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

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.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document