Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia represents a critical oncologic emergency, and its management is pivotal in cancer therapy. In several guidelines, the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia is not routinely recommended except in high-risk cases. The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology has updated its clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF, incorporating a systematic review to address this clinical question. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted by performing a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web, focusing on publications from January 1990 to December 2019. Selected studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and cohort and case-control studies. Evaluated outcomes included overall survival, infection-related mortality, hospitalization duration, quality of life, and pain. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 332 records. Following two rounds of screening, two records were selected for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis including meta-analysis. Regarding infection-related mortality, the event to case ratio was 5:134 (3.73%) in the G-CSF group versus 6:129 (4.65%) in the non-G-CSF group, resulting in a relative risk of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.58; p = 0.54), which was not statistically significant. Only median values for hospitalization duration were available from the two RCTs, precluding a meta-analysis. For overall survival, quality of life, and pain, no suitable studies were found for analysis, rendering their assessment unfeasible. CONCLUSION: A weak recommendation is made that G-CSF treatment not be administered to patients with febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. G-CSF treatment can be considered for patients at high risk.

Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reportedly reduces the risk of neutropenia and subsequent infections caused by cancer chemotherapy. Although several guidelines recommend using G-CSF in primary prophylaxis according to the incidence rate of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), the effectiveness of G-CSF in digestive system tumor chemotherapy remains unclear. To address these clinical questions, we conducted a systematic review as part of revising the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 published by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. METHODS: This systematic review addressed two main clinical questions (CQ): CQ1: "Is primary prophylaxis with G-CSF effective in chemotherapy?", and CQ2: "Is increasing the intensity of chemotherapy with G-CSF effective?" We reviewed different types of digestive system tumors, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, biliary tract, colorectal, and neuroendocrine carcinomas. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for information sources. Independent systematic reviewers conducted two rounds of screening and selected relevant records for each CQ. Finally, the working group members synthesized the strength of evidence and recommendations. RESULTS: After two rounds of screening, 5/0/3/0/2/0 records were extracted for CQ1 of esophageal/gastric/pancreatic/biliary tract/colorectal/ and neuroendocrine carcinoma, respectively. Additionally, a total of 2/6/1 records were extracted for CQ2 of esophageal/pancreatic/colorectal cancer, respectively. The strength of evidence and recommendations were evaluated for CQ1 of colorectal cancer; however, we could not synthesize recommendations for other CQs owing to the lack of records. CONCLUSION: The use of G-CSF for primary prophylaxis in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer is inappropriate.

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.

Survival outcomes including salvage therapy of adult head and neck para-meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: a multicenter retrospective study from Japan.

BACKGROUND: Rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue sarcoma in children, but rare in adults. Para-meningeal rhabdomyosarcoma in head and neck (PM-HNRMS) is less applicable for surgery due to the anatomic reason. PM-HNRMS has a poor prognosis in children. However, its clinical outcomes remain unclear in adults due to the rarity. Further, there is almost no detailed data about salvage therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the adult patients with PM-HNRMS treated at institutions belonging to the Kyushu Medical Oncology Group from 2009 to 2022. We evaluated the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the patients who received a first-line therapy. We also reviewed the clinical outcomes of patients who progressed against a first-line therapy and received salvage therapy. RESULTS: Total 11 patients of PM-HNRMS received a first-line therapy. The characteristics were as follows: median age: 38 years (range 25 - 63 years), histology (alveolar/spindle): 10/1, and risk group (intermediate/high): 7/4. As a first-line therapy, VAC and ARST0431-based regimen was performed in 10 and 1 patients, respectively. During a first-line therapy, definitive radiation for all lesions were performed in seven patients. The median PFS was 14.2 months (95%CI: 6.0 - 25.8 months): 17.1 months (95%CI: 6.0 - not reached (NR)) for patients with stage I-III and 8.5 months (95%CI: 5.2 - 25.8 months) for patients with stage IV. The 1-year and 3-year PFS rates were 54.5% and 11.3% for all patients. Median OS in all patients was 40.8 months (95%CI: 12.1 months-NR): 40.8 months (95%CI: 12.1 - NR) for patients with stage I-III and NR for patients with stage IV. The 5-year OS rate was 48.5% for all patients. Among seven patients who received salvage therapy, three are still alive, two of whom remain disease-free for over 4 years after completion of the last therapy. Those two patients received multi-modal therapy including local therapy for all detected lesions. CONCLUSION: The cure rate of adult PM-HNRMS is low in spite of a first-line therapy in this study. Salvage therapy might prolong the survival in patients who received the multi-modal therapy including local therapy for all detected lesions.

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.

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.

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.

PD-1+ TIM-3+ T cells in malignant ascites predict prognosis of gastrointestinal cancer.

The liquid biopsy of ascites fluid could be an excellent source of tumor and microenvironment for the study of prognostic biomarkers because of its accessibility. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can predict prognosis in multiple malignancies, including the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors, a breakthrough cancer therapy. However, TILs' profiles from malignant ascites have not been extensively studied. Using flow cytometric analysis, we quantified the proportion of exhausted T cells and memory/naive/effector T-cell subsets, among the CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell populations of paired TILs and peripheral blood T cell samples (n = 22). The correlation between CD4+ and CD8+ subset profiles suggested that the combined analysis of CD4+ and CD8+ cells in malignant ascites was clinically significant. We found that cells positive for the exhaustion markers programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), and T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3), and cells coexpressing PD-1 and TIM-3 abundantly exist among malignant ascites TILs. Furthermore, patients with high frequency of PD-1+ TIM-3+ cells among the CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell population showed worse clinical outcome in multivariate analysis (n = 27). We propose that exhausted ascites TILs represent a clinically significant prognostic biomarker in advanced gastrointestinal cancer and represent an important target for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition is activated in CD44-positive malignant ascites tumor cells of gastrointestinal cancer.

