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.

Impaired CD4+ T cell response in older adults is associated with reduced immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Whether age-associated defects in T cells impact the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA vaccines remains unclear. Using a vaccinated cohort (n = 216), we demonstrated that older adults (aged ≥65 years) had fewer vaccine-induced spike-specific CD4+ T cells including CXCR3+ circulating follicular helper T cells and the TH1 subset of helper T cells after the first dose, which correlated with their lower peak IgG levels and fewer systemic adverse effects after the second dose, compared with younger adults. Moreover, spike-specific TH1 cells in older adults expressed higher levels of programmed cell death protein 1, a negative regulator of T cell activation, which was associated with low spike-specific CD8+ T cell responses. Thus, an inefficient CD4+ T cell response after the first dose may reduce the production of helper T cytokines, even after the second dose, thereby lowering humoral and cellular immunity and reducing systemic reactogenicity. Therefore, enhancing CD4+ T cell response following the first dose is key to improving vaccine efficacy in older adults.

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.

Hyperlipidemia as a risk factor for Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer.

Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction rarely occurs during chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, and its clinical features remain unclear. The present study aimed to examine the clinical features of Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction developed during chemotherapy for GI cancer. The present retrospective cohort study consecutively enrolled 878 patients with unresectable GI cancer who received chemotherapy at the Multidisciplinary Treatment Cancer Center, Kurume University Hospital (Kurume, Japan) between April 2014 and March 2020. Patients with colorectal cancer (n=308) were the most common, followed by those with pancreatic (n=242), gastric (n=222) and biliary tract (n=59) cancer, neuroendocrine tumors (n=34) and duodenal cancer (n=11). Among the 878 patients, Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction occurred in 8 (0.9%) patients with a median age of 70.5 years (range, 58-75 years), and 50% of the patients were male (4/8). In total, 3 patients had gastric cancer, 3 had pancreatic cancer and 2 had biliary tract cancer. A greater percentage of patients with Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction had hyperlipidemia (38.0%) than those without (8.2%; P=0.005). Hyperlipidemia was a risk factor for occurrence of Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction with an odds ratio of 7.009 (95% confidence interval, 1.785-27.513). Trousseau syndrome-related cerebral infarction developed during GI chemotherapy was rare and hyperlipidemia may predict its onset.

Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation with or without Chemolipiodolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis.

Chemolipiodolization (CL) is less invasive than transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for managing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because it helps avoid embolization. However, the treatment outcomes of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) with or without CL for HCC remain unclear. Herein, we compared the prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) following PRFA with or without CL for HCC using propensity-score-matched analysis. A total of 221 patients with HCC treated with PRFA at Saga Central Hospital between April 2004 and October 2020, with or without CL, were enrolled. No significant difference was observed in OS between PRFA with and without CL cohorts (median survival time (MST): 4.5 vs. 5.4 years; p = 0.0806). To reduce the confounding effects of 12 variables, we performed propensity-score-matched analysis to match patients treated with PRFA with or without CL. No significant difference was observed in OS between PRFA with and without CL cohorts (MST: 4.0 vs. 3.6 years; p = 0.5474). After stratification according to tumor size, no significant difference was observed in OS for patients with tumor size ≥20 mm between PRFA with and without CL cohorts (MST: 3.5 vs. 3.4 years; p = 0.8236). PRFA with CL was not a significant prognostic factor in both univariate and multivariate analyses (p = 0.5477 and 0.9600, respectively). Our findings suggest that PRFA with CL does not demonstrate more favorable prognosis than PRFA without CL for HCC, regardless of tumor size.

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.

Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Sorafenib for Intrahepatic Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Given that the outcome of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with cisplatin for intrahepatic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear, we aimed to compare prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) following HAIC with cisplatin versus sorafenib for intrahepatic advanced HCC using propensity score-matched analysis. We enrolled 331 patients with intrahepatic advanced HCC who received HAIC with cisplatin (n = 88) or sorafenib (n = 243) between June 2006 and March 2020. No significant difference was observed in OS between HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib cohorts (median survival time [MST]: 14.0 vs. 12.3 months; p = 0.0721). To reduce confounding effects, 166 patients were selected using propensity score-matched analysis (n = 83 for each treatment). HAIC with cisplatin significantly prolonged OS compared with sorafenib (MST: 15.6 vs. 11.0 months; p = 0.0157). Following stratification according to the Child-Pugh classification, for patients with class A (MST: 24.0 vs. 15.0 months; p = 0.0145), HAIC with cisplatin rather than sorafenib significantly prolonged OS. Our findings suggest that HAIC with cisplatin demonstrates longer prognostic effects than sorafenib in intrahepatic advanced HCC.

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 phase II study of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

ABSTRACT: Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) is widely used in clinical practice, despite a lack of prospective data to validate its efficacy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We conducted a phase II study of GnP for LAPC to assess its efficacy and safety.We performed a single-arm, single-institution study with GnP in 24 patients with LAPC. The treatment protocol included successive administration of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was the tumor overall response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs).The median PFS was 11.0 months, median OS was 21.2 months, ORR was 62.5%, and 37.5% of the patients had stable disease. Four (16.7%) of the patients were converted to surgical resection; 3 of these achieved R0 resection. Grade 3 to 4 AEs included hematological (neutropenia, 64%; thrombocytopenia, 12%), nonhematological (cholangitis, 16%), and sensory neuropathy (4%). These AEs were manageable and tolerable.The GnP treatment in patients with LAPC showed favorable tumor shrinkage, good toxicity profile, and enabled conversion to surgical resection in a subset of patients; therefore, GnP is an option for first-line chemotherapy in patients with LAPC.

De novo gastric cancer developing after liver transplantation from deceased donor for biliary atresia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Apart from Kasai's procedure, liver transplantation (LTx) has dramatically improved the outcome of children with biliary atresia (BA). However, de novo malignancy has been reported to be one of the major causes of late mortality after LTx among adults. We report a rare case of de novo gastric cancer developing after LTx for BA received during childhood. CASE PRESENTATION: A 21-year-old male patient who had undergone LTx for BA at age 2 years occasionally visited our outpatient clinic due to symptoms of epigastric pain and dysphagia. Endoscopic examination and computed tomography revealed advanced gastric cancer at the gastroesophageal junction with multiple liver metastases. Despite systemic chemotherapy, the disease progressed, resulting in patient's death 2 years after the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: De novo malignancy in the absence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease is rare in pediatric patients who received LTx. To the best of our knowledge, no report has been available on the development of gastric cancer after LTx for BA during childhood. Primary physicians should therefore establish a follow-up plan for patients receiving LTx for BA considering the potential for the development of de novo malignancy, including gastric cancer, despite its rarity.

Relationship between cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and human papilloma virus infection and gene mutations.

Cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CESCC) is rare, accounting for 5% of all esophageal carcinomas. Several diagnostic and predictive markers have been studied. However, to the best of our knowledge, no biomarker is known to determine patient management except the clinical stage. The present study aimed to evaluate whether human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its pathway-related gene mutations, known to be sensitive biomarkers of oropharyngeal carcinomas, could be used as biomarkers for the prediction of the prognosis of patients with CESCC. The present retrospective study included patients with CESCC who received chemoradiotherapy or surgery. HPV infection and the genomic status of EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NRAS and PIK3CA of each tumor sample from patients with CESCC were analyzed by in situ hybridizations (ISH) and PCR methods, respectively. The present study included 33 patients with CESCC (male/female, 29/4; median age, 62 years; age range, 41-86 years; clinical stage I/II/III/IV, 2/6/10/15). The present study detected HPV in one patient (3.0%) by ISH and PCR. Concerning the investigation of EGFR and its pathway-related gene mutations, the present study detected 15.1% of EGFR, 6.0% of NRAS, 3.5% of BRAF, 3.0% of KRAS and 3.0% for PIK3CA mutations, with no significant relationship between any gene mutations and the clinical prognostic factors. The HPV-infected patient did not exhibit any gene mutations. The present study indicated that HPV infection, EGFR and its pathway-related gene mutations rarely exist in patients with CESCC. The relationship between these biomarkers and the prognosis in patients with CESCC is still unclear.

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.