Second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: evaluation of prognostic factors and review of current literature

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 901-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Caparello ◽  
Caterina Vivaldi ◽  
Lorenzo Fornaro ◽  
Gianna Musettini ◽  
Giulia Pasquini ◽  
...  
Oncology ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna M. Brell ◽  
Khalid Matin ◽  
Terry Evans ◽  
Robert L. Volkin ◽  
Gauri J. Kiefer ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masashi Sawada ◽  
Akiyoshi Kasuga ◽  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Takanobu Taniguchi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is no established second-line treatment after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as a second-line therapy for MPC and investigate prognostic factors for survival. Methods From 2015–2019, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients receiving mFFX for MPC after failure of GnP therapy. Patients were treated every 2 weeks with mFFX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , intravenous irinotecan 150 mg/m 2 , and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m 2 for 46 hours without bolus infusion) until disease progression, patient refusal, or unacceptable toxicity. Results In total, 104 patients received mFFX. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-9.8) and the progression-free survival (PFS) 3.9 months (95% CI 2.8-5.0). The objective response rate was 10.6% and the disease control rate 56.7%. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional 5-FU were 80.0% (range 21.5-100%), 77.2% (range 38.1-100%), and 85.9% (range 36.9-100%), respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 57 patients (54.8%), including neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Glasgow prognostic score and carcinoembryonic antigen level were independently associated with survival. Our prognostic model using these parameters could classify the patients into good (n = 38), intermediate (n = 47), and poor (n = 19) prognostic groups. The median OS and PFS time was 14.7 (95% CI 7.6-16.3) and 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-10.5) for the good prognostic factors, 6.5 (95% CI 5.5-10.0) and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.8) for the intermediate prognostic factors and 5.0 (95% CI 2.9-6.6) and 1.7 months (95% CI 0.9-4.3) for the poor prognostic factors, respectively. Conclusions The mFFX showed to be a tolerable second-line treatment for MPC after GnP failure. Our prognostic model might be useful for deciding whether mFFX is indicated in this setting.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 275-275
Author(s):  
Osama E. Rahma ◽  
David J. Liewehr ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
Austin G. Duffy ◽  
Tim F Greten

275 Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers with an estimated 5 years survival rate of 5%. Until recently gemcitabine had been considered the first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Although many chemotherapy regimens have been used there is no standard of care for second line therapy. The aim of this analysis was to identify superior regimen in the second line setting. Methods: We conducted a general search on PubMed for “second line therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer”. We limited our search to trials published in English from 2000 through 2012. Studies presented as abstracts in major meetings were also included. Trials that used targeted therapy other than erlotinib were excluded. We compared in an exploratory fashion the RR, PFS and OS of BSC and each of the following regimens to the rest of the treatments: 5FU+platinum, gemcitabine+platinum, taxol, erlotinib. In addition, we compared the combinations of platinum with either 5FU or gemcitabine. Finally, we explored the trend of these treatments outcomes over time. Results: Forty-four trialswere identified, of which 34 trials (T) met the inclusion criteria treating 1503 patients (N). There was a trend toward an improved overall survival with treatments (T: 33; N: 1269) compared to BSC (T: 2; N: 234) only (P= 0.013). The combination of gemcitabine and platinum (T: 5; N: 154) was the only regimen that showed a trend toward superior outcomes compared to the other regimens (T: 28; N: 1115) in terms of RR and PFS (P= 0.006 and 0.059, respectively). However, there was no difference in overall survival (P= 0.10). When compared to 5FU+platinum (T: 12; N: 450) the regimen of gemcitabine+platinum (T: 5; N: 154) showed only a trend toward significance in terms of improved RR (P= 0.030) with no difference in PFS or OS (P= 0.60 and 0.22, respectively). Overall, there was a trend toward a worse RR and PFS with no change in OS over the past 13 years. Conclusions: The combination of gemcitabine and platinum may provide a valid second line option in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who progress on gemcitabine.


2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Hosein ◽  
Gilberto de Lima Lopes ◽  
Vitor H. Pastorini ◽  
Christina Gomez ◽  
Jessica Macintyre ◽  
...  

Tumor Biology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Haas ◽  
Rüdiger P. Laubender ◽  
Petra Stieber ◽  
Stefan Holdenrieder ◽  
Christiane J. Bruns ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document