧30 and ≧50%, respectively, with docetaxel. Secondary outcome measures included progression-free survival with docetaxel, and overall survival after initiation of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel. We performed correlation analysis between previous prostate-specific antigen response to abiraterone acetate and subsequent prostate-specific antigen response to docetaxel. RESULTS: We identified 15 patients had experienced disease progression with abiraterone acetate and subsequently were treated with docetaxel. Prostate-specific antigen declines ≧30 and ≧50% with docetaxel were observed in five patients (33%) and two patients (13%), respectively. The median progression-free survival with docetaxel was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval: 2.9-4.6). The median overall survival from initiation of docetaxel and abiraterone acetate were 14.4 months (95% confidence interval: 6.3-22.4), and 25.7 months (95% confidence interval: 20.1-30.7), respectively. No significant correlation was observed between these prostate-specific antigen responses (Pearson r = 0.206, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of docetaxel in Japanese mCRPC patients that was resistant to abiraterone acetate was modest. The prostate-specific antigen response to previous abiraterone acetate could not predict the efficacy of subsequent docetaxel. Larger prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.