scholarly journals Patterns of care in metastatic pancreatic cancer: patient selection in clinical routine

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175628481987763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Paul Martin Putora ◽  
Birgit Grünberger ◽  
Wolfgang Eisterer ◽  
Ewald Wöll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Decision Trees ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Decision Criteria ◽  
First Line ◽  
Clinical Routine ◽  
Treatment Algorithms

Background: The management of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is challenging, and the optimal treatment strategy is debated among experts. In an attempt to identify treatment decision criteria and to investigate variations in the first-line management of this disease, we performed an analysis of treatment algorithms among experts in the field of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to identify relevant criteria in the complex process of patient selection and decision making for the management of mPC patients. Methods: Experts from the ABCSG (Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group) Pancreatic Cancer Club were contacted and agreed to participate in this analysis. Eight experts from seven centers in Austria provided their decision algorithms for the first-line treatment of patients with mPC. Their responses were converted into decision trees based on the objective consensus methodology. The decision trees were used to identify consensus and discrepancies. Results: The final treatment algorithms included four decision criteria (performance status, age, comorbidities, and symptomatic disease) and six treatment options: mFOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine mono, 5-FU mono, gemcitabine/erlotinib, and best supportive care (BSC). Conclusions: We identified consensus for the treatment of young and fit patients with mFOLFIRINOX. With higher age and reduced performance status, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel was increasingly used. For patients with Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 4, BSC was the treatment of choice. Among experts, different decision criteria and treatment options are implemented in clinical routine. Despite multiple options in current recommendations, a consensus for specific recommendations was identified.

scholarly journals Folfirinox versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a comparative propensity score study

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175628481987866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Williet ◽  
Angélique Saint ◽  
Anne-Laure Pointet ◽  
David Tougeron ◽  
Simon Pernot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Reverse Sequence ◽  
Metastatic Sites

Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) are both standard first-line treatments in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, data comparing these two chemotherapeutic regimens and their sequential use remain scarce. Methods: Data from two independent cohorts enrolling patients treated with FFX ( n = 107) or GN ( n = 109) were retrospectively pooled. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. A propensity score based on age, gender, performance status (PS), and presence of liver metastases was used to make groups comparable. Results: In the whole study population, OS was significantly higher in FFX (14 months; 95% CI: 10–21) than in GN groups (9 months; 95% CI: 8–12) before ( p = 0.008) and after ( p = 0.021) adjusting for age, number of metastatic sites, liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis and CA19.9 level at baseline. PFS tends to be higher in FFX (6 months) than GN groups (5 months; p = 0.053). After matching ( n = 49/group), patients were comparable for all baseline characteristics including PS. In the matched population, there was a trend toward greater OS in patients treated with FFX (HR = 0.67; p = 0.097). However, survival in each group was not solely a result of the first-line regimen. The proportion of patients who were fit for GN after FFX failure (FFX–GN sequence) was higher (46.9%) than the reverse sequence (20.4%; p = 0.01), which suggests a higher feasibility for the FFX–GN sequence. Corresponding median OS were 19 months versus 9.5 months, respectively ( p = 0.094). Conclusion: This study shows greater OS with FFX than with GN in patients with mPC. GN after FFX failure appears more feasible than the reverse sequence.

Clinical outcome of modified FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 438-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuo Watanabe ◽  
Yusuke Hashimoto ◽  
Kumiko Umemoto ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

