Search

Background: Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.Methods: The eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.Results: Twenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.Conclusions: The current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of mocetinostat (a Class I/IV HDAC inhibitor) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer.Methods: In this open-label, non-randomized Phase I/II study (NCT00372437) sequential cohorts of patients with solid tumors received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, day 1 of three consecutive weeks, 4-week cycles) and oral mocetinostat [50-110 mg, three times per week (TIW)]. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) was determined based on dose-limiting toxicities in Cycle 1 (Phase I study). The MTD/RP2D was further evaluated in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (Phase II study) using a two-stage design. The Phase II primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR).Results: Forty-eight patients were enrolled into the Phase I (n = 25) and Phase II (n = 23) studies. In the Phase I study, the MTD/RP2D was mocetinostat 90 mg TIW + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported by 81% of all patients, the most frequent being fatigue (38%) and thrombocytopenia (19%). The ORR was 11% in the Phase I study (n = 2 patients with pancreatic cancer, responses lasting for 16.8 and 4.0 months, respectively). As no responses were seen in the Phase II cohort, the study was terminated.Conclusions: Mocetinostat TIW in combination with gemcitabine was associated with significant toxicities in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The level of clinical activity of this treatment combination was not considered high enough to merit further testing in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: S-1 has systemic activity for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Here, the efficacy and safety of induction gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1 (GS) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and systemic chemotherapy using S-1 for LAPC were assessed.Methods: The treatment consisted of four cycles of induction GS (S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/day based on body surface area for 14 days every 3 weeks plus GEM 1000 mg/m2 on days 8 and 15), followed by S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/day based on body surface area on days 1-14 and 22-35) and concurrent radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions). Maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 was started 1-4 weeks after CRT until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity was observed. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival.Results: A total of 30 patients with LAPC were enrolled. The median survival and progression-free survival were 21.3 and 12.7 months, respectively. Overall survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 73.3, 36.7, 23.3, and 16.7%, respectively. The median survival of 23 patients who received CRT was 22.9 months, with a 3-year survival rate of 30.4%. The two most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events during induction GS were neutropenia (63.3%) and biliary tract infection (20%). Toxicities during CRT or maintenance chemotherapy were generally mild.Conclusions: This regimen was feasible and highly active resulting in encouraging survival in patients with LAPC. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the effectiveness of this treatment strategy in future studies. Clinical trials information: UMIN000006332. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine a recommended dose for a biweekly combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy including gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and S-1 (GAS) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LAPC).Methods: Patients with borderline resectable or unresectable LAPC without distant metastasis were eligible for this study. The planned dosages of gemcitabine (mg/m2, day 1), nab-paclitaxel (mg/m2, day 1), and S-1 (mg/day, days 1-7) were 800/100/60-100 at level 1, and 1000/125/60-100 at level 2. The treatment cycle was repeated every 2 weeks, and patients were assessed for resectability and response to the treatment after 6 cycles. This study was registered with UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000016630).Results: We enrolled 16 patients with LAPC in this study. At dose level 1, one of 8 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). One of the next 8 patients also experienced DLT at dose level 2. Based on these results, level 2 was considered the recommended dose for this regimen. Pancreatectomy with curative intent could be performed in 13 of the 16 patients. R0 resection was performed in 12 of 13 patients.Conclusion: In conclusion, recommended doses for a biweekly GAS chemotherapy regimen were determined as nab-paclitaxel: 125 mg/m2, gemcitabine: 1000 mg/m2 on day 1, S-1: <1.25 m2, 60 mg; 1.25-1.5 m2, 80 mg; >1.5 m2, 100 mg twice a day on days 1-7. GAS chemotherapy showed good preliminary efficacy with mild toxicity in this study, and warrants a further phase 2 trial to investigate the