Impact of previous S-1 treatment on efficacy of liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV) provides survival benefits for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) refractory to gemcitabine-based treatment, mainly gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GA), in current practice. Gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) is another commonly administered first-line regimen before nab-paclitaxel reimbursement; however, the efficacy and safety of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV for mPDAC after failed GS treatment has not been reported and was therefore explored in this study. METHODS: In total, 177 patients with mPDAC received first-line GS or GA treatment, followed by second-line nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV treatment (identified from a multicenter retrospective cohort in Taiwan from 2018 to 2020); 85 and 92 patients were allocated to the GS and GA groups, respectively. Overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and adverse events were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were generally similar; however, a higher median age (67 versus 62 years, p < 0.001) and fewer liver metastases (52% versus 78%, p < 0.001) were observed in the GS versus GA group. The median OS was 15.0 and 15.9 months in the GS and GA groups, respectively (p = 0.58). The TTF (3.1 versus 2.8 months, p = 0.36) and OS (7.6 versus 6.7 months, p = 0.83) after nal-IRI treatment were similar between the two groups. More patients in the GS group developed mucositis during nal-IRI treatment (15% versus 4%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of second-line nal-IRI +5-FU/LV treatment was unaffected by prior S-1 exposure. GS followed by nal-IRI treatment is an alternative treatment sequence for patients with mPDAC.

A generational comparison for unfavorable cancer of unknown primary in a single institute over 20 years.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of unfavorable cancer of unknown primary is extremely poor. This is the first report to compared the treatment results between generations of CUP and examined prognostic factors. METHODS: This retrospective single-center cohort study enrolled 68 patients with newly diagnosed unfavorable cancer of unknown primary at Taipei Veteran General Hospital from 2017 to 2020 as study cohort and 167 patients from 2000 to 2009 as historical cohort. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 4.3 months in the study cohort (95% CI, 2.7-6.2 months) and 4.5 months in the historical cohort (95% CI, 3.0-5.5 months; p = 0.858). Eleven patients in the study cohort received immunotherapy. The disease control rates were 45%. Multivariate analysis showed that an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score > 1 and a C-reactive protein level > 1 correlated with poor survival. A new prognostic stratification model was constructed by using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score and C-reactive protein values. The good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups had distinct median overall survival of 18.3, 7.0 and 1.2 months, respectively (area under the curve, 0.817; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The outcome of unfavorable cancer of unknown primary has not changed much over the last 20 years. The application of a new prognostic stratification model can further stratify unfavorable cancer of unknown primary.