Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, and S-1 as second-line treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.

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.

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.

[A case of liver abscess with meningitis and endophthalmitis: invasive liver abscess syndrome].

A woman in her 70s was hospitalized and was diagnosed with liver abscess and managed with antibiotics in a previous hospital. However, she experienced altered consciousness and neck stiffness during treatment. She was then referred to our hospital. On investigation, we found that she had meningitis and right endophthalmitis concurrent with a liver abscess. Klebsiella pneumoniae was detected from both cultures of the liver abscess and effusion from the cornea. A string test showed a positive result. Therefore, she was diagnosed with invasive liver abscess syndrome. Although she recovered from the liver abscess and meningitis through empiric antibiotic treatment, her right eye required ophthalmectomy. In cases where a liver abscess presents with extrahepatic complications, such as meningitis and endophthalmitis, the possibility of invasive liver abscess syndrome should be considered, which is caused by a hypervirulent K. pneumoniae.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of radiotherapy for primary tumor in patients with unresectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: Detailed information regarding the clinical efficacy of radiotherapy (RT) for primary tumor in patients with unresectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) is unknown. We therefore performed a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RT for primary pancreatic tumors in patients with pNETs. METHODS: We investigated 11 patients with pNETs who received RT to the primary site between January 1997 and June 2015. Seven patients had Grade 2 neuroendocrine tumors (NET-G2) and four had neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) according to the 2010 WHO histopathological classification. RESULTS: The tumor response and control rates were 27.2% and 100%, respectively (3: partial response, 8: stable disease). Among patients with NET-G2 tumors, the response rate was 28.5% (2/7 patients) and symptomatic improvement was noted in 33.3% of the patients (1/3 patients). The response rate for patients with NEC were 25% (1/4), one NEC patients with symptoms exhibited symptomatic improvement. The median overall survival and median progression-free survival were 35.9 months and 5.5 months, respectively. Grade 3 diarrhea as an acute toxicity and Grade 3 gastrointestinal hemorrhage as a late toxicity were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RT to the primary cancer site in patients with pNETs was an effective modality for local disease control and the treated patients had good outcomes. If metastatic tumors are under control, RT to the primary site may be beneficial for patients with pNETs.

Asunaprevir and daclatasvir in hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients requiring hemodialysis show high morbidity with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but there are difficulties associated with interferon-based therapies. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir could help patients with HCV genotype 1b because the drugs have a nonrenal metabolism and show good viral eradication. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined asunaprevir and daclatasvir therapy. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective trial of patients with chronic hepatitis or compensated cirrhosis from HCV genotype 1b who had end-stage renal disease requiring chronic hemodialysis. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir were administered orally (100 mg twice daily and 60 mg once daily, respectively) for 24 weeks. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients achieving sustained virological response 12, defined as HCV RNA <15 IU/mL undetectable at 12 weeks after completion of asunaprevir and daclatasvir treatment. RESULTS: Between December 2014 and December 2015, 23 dialysis patients were enrolled, and 22 patients completed the protocol therapy. Sustained virological response 12 rates were 91.3% (95% confidence interval: 72.0-98.9) in the intention-to-treat and 95.5% (95% confidence interval: 77.2-99.9) in the per-protocol populations. Serum aminotransferase significantly decreased after initiation of asunaprevir and daclatasvir (P < 0.01), although the level was low at baseline. Asunaprevir and daclatasvir were well tolerated; however, one patient could not continue because of infective endocarditis and cerebral infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Asunaprevir and daclatasvir could help patients with chronic hepatitis C receiving hemodialysis. Close collaboration with dialysis physicians is important when treating these patients because hemodialysis carries life-threatening risks.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A single-center 20-year experience with 100 patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rare tumors, exhibiting several morphological, functional, and behavioral characteristics. However, only few reports have evaluated large case series of pancreatic NEN. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 100 consecutive patients with pancreatic NEN diagnosed pathologically and treated at the National Cancer Center Hospital between 1991 and 2010. RESULTS: The study included 48 males and 52 females (median age: 55 years). Fourteen patients had clinical symptoms caused by excess hormone secretion at diagnosis. Twelve patients were diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1, 54 with NET G2, and 32 with neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) as per the 2010 World Health Organization classification. Distant metastases were observed in 25%, 43%, and 84% of the patients with NET G1, NET G2, and NEC, respectively. Serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and lactate dehydrogenase significantly increased in patients with NEC compared with those in patients with NET G1/G2. The 5-year survival rates of patients with NET G1, NET G2, and NEC were 91%, 69%, and 10%, respectively. Good performance status (PS), lower stage, and histopathological grade were identified as independent favorable prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NET G1/G2 treated with surgical resection had a good prognosis. Most patients with NEC exhibited distant metastases and had a poor prognosis. Staging classification and the WHO 2010 grading are important factors for selecting the appropriate treatment strategy and predicting prognosis for patients with pancreatic NEN.