Disseminated cancer cells in malignant ascites possess unique properties that differ from primary tumors. However, the biological features of ascites tumor cells (ATC) have not been fully investigated. By analyzing ascites fluid from 65 gastrointestinal cancer patients, the distinguishing characteristics of ATC were identified. High frequency of CD44+ cells was observed in ATC using flow cytometry (n = 48). Multiplex quantitative PCR (n = 15) showed higher gene expression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT)-related genes and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta)-related genes in ATC than in the primary tissues. Immunohistochemistry (n = 10) showed that ATC also had much higher expression of phosphorylated SMAD2 than that in the corresponding primary tissues. TGF-beta 1 was detected in all cases of malignant ascites by enzyme-linked immunoassay (n = 38), suggesting the possible interaction of ATC and the ascites microenvironment. In vitro experiments revealed that these ATC properties were maintained by TGF-beta 1 in cultured ATC(n = 3). Here, we showed that ATCrevealed high frequencies of CD44 and possessed distinct EMT features from primary tissues that were mainly maintained by TGF-beta 1 in the ascites.

Efficacy and safety analysis of chemotherapy for advanced colitis-associated colorectal cancer in Japan.

Chemotherapy for advanced colitis-associated colorectal cancer (CAC) has been insufficiently evaluated. The goal of this study was to clarify the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy for CAC in Japan. CAC patients who were treated with chemotherapy between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively examined. Twenty-nine patients (median age, 48 years; 23 men) were assessed. Eighteen patients had ulcerative colitis, and 11 had Crohn's disease. Three ulcerative colitis and four Crohn's disease patients were in the active disease phase. Primary tumors were located in the rectum/anus (n=16), the left colon (n=9), or the right colon (n=4). Palliative or adjuvant chemotherapy was performed in 13 and 16 patients, respectively. First-line palliative chemotherapy regimens were as follows: fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; n=6), FOLFOX+bevacizumab (n=3), and others (n=4). Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were S-1 (n=7), oxaliplatin-based (n=4) and others (n=5). In palliative chemotherapy, the objective response rate was 15%, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 182 and 315 days, respectively. In adjuvant chemotherapy, the 5-year relapse-free survival rate was 78%. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 16 patients (55%). Active and remission inflammatory bowel disease patients suffered grade 3/4 nonhematological AEs at an incidence of 71 and 23%, respectively (P<0.01). Dose reduction was required in 11 patients (38%), eight of whom required it for hematological AEs. Adjuvant chemotherapy for CAC exhibited sufficient efficacy, whereas modest efficacy was shown for palliative chemotherapy for CAC. AEs, particularly nonhematological AEs, were closely associated with disease activity of colitis.

Retrospective analysis of cardiovascular diseases related to chemotherapies for advanced solid tumor patients.

Appropriate management of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) related to chemotherapy for solid tumors is important for safe oncologic treatment. However, prediction of the onset and progression of CVDs has not generally been established in Japan. We carried out a retrospective analysis of advanced or recurrent solid tumor patients who received chemotherapies in a single institution. Patient characteristics, chemotherapy regimens, adverse events, CVDs before chemotherapy, and diagnosis of CVDs in association with chemotherapy were assessed. During the period from April 2006 to March 2012, 394 patients were examined. Cardiac diseases (CDs), hypertension (HT), or arterial thrombosis or venous thromboembolism were prevalent in 37 (9.4%), 22 (5.6%), five (1.3%), and 14 (3.5%) cases, respectively. HT (14.5%) and venous thrombosis (5.8%) were frequent in patients who received bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. Four cases with left ventricular dysfunction experienced a decrease of ejection fraction and early filling/atrial filling (E/A) and E/A tended to decrease before ejection fraction. Ninety (62.1%) of 145 cases showed an increase in the D-dimer (DD) level before chemotherapy, and a further increase in DD level was found when venous thrombosis occurred. Relative risks of the disease progression of HT, CD, and thromboembolism because of chemotherapy were 1.3, 1.9, and 3.6, respectively. A decrease in E/A and an increase in DD were suggested to be valuable for early diagnosis of the respective onsets of left ventricular dysfunction and venous thrombosis related to chemotherapy. We conclude that patients with previous CD tend to have disease progression of CD during chemotherapy.

Intra-gastric pH following single oral administrations of rabeprazole and esomeprazole: double-blind cross-over comparison.

Comparisons between the acid inhibitory effects of rabeprazole and esomeprazole after single oral administration with standard doses have not been previously presented. We examined intra-gastric pH after oral administrations of these two proton pump inhibitors using 24-h pH monitoring. Fifty-four normal volunteers not infected by Helicobacter pylori were investigated. Using a cross-over design, we administered 10 mg of rabeprazole or 20 mg of esomeprazole in 27 at 30 min after supper and in the remaining 27 subjects at 15 min before supper, and performed 24-h pH monitoring. Intra-gastric pH data were nearly identical when the proton pump inhibitors were taken after meals. Even if the data were compared in different CYP2C19 genotypes, rabeprazole and esomeprazole did not show the difference. In poor metabolizer, both of the drugs showed stronger acid inhibition. When taken before meals, intra-gastric pH after esomeprazole administration was slightly but not significantly higher than that observed after rabeprazole administration not only in daytime but also in nighttime period. In conclusion, rabeprazole and esomeprazole were similarly effective when administered after a meal.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.