438 Background: FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GN) have been established as first line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). But few data support preferable first line choice of these two regimens in “real-world” clinical setting. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 135 chemotherapy-naive mPC patients treated with modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) or GN at National Cancer Center Hospital East between December 2013 and September 2015. mFFX is a modified regimen of reduced dose of irinotecan 150mg/m2 and eliminated bolus 5-FU from original FFX. GN consists of gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 plus nab-paclitaxel 125mg/m2 day1,8,15 every 4 weeks. We compared characteristics, efficacy and adverse events between mFFX and GN. Results: Seventy patients were treated with mFFX and 65 patients with GN as first line therapy. Demographic and baseline characteristics (mFFX/GN) were similar as follows: ECOG performance status (0-1): 100% / 99%, Gender (male): 66% / 69%, liver metastasis: 56%/49%, peritoneal metastasis: 34% / 31%, prior biliary drainage: 21%/17%, median observation period: 330 / 265 days, respectively. The population of elderly patients ( > 75y) was smaller in mFFX than GN (4.3% vs. 12%, p = 0.05). Objective response rate (27% vs. 39%, p = 0.02) and disease control rate (79% vs. 92%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower in mFFX than in GN. Median OS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.7-16.8) in mFFX and 14.0 months (95% CI: 12.2 - not reached) in GN. Median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.4-7.1) in mFFX and 6.5 months (95% CI: 6.1-7.9) in GN. One-year survival rate was significantly higher in GN than in mFFX (44% vs. 67%, p = 0.0006). Incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (47% vs. 45%), diarrhea (1.4% vs. 2.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (4.2% vs. 4.6%) were similar in each group. On the other hand, incidences of febrile neutropenia (8.5% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.06) and G-CSF use rate (21% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), anorexia (13% vs. 3%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in mFFX than those of GN. Conclusions: Patients treated with GN showed more favorable efficacy and survival. Incidences of most adverse events did not differ between mFFX and GN,whereas febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently in mFFX.

Randomized phase II trial of olaparib + pembrolizumab versus olaparib alone as maintenance therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2+) mutations: SWOG S2001.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS447-TPS447
Author(s):  
Vincent Chung ◽  
Katherine A Guthrie ◽  
Michael J. Pishvaian ◽  
Andrew M. Lowy ◽  
Elena Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Platinum Chemotherapy

TPS447 Background: Olaparib was approved in 2019 as maintenance therapy for g BRCA1/2+ metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPDA) patients (pts). The POLO trial showed an improvement in median progression free survival (mPFS) with olaparib compared to placebo (7.4 versus 3.8 months) for g BRCA1/2+ mPDA pts following either stable disease/response on first-line platinum chemotherapy. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that PARP inhibitors modulate the immune microenvironment by increasing genomic instability, PD-L1 expression and activating the immune inflammatory stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway. Several clinical studies in solid tumors have shown preliminary efficacy with the combination of PARP plus immune checkpoint inhibitors. Based upon these data, SWOG S2001 aims to further improve the PFS of g BRCA1/2+ mPDA pts. Methods: S2001 was developed in collaboration with the Alliance and was activated in SWOG in October 2020. mPDA pts with gBRCA1/2 mutations identified with standard of care germline genetic testing will be eligibleif no progression after receiving 4 to 6 months of platinum chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX or gemcitabine/cisplatin). Zubrod performance status (PS) 0 or 1 pts are eligible. Pts will be stratified according to first line chemotherapy, PS 0 versus 1, and disease status after first-line treatment. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the PFS of mPDA pts treated with olaparib + pembrolizumab compared to olaparib alone as maintenance therapy. Based upon the POLO trial, we expect a mPFS of 7 months in the control arm. Targeting a mPFS of 11.7 months in the experimental arm (hazard ratio 0.6) and assuming 15 months follow-up, 80% power and a 1-sided alpha=0.10, this design requires 78 evaluable pts to be accrued over 3 years. Prospective serial blood samples will be collected to bank DNA and RNA for future correlative studies. Support:NIH/NCI grants U10CA180888 and U10CA180819. Clinical trial information: TBD.

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in older adults with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Are two doses per cycle enough?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 655-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Winer ◽  
Elizabeth A. Handorf ◽  
Efrat Dotan
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Dosing Schedule