efficacy of the GAS regimen for LAPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Marine-derived ω-3 fatty acids (ω-3FAs) have proven antitumor activity in vivo and in vitro and improve quality of life (QOL) in clinical cancer studies. These changes may be mediated by reduction in circulating proangiogenic and proinflammatory factors. In this first study of intravenous ω-3FAs as a therapy in cancer patients, we aimed to assess if it could augment the antitumor activity of gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and improve QOL.Materials and Methods: Patients were administered gemcitabine 1000 mg/m3 weekly followed by up to 100 g (200 mg/mL) of ω-3 rich lipid emulsion for 3 weeks followed by a rest week. This was continued for up to 6 cycles, progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient request, or death. The primary outcome measure was objective response rate, with secondary outcome measures of overall and progression free survival, QOL scores, and adverse events.Results: Fifty patients were recruited. Response rate was 14.3% and disease control rate was 85.7%. Overall and progression free survival were 5.9 and 4.8 months, respectively. Increase in global health of > 10% over baseline was seen in 47.2% of patients. More than 50% of patients had > 10% increase in QOL scores in generic symptom scores and both disease-specific domains. Grade 3/4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (8%), neutropenia (12%), nausea or vomiting (4%), and chills (6%).Conclusion: Intravenous ω-3FAs in combination with gemcitabine shows evidence of improved activity and benefit to QOL in patients with advanced pancreas cancer and is worthy of investigation in a randomized phase III trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A randomized clinical trial has found that the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine (GEM-E) for pancreatic cancer led to a modest increase in survival. The aim of this national population-based retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness of GEM-E to GEM alone for pancreatic cancer patients in real clinical practice.Methods: Patients with pancreatic cancer (ICD-10: C25) with prescription claims of gemcitabine or erlotinib between Jan 1, 2007 and Dec 31, 2012 were retrospectively identified from the Korean Health Insurance claims database. To be included in the study population, patients were required to have had a histological or cytological diagnosis within one year before chemotherapy. Patients treated with prior radiotherapy, surgery, or chemotherapy were excluded to reduce heterogeneity. Overall survival from the initiation of therapy and the medical costs of GEM-E and GEM were compared.Results: A total of 4,267 patients were included in the analysis. Overall survival was not significantly longer in patients treated with GEM-E (median 6.77 months for GEM-E vs. 6.68 months for GEM, p = 0.0977). There was also no significant difference in the respective one-year survival rates (27.0 % vs. 27.3 %; p = 0.5988). Multivariate analysis using age, gender, and comorbidities as covariates did not reveal any significant differences in survival. Based on this relative effectiveness, the incremental cost per life year gained over GEM was estimated at USD 70,843.64 for GEM-E.Conclusions: GEM-E for pancreatic cancer is not more effective than GEM in a real-world setting, and it does not provide reasonable cost-effectiveness over GEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The phase III MPACT trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) demonstrated superior efficacy of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) compared with Gem monotherapy, including the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS; median 8.7 vs. 6.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; P < 0.001). A significant treatment difference favoring nab-P + Gem over Gem was observed for OS in patients treated in North America. The majority of patients were from the US (88%) with only 12% from Canada. Healthcare systems and treatment patterns are different between the 2 countries, and there is limited published information on outcomes of Canadian patients treated with first-line nab-P + Gem. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety outcomes in Canadian patients in the MPACT trial.Methods: Treatment-naive patients with MPC (N = 861) received either nab-P 125 mg/m(2) + Gem 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or Gem 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for the first 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle ≥2).Results: The MPACT trial enrolled 63 patients in Canada. Baseline characteristics were well balanced and comparable with those of the intent-to-treat population. Both OS (median 11.9 vs. 7.1 months; HR 0.76; P = 0.373) and progression-free survival (median 7.2 vs. 5.2 months; HR 0.65; P = 0.224) were numerically longer and overall response rate (27% vs. 17%; P = 0.312) was numerically higher with nab-P + Gem vs. Gem. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with nab-P + Gem vs. Gem were neutropenia (22% vs. 10%), fatigue (34% vs. 33%), and neuropathy (25% vs. 0%).Conclusion: This subanalysis confirmed that nab-P + Gem is an efficacious treatment option and has a manageable safety profile in patients with MPC treated in Canada.