Efficacy of S-1 compared to modified FOLFIRINOX as second-line chemotherapy regimens after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 449-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gen Kimura ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
Kumiko Umemoto ◽  
Kazuo Watanabe ◽  
Mitsuhito Sasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Chemotherapy Regimen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

449 Background: Recently, gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has been frequently used as a first-line chemotherapy regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) in Japan. Nanoliposomal irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (MM-398 plus 5FU/LV) has not yet been approved in Japan. Under these circumstances, a modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) regimen or S-1 is commonly used as a second-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with mPC after GEM plus nab-PTX has failed. Methods: Between December 2014 and March 2016, 45 patients with mPC received second-line chemotherapy after the failure of GEM plus nab-PTX (standard dose regimen) at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. Twenty-two patients received mFFX (irinotecan, 150 mg/m2; bolus of 5FU was eliminated), 19 received S-1 (80 mg/m2/d; d1-28, q6w or d1-14, q3w), and 4 received other chemotherapy regimens. The clinical records of the patients were reviewed retrospectively. Results: At baseline, S-1 group had a more severe disease status than the mFFX group (performance status of 0: 21% vs. 68%, P = 0.003; median CA19-9 level: 1832 vs. 577 U/mL, P = 0.30). No significant difference in the response rate (S-1, 5.3% vs. mFFX, 9.1%, P = 0.56) or the disease control rate (S-1, 42% vs. mFFX, 36%, P = 0.71) was seen between the two groups. The progression free survival (PFS) (median: S-1 vs. mFFX: 2.7 vs. 2.4 months (m), P = 0.77), the overall survival (OS) from the second-line treatment (median: 6.1 vs. 6.4m, P = 0.87) and the OS from the first-line treatment (median: 10.9 vs. 12.4m, P = 0.77) were not significantly different between the two groups. These results were similar to those observed for MM-398 plus 5FU/LV (PFS, 3.1m; OS, 6.1m) in a pivotal Phase III study (NAPOLI-1). The incidences of peripheral neuropathy (5.3% vs. 32%, P = 0.04), fatigue (11% vs. 50%, P = 0.007), and neutropenia (11% vs. 64%, P = 0.001) were significantly lower in the S-1 group. Conclusions: S-1 was less toxic than mFFX and exerted a similar anti-tumor effect in the present study. S-1 could be a treatment option for patients with mPC refractory to GEM plus nab-PTX.

Treatment outcomes with first and second line chemotherapy in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14107-14107
Author(s):  
A. Mancuso ◽  
P. Saletti ◽  
S. Sacchetta ◽  
E. Romagnani ◽  
F. Cavalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

14107 Background: Recent advances in the treatment of pancreatic cancer might influence the management of locally advanced and metastatic disease, nonetheless prognosis remains dismal (1-year survival rates: 24%). The impact on survival of palliative second-line therapy is hotly debated. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 103 pancreatic cancer patients admitted to San Camillo/Forlanini Hospital (Rome, Italy) and the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland during the period June, 1997 to August, 2005 [60 males, 43 females, median age 65 years (range 43–80); median ECOG performance status (PS): 1]. All patients received Gemcitabine as single agent (90%) or in combination with Oxaliplatin (10%) as upfront therapy. A total of 12 fluoropyrimidine-based salvage regimens were administered to 46 patients in the second line setting. Best supportive care was selected in 57 patients after failing first line therapy. Results: Of 103 evaluable patients, first line chemotherapy produced overall tumor growth control of partial response (PR) and stable disease(SD) by RECIST criteria of 52.4% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 4.6 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that the most important prognostic factor for PFS was the patient’s PS, as patients with PS of 1–2 at diagnosis had significantly worse results than patients with PS = 0 (First line PFS: 110 days vs 193 days, p<0.05). Baseline CA19–9 and number of metastatic sites were not independent prognostic factors for better first-line PFS. PR was observed in 8/46 patients (17.3%) who received second line chemotherapy, SD in 10 (21.7%), and 28 patients progressed (61%). Median overall second line PFS was 3.2 months. Patients who had responded to first-line Gemcitabine were more likely to respond or attain stable disease with second-line treatment, with a PFS of 5.6 vs 2.85 months (p<0.05). The overall survival for all evaluable patients was 8.4 months. 1-year survival was 52% for patients treated with second line therapy. Conclusions: These results are consistent with historical studies and suggest that fluoropyrimidine-based salvage regimens have marginal but definite activity and should be considered in patients who have responded to first line chemotherapy with an optimal PS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Survival benefit of second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review of the literature.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 296-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Nagrial ◽  
Venessa T. Chin ◽  
Katrin Sjoquist ◽  
Lorraine A. Chantrill ◽  
Desmond Yip
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

