Gemcitabine (Gem) and nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) in patients (pts) with refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 413-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Palacio ◽  
Ikechukwu Immanuel Akunyili ◽  
Vinicius Ernani ◽  
Jessica Macintyre ◽  
Jaime R. Merchan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Positive Interaction ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

413 Background: The combination of nab-P and Gem improves survival compared to Gem alone in first-line therapy of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Efficacy data with this doublet in previously treated pts are scant. Our group presented preliminary results on 10 pts treated with this two-drug combination in the second and third line setting and herein present updated data on 59 pts. Methods: This IRB approved analysis identified all pts diagnosed with advanced refractory pancreatic cancer, treated with second-line Gem and nab-P at University of Miami and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center between September 2010 and June 2014. Response by RECIST, CA19-9, and symptomatic improvement were assessed. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of Gem + nab-P and were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical benefit was defined as the percentage of patients with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). Results: Data from59 pts were analyzed. The median age was 60; 55% were male; 54% received Gem + nab-P as second line therapy and 46% received it as third-line or beyond. Five (10%) pts had confirmed PR, 23 (47%) SD and 21 (43%) progressed. Among the 31 (52%) pts who received prior Gem, 18 (58%) had clinical benefit, 3 PR and 15 SD. The median OS was 3.9 months. The median PFS was 3 months. Toxicity appears similar to what has been reported on the MPACT trial with the combination. Conclusions: The clinical benefit seen withGem and nab-P in this group of pretreated pancreatic cancer pts suggests that it can be considered as an option. Additionally, prior Gem treatment appears not to decrease Gem and nab-P benefit in this population. Since nab-P monotherapy has modest activity in pre-treated pancreatic cancer pts, our data suggests a positive interaction between Gem and nab-P that may overcome resistance to Gem. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II trial of S-1 versus S-1 plus irinotecan (IRIS) in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 263-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobumasa Mizuno ◽  
Kenji Yamao ◽  
Yoshito Komatsu ◽  
Masaki Munakata ◽  
Atsushi Ishiguro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Lesion ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

263 Background: Gemcitabine (Gem) monotherapy or Gem-based combination therapy is a standard first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). There is no consensus on second-line therapy in patients (pts) with disease progression (PD) after Gem-based therapy. S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, is commonly used for the second-line treatment of PC in Japan. Shitara et al previously reported that IRIS regimen showed that 44% of response rate (RR), 4.9 mo of median progression free survival (PFS), and 11.3 mo of median overall survival (OS), respectively. Therefore a randomized phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IRIS compared with S-1 alone in the second-line setting. Methods: The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) histologically or cytologically proven pancreatic adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma; (2) confirmed PD after Gem treatment; (3) ECOG PS, 0-1; (4) measurable metastatic lesion based on RECIST criteria; (5) age ≥ 20 years; (6) total bilirubin < 2.0 mg/dL. Patients were randomized to receive either IRIS (CPT-11 100 mg/m2, iv, d1,15 plus S-1 80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-14, q4w; Arm A) or S-1 (80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-28, q6w; Arm B). The primary endpoint was to compare PFS in Arm A and Arm B. Results: Of a total of 137 pts enrolled between Nov 2008 and Mar 2011, 127 were eligible (60 randomized to Arm A and 67 to B). Median PFS in Arm A and B was 107 and 58 days, respectively (HR= 0.767; 95% CI, 0.527-1.114; p=0.1750). Median OS in Arm A and B was 208 and 176 days, respectively (HR=0.749; 95% CI, 0.512-1.093; p=0.1338). RR was 18.3% in Arm A (11/60; 95% CI, 9.5-30.4) and 6.0% in Arm B (4/67; 95% CI, 1.7-14.6)(p=0.0311). The incidences of grade 3/4 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia (15.6% and 4.3%), anorexia (23.4% and 17.3%), nausea (6.3% and 2.9%), and diarrhea (3.1% and 2.9%) in Arm A and B, respectively. Both regimens were tolerable. Conclusions: Although IRIS showed no significant improvement in PFS or OS compared with S-1 alone in this study, it showed significant advantage in RR, and favorable HR in both of PFS and OS. IRIS might have potential power to treat second-line PC patients. Further study is warranted. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-080657.