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00844649.Funding: Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine have not been clarified in Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. No pharmacokinetic profile of co-administration of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine has been reported. We conducted a phase I/II study of the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Methods: The patients were administered 125 mg/m(2) nab-paclitaxel followed by 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine on day 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or withdrawal of consent, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoints were tolerability in phase I and overall response rate according to RECIST in phase II.Results: A total of 34 patients were enrolled. At the time of 1-year follow-up analysis since the last patient enrollment, the objective response rate by independent review committee was 58.8% (20 of 34 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 40.7-75.4%). The median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.3) and 13.5 months (95% CI, 10.6--not reached), respectively. Main adverse drug reactions of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (70.6%), leukopenia (55.9%), anemia (14.7%), lymphocytopenia (14.7%), thrombocytopenia (14.7%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (11.8%). There were no treatment-related deaths and no marked differences in pharmacokinetics of combined paclitaxel and gemcitabine in historical comparison between co-administration and monotherapies.Conclusions: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine regimen showed highly promising efficacy with manageable safety profile under careful observation and with appropriate supportive care in Japanese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Clinical Trial Number: JapicCTI-121987. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Only a few clinical trials have been conducted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after failure of first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Therefore, there is no current consensus on the treatment of these patients. We conducted a randomised phase II study of the modified FOLFIRI.3 (mFOLFIRI.3; a regimen combining 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid, and irinotecan) and modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX; a regimen combining folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin) regimens as second-line treatments in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.Methods: The primary end point was the 6-month overall survival rate. The mFOlFIRI.3 regimen consisted of irinotecan (70 mg m(-2); days 1 and 3), leucovorin (400 mg m(-2); day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m(-2); days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks. The mFOLFOX regimen was composed of oxaliplatin (85 mg m(-2); day 1), leucovorin (400 mg m(-2); day 1), and 5-FU (2000 mg m(-2); days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks.Results: Sixty-one patients were randomised to mFOLFIRI.3 (n=31) or mFOLFOX (n=30) regimen. The six-month survival rates were 27% (95% confidence interval (CI)=13-46%) and 30% (95% CI=15-49%), respectively. The median overall survival periods were 16.6 and 14.9 weeks, respectively. Disease control was achieved in 23% (95% CI=10-42%) and 17% patients (95% CI=6-35%), respectively. The number of patients with at least one grade 3/4 toxicity was identical (11 patients, 38%) in both groups: neutropenia (7 patients under mFOLFIRI.3 regimen vs 6 patients under mFOLFOX regimen), asthaenia (1 vs 4), vomiting (3 in both), diarrhoea (2 vs 0), and mucositis (1 vs 2).Conclusion: Both mFOLFIRI.3 and mFOLFOX regimens were tolerated with manageable toxicity, offering modest activities as second-line treatments for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, previously treated with gemcitabine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine and concurrent radiation to the upper abdomen followed by weekly gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic cancer was determined. Patients with resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with intravenous gemcitabine administered twice-weekly (40 mg m(-2)) for 5 weeks concurrent with upper abdominal radiation (50.4 Gy in 5(1/2) weeks). At the completion of the chemoradiation, patients without disease progression were given gemcitabine (1000 mg m(-2)) weekly for two cycles. Each cycle consisted of 3 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week without treatment. Forty-seven patients were entered, 46 of whom are included in this analysis. Characteristics: median age 61 years (range 35-79); 24 females (58%); 73% stage T3/T4; and 70% lymph node positive. Grade III/IV gastrointestinal or haematologic toxicities were infrequent. The median survival was 18.3 months, while the median time to disease recurrence was 10.3 months. Twenty-four percent of patients were alive at 3 years. Only six of 34 patients with progression experienced local regional relapse as a component of the