Stereotactic body radiation therapy with sequential S-1 for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and poor performance status: an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaofei Zhu ◽  
Yangsen Cao ◽  
Mingzhi Lu ◽  
Xianzhi Zhao ◽  
Lingong Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 2 Trial

scholarly journals Role of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Elderly and Poor Performance Status Patients With Pancreatic Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren M. Rosati ◽  
Joseph M. Herman
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Patient Reported

Literature on the management of nonmetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in patients who are elderly or have poor performance status is sparse. The median survival of this unique cohort of patients is < 6 months, and most patients are only offered single-agent gemcitabine or supportive care. Recently, adding nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine was shown to improve survival of patients with metastatic disease with Eastern Cooperative Group performance status of 2. Although standard chemoradiotherapy provides long-term locoregional control in locally advanced pancreatic cancer, it is difficult for this group of patients to tolerate 6 weeks of therapy. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can be delivered in only 3 to 5 days, does not require concurrent chemotherapy, and has limited toxicity, and tumor control rates appear to be equivalent to or better than those achieved with standard chemoradiotherapy. Additionally, SBRT has been shown to improve cancer-related pain and patient-reported quality of life. Given the favorable toxicity profile, SBRT seems like an obvious choice for patients who are elderly, have multiple comorbidities, or have poor performance status. Herein, we review the literature on SBRT in this unique patient population and discuss future directions.

scholarly journals Attenuated regimen of biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients aged 65 years or older with advanced pancreatic cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482097491
Author(s):  
Hasan Rehman ◽  
Jeffrey Chi ◽  
Nausheen Hakim ◽  
Shreya Prasad Goyal ◽  
Coral Olazagasti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Dose Reductions

Background: Treatment with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel confers a survival benefit over gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, such treatment can be associated with significant toxicities especially in older patients and carries practical disadvantages related to a weekly schedule along with financial cost. We retrospectively analyzed patients >65 years of age with APC who received a modified biweekly regimen of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel to evaluate efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Patients aged >65 years with chemo-naïve APC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ⩽2 were studied. Patients were treated with a modified regimen of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 every 2 weeks on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with analyses performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Adverse events were recorded on the day of chemotherapy. Cancer antigen 19.9 was measured in every cycle and restaging scans were performed every two cycles. Results: A total of 73 patients (median age: 73 years; range: 66–93) were treated with biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment. The median OS and PFS were 9.1 months and 4.8 months, respectively. Around 66% of patients received growth-factor support based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines and no patient developed neutropenic fever. The incidences of grade ⩾3 toxicity for neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity were 2%, 7%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. Dose reductions of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel were required in 10% and 4% patients, respectively. Conclusion: In patients older than >65 years of age with APC, a modified regimen of biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was found to be effective when compared with the historical control from the MPACT study. This regimen allowed for fewer dose reductions, reduced healthcare costs from additional appointments, travel-related cost, as well as a favorable side-effect profile while maintaining efficacy. Though retrospective in nature, this study underlines the need for further investigation, particularly in elderly patients with poor performance status, such as those with pancreatic cancer, and in order to combine with a third agent, such as a targeted treatment or immunotherapy.

scholarly journals Gemcitabine-based or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somnath Mukherjee ◽  
Christopher N Hurt ◽  
John Bridgewater ◽  
Stephen Falk ◽  
Sebastian Cummins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 2 Trial

Clinical significance of serum alkaline phosphatase level in advanced pancreatic cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 183-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Ohno ◽  
S. Mitsunaga ◽  
K. Nakachi ◽  
S. Shimizu ◽  
H. Takahashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Elevated Serum ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Bile Stasis ◽  
Low Serum

183 Background: Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an enzyme that is elevated by various hepatobiliary diseases. Generally its elevation is thought to indicate bile stasis. There are some reports that show ALP is an important prognostic factor for several cancers such as colon, lung, and gastric cancer. Often it is speculated that ALP elevation indicates bile stasis caused by liver metastasis. However, the significance of ALP elevation in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients is not well evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine the significance of elevated serum ALP as a prognostic factor in patients with APC even without jaundice and liver metastasis. Methods: Serum ALP levels were measured in 393 patients with APC receiving gemcitabine monotherapy before treatment, and according to those levels, patients were subgrouped (ALP<upper normal limit (UNL), UNL-500 U/L, 501-700 U/L, 701-1000 U/L, 1000U/L < ALP). The clinical data of each group were analyzed to see characteristics of elevated ALP patients. The relationship between ALP level and survival, response were also examined. Results: The elevated ALP group included poor performance status (PS>1) patients (41.3%, p=0.001), and associated with low serum albumin (3.31±0.38, p<0.01). The elevated ALP group (median survival time (MST) 112 days) showed significantly worse prognosis and lower disease control rate compared to the normal ALP group (MST 217days) (p<0.001, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed ALP (p<0.001), CRP (p<0.001), ascites (p<0.001), distant metastasis (p=0.003), white blood cell count (p=0.005), PS (p=0.020), AST (p=0.020), and ALT (p=0.020) were independent prognostic factors. Similar results were seen in liver metastasis free patients without jaundice. Conclusions: Elevated serum ALP level correlated with poor performance status and low serum albumin. ALP was also the independent prognostic factor in liver metastasis free APC patients without jaundice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in patients enrolled in a prospective study involving stereotactic body radiation therapy in unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Lauren M. Rosati ◽  
Zhi Cheng ◽  
Scott P. Robertson ◽  
Megan N. Kummerlowe ◽  
Amy Hacker-Prietz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Personalized Care ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiation ◽  
Patient Reported