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel as Second-Line Chemotherapy following FOLFIRINOX in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Institution, Retrospective Analysis

Chemotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kotone Hayuka ◽  
Hiroyuki Okuyama ◽  
Akitsu Murakami ◽  
Yoshihiro Okita ◽  
Takamasa Nishiuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis. FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been established as first-line treatment, but they have not been confirmed as second-line treatment after FFX. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GnP as second-line therapy after FFX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-five patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients were treated with GnP after FFX between September 2015 and September 2019. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The response rate, disease control rate, median PFS, and median OS were 12%, 96%, 5.3 months, and 15.6 months, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%) and anemia (16%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> GnP after FOLFIRINOX is expected to be one of the second-line recommendations for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Phase II Study of Docetaxel and Gefitinib as Second-Line Therapy in Gemcitabine Pretreated Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Oncology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna M. Brell ◽  
Khalid Matin ◽  
Terry Evans ◽  
Robert L. Volkin ◽  
Gauri J. Kiefer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Pretreated Patients

Efficacy and safety of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) / levofolinate / irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for previously treated advanced pancreatic cancer (APC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 407-407
Author(s):  
Hiromichi Shirasu ◽  
Takeshi Kawakami ◽  
Satoshi Hamauchi ◽  
Takahiro Tsushima ◽  
Akiko Todaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Cycle ◽  
Initial Dosage ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Median Treatment ◽  
Treatment Line

407 Background: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) / levofolinate / irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is one of the preferred regimens for patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) who received prior gemcitabine-based therapy in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. However, its survival benefit or safety in clinical practice is unclear. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the data of consecutive pts with APC who received FOLFIRI as a second or later-line treatment after gemcitabine-based therapy at Shizuoka Cancer Center between May 2014 and March 2020. Results: The characteristics of 102 pts included in this analysis were as follows: median age (range), 67 (39-78) y; male/female, 55/47; ECOG PS0/1/2, 21/72/9; the number of metastatic sites 0/1/2/3/4, 7/48/35/8/4; unresectable/recurrent, 84/18; UGT1A1 status wild/*6 or*28 heterozygous/homo or double-heterozygous/unknown, 40/40/5/17; treatment line of FOLFIRI 2nd/3rd/4th, 64/32/6. Previous treatment history according to the treatment line of FOLFIRI was as follows: 2nd-line, all patients received GEM-based regimen, GEM plus nanoparticle albumin bound paclitaxel in 63 pts (98.4%) and GEM in 1 (1.6%); 3rd, GEM-based and S1 in 20 (62.5%), GEM-based and 5-FU/levofolinate/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in 12 (37.5%); 4th, GEM-based, FOLFOX and S-1 or other agent in 5 (83.3%), 2 GEM-based regimens and S1 in 1 (16.7%). The median treatment cycle was 5 (range 1-55). The median treatment cycle according to the treatment line was as follows: 2nd-line, 7(1-55); 3rd, 4(1-14); 4th, 3.5(1-10). The initial dosage for each cytotoxic agent was as follows: bolus 5-FU injected/omited 72/30; continuous 5-FU 2400/2000/1200 mg/m2, 88/13/1; irinotecan 180/150/120/less than or equal to 100mg/m2, 27/59/13/3. The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 5.9% and 52.9%, respectively. ORR and DCR according to the treatment line were as follows: 2nd-line, 9.3/64.1%; 3rd, 0/68.8%; 4th, 0/50.0%. At the median follow up 6.5 M, the median overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were 6.6M and 3.1M, respectively. The median OS and PFS according to the treatment line were as follows: 2nd-line, 8.1/3.6M; 3rd, 5.1/2.1M; 4th, 6.6/2.0M. Adverse events (AEs) were observed in 70.8% pts. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 27.2% pts [neutropenia in 26 (25.2%) pts, febrile neutropenia in 4 (3.9%) pts, nausea in 4 (3.9%) pts, decreased appetite in 3 (2.9%) pts]. No treatment related deaths were observed. Conclusions: FOLFIRI is well tolerated and effective especially in the second-line treatment for pts with gemcitabine-refractory APC.