655 Background: The dosing of Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel (GA), a frontline regimen to treat metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), is frequently altered from the traditional dosing schedule (TDS) of day 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle to a modified dosing schedule (MDS) of 2 doses/cycle. Previous work showed that overall survival (OS) was similar between patients (pts) treated with the MDS vs the TDS. We sought to analyze a larger real-world database to assess these trends. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed de-identified pts with mPC ≥ 65 y/o treated with GA in the Flatiron Health nationwide EHR-derived database. Demographics, treatments (tx), and outcomes were collected. Pts were grouped as either starting with the TDS or MDS. Analysis included time on treatment (TOT) as well as OS. A Cox model was used to test non-inferiority of the MDS vs the TDS for both TOT and OS, adjusting performance status, age, race, gender, and line of therapy (LOT). The upper bound for non-inferiority was a Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.2. Results: 1497 pts were treated between 1/1/14-5/31/19; 883 pts with the TDS and 614 with the MDS. Median TDS age was 72 (65-85) and MDS was 73 (65-84) (p<0.001). 1237 pts received first- line GA; 60% received the TDS, 40% the MDS. The use of the TDS vs MDS did not vary significantly by LOT, gender, or race, but more pts with a PS of ≥2 received the MDS (p=0.03). In the first-line, outcomes were better for the TDS vs the MDS (unadjusted median TOT 5.3 vs 3.2 mo, p<0.001, OS 9.2 vs 5.3 mo; p<0.001), with consistent results in the ≥ second-line. The MDS did not meet its non-inferiority boundary: first-line TOT HR=1.4 [95% CI 1.2-1.6]; second+ line TOT HR=1.3 [95% CI 1.0-1.7]; first-line OS HR=1.6 [95% CI 1.4-1.8]; second+ line OS HR=1.3 [95% CI 1.0-1.8]. Results were consistent when additionally stratified by PS 0-1 vs 2+. Conclusions: In this large real-world cohort, first-line GA tx with a MDS did not meet criteria for non-inferiority for TOT and OS vs a TDS in older adults with mPC. With the caveats of potential confounding that exist in a de-identified retrospective database, these results suggest that dose intensity may be important in pts with mPC. Further prospective studies are necessary to ensure we utilize effective tx strategies in older adults with mPC.

scholarly journals Characteristics and survival of older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis of the AC Camargo Cancer Center experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591987465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josenon Gomes Costa ◽  
Victor Hugo Fonseca de Jesus ◽  
Marcos Pedro Guedes Camandaroba ◽  
Aldo Lourenço Abbade Dettino
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: Advanced age is the most important risk factor for pancreatic cancer and about half of patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease. In the first-line setting, multidrug chemotherapy regimens were shown to be more effective than gemcitabine alone. However, the older population was under-represented in randomized clinical trials. We aimed to describe the clinical profile of older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and their survival outcomes. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective, unicentric study that included patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer (non-neuroendocrine), aged 65 years and over. Results: The study population comprised 196 patients. The median age was 73 years; 67% of these patients presented Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG) ⩽ 1 and the median Charlson Comorbidity score was 10. Chemotherapy was given to 89% of the patients. The most frequently used chemotherapy regimens were gemcitabine (44%), 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX; 26%], and 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX; 20%). Patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were younger and they presented better performance status. After a median follow up of 19.8 months, the median overall survival (OS) was of 7.2 months and the median time to first-line-treatment failure was 4.6 months. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, the median OS was highest for those treated with FOLFIRINOX (13.8 months), as compared with FOLFOX (7.0 months) or gemcitabine (6.7 months); p = 0.004. Nonetheless, treatment with FOLFIRINOX was associated with increased risk of severe toxicity ( p = 0.008). Conclusion: Older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer benefit from palliative chemotherapy, and FOLFIRINOX is a therapeutic option in rigorously selected older patients.

scholarly journals Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2545-2556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davendra P.S. Sohal ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Alok Khorana ◽  
Mehmet S. Copur ◽  
Christopher H. Crane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Comorbidity Profile

Purpose In 2016, ASCO published a guideline to assist in clinical decision making in metastatic pancreatic cancer for initial assessment after diagnosis, first- and second-line treatment options, palliative and supportive care, and follow-up. The purpose of this update is to incorporate new evidence related to second-line therapy for patients who have experienced disease progression or intolerable toxicity during first-line therapy. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on second-line therapy published between June 2015 and January 2018. Recommendations on other topics covered in the 2016 Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Guideline were endorsed by the Expert Panel. Results Two new studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan can be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, an ECOG PS of 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus irinotecan or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin may be offered when there is a lack of availability of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan; gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Testing select patients for mismatch repair deficiency or microsatellite instability is recommended, and pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mismatch repair deficiency or high microsatellite instability tumors. Endorsed recommendations from the 2016 version of this guideline for computed tomography, baseline performance status and comorbidity profile, defining goals of care, first-line therapy, and palliative care are also contained within the full guideline text. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document