84 Background: Prospective evaluation of correlations between patient- (PROs) and physician-reported outcomes (PhROs) was conducted among a group of patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for recurrent or locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PCA). Methods: Forty-two patients were treated with 25-33 Gy using SBRT in 5 fractions on a single-institution study. Eight outcomes (performance status, fatigue, pain, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea) were consistently evaluated by patients and providers prior to SBRT and 4-6 weeks post-SBRT. Patient-reported quality of life (QOL) metrics were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26, while physician-reported toxicities were graded using the NCI CTCAE v4.0.A Pearson’s correlation was used to determine the relationship between PROs and PhROs. Results: Of the 42 enrolled patients, 36 had both PROs and PhROs collected before (median, 2.9 weeks) SBRT. Physician-reported pain, nausea, constipation, and diarrhea did not show a correlation with patient-reported overall health or QOL. Physician-reported fatigue showed a correlation with patient-reported pain (r > 0.5, p < 0.001) and QOL (r > -0.5, p < 0.001) but not fatigue (r < 0.3, p > 0.05). Nausea and constipation were the only PROs that did not correlate with their respective PhROs (nausea, r < 0.3, p > 0.05; constipation, r < 0.5, p = 0.07) or any of the other 7 PhROs. Only 24 had both PROs and PhROs collected 4-6 weeks after (median, 5.1 weeks) SBRT. Vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea were PhROs that demonstrated no correlation with patient-reported overall health or QOL. Physician-reported vomiting did not correlate with patient-reported vomiting (r < 0.3, p > 0.05) or any of the 7 other PROs. The correlation between patient- and physician-reported pain increased from pre- (r > 0.3, p = 0.03) to post- (r > 0.7, p < 0.0001) SBRT. Conclusions: Discrepancies among PROs and PhROs appear to exist in pancreatic-specific outcomes of interest such as constipation and diarrhea. Future health care teams may find it helpful to consider PROs to better manage symptoms and deliver more personalized care. Clinical trial information: NCT01781728.

Oral chemotherapy as second-line treatment option for gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer with poor performance status.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 405-405
Author(s):  
Se Jun Park ◽  
Myung Ah Lee
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Median Dose ◽  
Gemcitabine Refractory

405 Background: There is few data for effective second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer, and most patients have poor performance status after progressive disease. We evaluated the efficacy, toxicity, and median dose intensity of oral chemotherapy, capecitabine, or TS-1 in gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer for second-line treatment. Methods: Patients who have progressive disease after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed between Jan. 2011 and Nov. 2017. These patients were treated with capecitabine or TS-1 as second-line treatment. Capecitabine were administered as 2,500 mg/m2 divided dose on day 1-14, followed by one week rest. In TS-1 group, TS-1 was taken orally based on patient’s BSA (60mg twice daily in BSA > 1.5, 50mg twice daily in BSA 1.25-1.5, and 40mg twice daily in BSA < 1.25) through 28 days, by two week rest. Median dose intensity was compared by calculating a percent of target dose achieved in the average cycle for each patient. Results: Of the total 62 patients, 41 patients were treated with capecitabine and 21 patients were treated with TS-1. The median age was 61 years for the capecitabine group compared with 62 years for the TS-1 group. In capecitabine group, males were 56%, and in TS-1 group, males were 66%. 29% of capecitabine group received prior fluorouracil base therapy, and 47% of TS-1 group were receiving such therapy. The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 12.2% with capecitabine and 4.8% with TS-1 (p = 0.358). There was no difference in median progression free survival between capecitabine and TS-1 (2.1 months vs. 2.7 months, p = 0.102), however, TS-1 group showed better median overall survival time than capecitabine group (6.9 months vs. 4.6 months, p = 0.048). Most of the adverse events were similar in both group, except that grade 3 or 4 mucositis was more common in TS-1 group. There was no significant difference in median dose intensity between two groups. (Capecitabine 91.5% vs. TS-1 90.1%, p = 0.216). Conclusions: Oral agents such as TS-1 or capecitabine can be second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer patients with poor performance status after progression to gemcitabine-based regimen.

Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (33) ◽  
pp. 5513-5518 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Ian Chau ◽  
Deborah D. Stocken ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
David Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label

PurposeBoth gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP).Patients and MethodsPatients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted.ResultsBetween May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity.ConclusionOn the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

scholarly journals Gemcitabine plus Nab-paclitaxel as a second-line treatment following FOLFIRINOX failure in advanced pancreatic cancer: a multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110561
Author(s):  
Gunn Huh ◽  
Hee Seung Lee ◽  
Jin Ho Choi ◽  
Sang Hyub Lee ◽  
Woo Hyun Paik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 2 Trial ◽  
Open Label Phase

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) as second-line chemotherapy following first-line FOLFIRINOX treatment failure in advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods: This was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial done at three tertiary centers in South Korea from May 2018 to December 2019. Eligible patients were aged 20 years or older, had histologically confirmed advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and disease progression after receiving first-line FOLFIRINOX. Patients received a second-line GnP regimen as intravenous nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was survival rate at 6 months and the secondary outcomes were median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov. (NCT03401827) Results: Forty patients were enrolled in the study. The survival rate at 6 months was 72.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 59.9–87.7], achieving superiority over prespecified assumed 6-month OS rate of 20% for best supportive care only ( p < 0.001). The median PFS and OS were 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.3–8.7) and 9.9 months (95% CI, 7.5–12.4), respectively. DCR was 87.5% with six partial responses and 29 stable diseases. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25 (62.5%) patients with the most common being thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, and peripheral edema. Conclusion: GnP demonstrated favorable efficacy with acceptable toxicity in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after FOLFIRINOX failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document