Outcomes of metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC): A 16-year single institutional experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16088-e16088
Author(s):  
Dwight Hall Owen ◽  
Sandipkumar Patel ◽  
John E Phay ◽  
Lawrence Andrew Shirley ◽  
Lawrence S Kirschner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

e16088 Background: ACC is a rare malignancy with limited data to guide management of metastatic disease. Prior research regarding survival has focused on pts with locoregional disease, but has not offered insight into the management and outcomes of pts with metastatic disease. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients (pts) with metastatic ACC who were treated with systemic therapy between January 2000 and October 2016 at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for survival analysis. Results: A total of 18 pts received systemic therapy for distant metastatic disease. Median age at diagnosis was 51 (range 31 – 72). Median overall survival (OS) from time of diagnosis of ACC was 15.5 months (95% CI 4.8 – 28.2), and from time of systemic treatment (ST) was 7.1 months (95% CI 3.3 – 26). A germline variant of uncertain significance in MSH2 (c.138C > G) was identified in one patient. Baseline FDG-PET scans were obtained in 11/18 pts, and demonstrated avidity in all patients. Maximum SUV ranged from 4.1 to 47.6, with a median of 15. First line therapy was etoposide, doxorubicin, cisplatin, and mitotane (EDPM) in 13/18 pts and clinical trial with IMC-A12 (IGF-1 receptor antibody) in four pts. Median duration of first line therapy was 1.8 months (95% CI 0.9 – 2.8). Survival was not statistically different for patients receiving EDPM as first or second line therapy (median OS 23.3 vs 12.0 months, p = 0.96). Additional lines of therapy included EDPM, IMC-A12, AT-101, mifepristone, OSI-906 (IGF-1R inhibitor), and nivolumab. Median lines of therapy given were 2. The presence of bone metastases (p = 0.69) or lung metastases (p = 0.21) at the time of initiation of ST was not associated with OS from ST. Conclusions: In our experience, the prognosis of pts with metastatic ACC receiving systemic therapy is poor with most pts receiving ≤ 2 lines of therapy. Patients receiving first or second line EDPM seemed to have worse outcomes than noted in previously published trials, possibly due to our patients being sicker at baseline. Metastasis to the lung or bone at initiation of ST did not impact OS.

Retrospective comparison of modified FOLFIRINOX with full-dose FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer: A Japanese cancer center experience.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 469-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Ohba ◽  
Hideki Ueno ◽  
Yasunari Sakamoto ◽  
Shunsuke Kondo ◽  
Chigusa Morizane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Grade 3

469 Background: Various modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimens have been reported and widely used in clinical practice. Although there are retrospective studies and single-arm phase 2 studies comparing modified regimens to the full-dose regimen of the historical control group, head-to-head comparisons in the same population are limited. This study aimed to compare mFFX with full-dose FOLFIRINOX (fFFX) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Methods: We reviewed 85 patients with APC who received mFFX (no bolus fluorouracil and irinotecan 150 mg per square) or fFFX as first-line chemotherapy between January 2014 and December 2016. mFFX has been used since January 2016 on the basis of results of a Japanese phase 2 study. The efficacy, safety, and dose reduction pattern were evaluated. Results: A total of 56 eligible patients (26 treated with mFFX and 30 with fFFX) were selected. Baseline characteristics of each group were well-balanced. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, and continuous infusion fluorouracil were 68.6%, 78.5%, 0%, and 88.5% in the mFFX group, and 80.5%, 76.5%, 25.6%, and 83.6% in the fFFX group, respectively. Second cycle dose reduction occurred in 38% of the patients in the mFFX group and in 62% of those in the fFFX group. The median overall survival (OS) was 19.0 months in the mFFX group, compared to 13.2 months in the fFFX group (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25–1.47, P = 0.27). In a multivariate analysis to adjust for prognostic factors for OS, the hazard ratio for death with mFFX was significant (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14–0.93, P = 0.04). The median progression-free survival was 8.3 months in the mFFX group and 5.9 months in the fFFX group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44–1.54, P = 0.55). The response rate was 35% in the mFFX group versus 30% (P = 0.78) in the fFFX group, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 leucopenia (15% versus 40%), neutropenia (42% versus 70%), febrile neutropenia (8% versus 17%), and nausea (4% versus 13%) were decreased in the mFFX group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: mFFX had equivalent or higher efficacy and improved safety compared to fFFX in the same population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document