296 Background: There is currently no standard of care for the second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Very few randomised studies have been performed in this setting. The aim of this analysis was to compare the different therapeutic approaches in this setting, and the rate of second line treatment delivery and its influence on reported overall survival. Methods: We carried out a systematic analysis of studies in advanced pancreatic cancer. 1st and 2nd line chemotherapy trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE & CENTRAL using the COCHRANE sensitive search strategy. Objective response rates (ORR) and survival (PFS & OS) were extracted and compared amongst groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. For 1st line studies, the percentage of patients who received 2nd line chemotherapy was also extracted and plotted against reported median overall survival (OS) and post-progression survival (PPS), defined as arithmetic difference between median OS and progression-free survival. Linear regression was used to explore the relationship between overall survival and second-line chemotherapy. Results: 20 first line clinical trials with 42 treatment arms met the inclusion criteria treating an aggregate total of 5,768 patients. Overall survival was positively correlated with use of second-line chemotherapy (r=0.65; p=0.012). 61 second-line studies were identified treating an aggregate total of 2,562 patients in 66 treatment arms. Combination treatment was associated with an improved response rate (p=0.045) and PFS (p=0.024) when compared to single agent therapy. Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis, these data suggest that there is a small benefit of second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. In first-line chemotherapy studies, the use of subsequent treatment correlates with improved overall survival. In second line studies, combination chemotherapy is associated with higher response rates and survival.

Second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: A retrospective, single-center analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15187-15187 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Herrmann ◽  
D. Jaeger ◽  
W. Stremmel ◽  
C. Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Partial Remission ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

15187 Background: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer profit from palliative chemotherapy. The role of second-line chemotherapy is not yet established. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis in 98 patients who were treated at our department from 1/2004–6/2006 due to locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Results: At the time of analysis 67 patients had died (median overall survival 9 months), 31 patients are still alive (median follow up 9 months). 12 patients were initially treated with radiochemotherapy. 86 patients received systemic chemotherapy; 43 of these patients were treated with second-line chemotherapy after disease progression. OS was significantly longer in patients who received second-line chemotherapy (10 months versus 5.0 months, p=0.023). Response to second-line chemotherapy was partial remission in 2 patients (4.6 %), stable disease in 18 patients (44.8 %), and progressive disease in 19 patients (44.2 %), in 3 patients the treatment was stopped due to toxicity (6.9 %). 12 patients received second-line treatment after early disease progression under first-line chemotherapy. 9 of these patients did not respond to second-line treatment, 2 achieved stable disease and 1 patient had partial remission. Elevated LDH and CA19.9 serum levels at the time of diagnosis were identified as negative prognostic factors. Conclusions: Prognosis of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer is still poor. Selected patients may benefit from salvage chemotherapy after failure of first-line chemotherapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Beneficial trends of second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14680-e14680
Author(s):  
Milton Jose B. Silva ◽  
Joyce Maria L. Maia ◽  
Adriana Regina G. Ribeiro ◽  
Ludmilla T. D. Chinen ◽  
Tadeu Ferreira Paiva Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e14680 Background: Despite the lack of high-quality clinical trial data suggesting that second-line chemotherapy (SLC) may affect survival on metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), most of centers utilizes them after the failure of initial treatment in patients who maintain a good performance status. The aim of the present study was to review our institutional experience with SLC and estimate its role in overall survival (OS). Methods: We performed a retrospective matched case-control analysis based on search of medical records in 106 consecutive patients with mPC at our institution. Patients received first line chemotherapy (FLC) and SLC (n = 49) or FLC only (n =57) from September 2005 to December 2010. Case matching was performed with respect to age (< 60y versus ≥ 60y), topography (head of the pancreas versus body or tail), sites of metastasis. Overall survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Median age was 63 (32-86) and 60 (38-85) for SLC group and FLC group respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding topography, TNM stage at diagnosis, and sites of metastasis. The main site of metastasis was the liver (24,4%), followed by peritoneum (2,8%).Median follow-up of both groups was 8.4 months (0.23m-54.93m). First line treatment consisted of Gemcitabine (55.1% x 49.1%) and gemcitabine + cisplatin (18.4%x14%) in SLC and FLC group respectively. The most used second line treatment was Capecitabine (32.7%), followed by Folfox (16.3%), and Fluoracil (10.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the overall median survival, 1-year and 2-years survival rate was 15.72 months versus 7.2 months (p:0.021), and 60% vs. 32%, and 30% vs. 19% in SLC and FLC group, respectively. Conclusions: Our result suggests that second-line chemotherapy may be beneficial to improve overall survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. It’s important that new and ongoing clinical trials clarify which is the best chemotherapy scheme in this setting.