first site of failure. These results confirm the feasibility of delivering adjuvant concurrent gemcitabine and radiation to the upper abdomen. This strategy produced good local regional tumour control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To study the pharmacokinetics and clinical outcome of gemcitabine (2'-2'-difluoro-deoxcytidine [dFdC]) during intra-arterial versus intravenous delivery in locally advanced and regionally metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and methods: Seven patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer received escalating intra-arterial doses of gemcitabine ranging from 800 to 1400 mg/m², after selective embolisation of all pancreatic blood supply, except for the tumour-feeding arteries. Four patients received intravenous gemcitabine (control). Venous blood samples at different time intervals were taken throughout 270 minutes for pharmacokinetic analyses of gemcitabine and its inactive metabolite 2'-2'-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU). Results: Pharmacokinetic data revealed differences in plasma concentrations between intra-arterial and intravenous delivery routes. The plasma concentration-time curve of gemcitabine during and after cessation of intra-arterial pancreatic target administration through the proximal splenic artery showed a profile with an area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 270 minutes (intra-arterial 29.0 ± 0.4 vs intravenous 331.0 ± 2.7 ng • min/mL; p < 0.0001) and peak plasma concentration (intra-arterial 1.1 ± 0.2 vs intravenous 7.6 ± 2.0 ng/mL; p < 0.0001) significantly lower than that for the corresponding systemic intravenous route. A plot of ln (% of dose) versus time showed a bi-compartmentalised metabolic model for intravenous administration of gemcitabine, one indicating rapid conversion of gemcitabine to dFdU, and another at a significantly lower affinity resulting in no conversion. Hence, this could be the main reason why dFdU was not detected in the systemic circulation during pancreatic intra-arterial target delivery. Furthermore, during intravenous administration a pseudo first-order rate constant (≈0.20 min-1) for in vivo conversion of gemcitabine to dFdU was estimated, indicating a rapid cellular deamination which was not shown in the intra-arterial route. Clinically, one patient had a partial response and six patients had a stable disease after intra-arterial administration of gemcitabine. The median time to disease progression was 4 months and the median overall survival was 5 months. One patient survived for 26 months. No grade III or IV toxicity was documented. Conclusion: Intra-arterial administration of gemcitabine has a major advantage related to reduced toxicity as increasing the dose through this administration route will eventually result in pancreatic cellular drug target delivery prior to systemic availability. Despite the low number of patients recruited, the clinical results are encouraging and this approach should be tested in a randomised study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Undifferentiated carcinoma (UC) of the pancreas is a rare subtype of pancreatic cancer. Although UC has been considered a highly aggressive malignancy, no clinical studies have addressed the efficacy of chemotherapy for unresectable UC. Therefore, we conducted multicenter retrospective study to investigate the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with UC of the pancreas.Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 17 institutions in Japan between January 2007 and December 2017. A total of 50 patients treated with chemotherapy were analyzed.Results: The median overall survival (OS) in UC patients treated with chemotherapy was 4.08 months. The details of first-line chemotherapy were as follows: gemcitabine (n = 24), S-1 (n = 12), gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 6), and other treatment (n = 8). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.61 months in the gemcitabine group, 2.96 months in the S-1 group, and 4.60 months in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel significantly improved PFS compared with gemcitabine (p = 0.014). The objective response rate (ORR) was 4.2% in the gemcitabine group, 0.0% in the S-1 group, and 33.3% in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel also showed a significantly higher ORR compared with both gemcitabine and S-1 (gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs. gemcitabine: p = 0.033; gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs. S-1: p = 0.034). A paclitaxel-containing first-line regimen significantly improved OS compared with a non-paclitaxel-containing regimen (6.94 months vs. 3.75 months, respectively; p = 0.041). After adjustment, use of a paclitaxel-containing regimen in any line was still an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio for OS, 0.221; 95% confidence interval, 0.076-0.647; p = 0.006) in multiple imputation by chained equation.Conclusions: The results of the present study indicate that a paclitaxel-containing regimen would offer relatively longer survival, and it is considered a reasonable option for treating patients with unresectable UC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]