scholarly journals Second-line chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

Oncotarget ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (51) ◽  
pp. 29801-29809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Citterio ◽  
Michela Baccini ◽  
Elena Orlandi ◽  
Camilla Di Nunzio ◽  
Luigi Cavanna
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

scholarly journals FOLFOX as second-line chemotherapy in patients with pretreated metastatic pancreatic cancer from the FIRGEM study

BMC Cancer ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aziz Zaanan ◽  
Isabelle Trouilloud ◽  
Theofano Markoutsaki ◽  
Mélanie Gauthier ◽  
Anne-Claire Dupont-Gossart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Feasibility of sequential fixed S-1 followed by paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced or recurrent gastric cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15113-15113
Author(s):  
M. Ohashi ◽  
T. Kanda ◽  
K. Yajima ◽  
H. Honma ◽  
S. Kosugi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Recurrent Gastric Cancer ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

15113 Background: First-line chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent gastric cancer has limited efficacy, achieving a median survival time (MST) of about 7 months, while addition of second-line and subsequent chemotherapy may prolong MST to about 11.5 months. In practice, however, about half of patients failing with first-line chemotherapy are unable to receive second-line chemotherapy because of worsening of their performance status (PS), disease progression, or toxicities during protracted first-line chemotherapy. We studied the feasibility of a sequential fixed regimen devised to ensure prompt initiation of second-line chemotherapy after first-line failure. Methods: Between December 2002 and December 2006, patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer were enrolled who met the following requirements: 1) major organ function preserved; 2) PS 0–2; 3) presence of at least one evaluable lesion; and 4) written informed consent. The treatment regimen consisted of 3 courses of single-agent S-1 or S-1/cisplatin combination followed by weekly paclitaxel (wPTX). The endpoints of the study were entry to the second-line treatment, time to failure (TTF), and MST. Results: Of 39 patients enrolled, 37 completed first- line S-1. Twenty-eight patients (76%) then received wPTX, 2 non-wPTX chemotherapy, and 6 surgery; only 1 received no additional treatments. Second-line wPTX was followed by a third-line treatment in 23/28 patients (82%). The TTF with the sequential fixed regimen was 7 months. The MST and the 1- and 2-year survival rates in the 37 completing first-line treatment were 14.6 months, 61% and 25%, while those in the 28 switched over to wPTX were 12.5 months, 51% and 17%. Conclusions: Patients with advanced/recurrent gastric cancer treated sequentially with a fixed number of courses of S-1 followed by wPTX may have a good chance of treatment continuation. A sequential fixed regimen may further improve survival of patients with advanced/recurrent gastric cancer only with combinations of currently available drugs. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document