Search

Background: We previously developed a robust prognostic model (GS model) to predict the survival outcome of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) receiving palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus S‐1 (GS). This study aimed to validate the application of the GS model in APC patients receiving chemotherapy other than the GS regimen. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 727 APC patients who received first‐line palliative chemotherapy other than the GS regimen between 2010 and 2016 at four institutions in Taiwan. The patients were categorized into three prognostic groups based on the GS model for comparisons of survival outcome, best tumor response, and in‐group survival differences with monotherapy or combination therapy. Results: The median survival times for the good, intermediate, and poor prognostic groups were 13.4, 8.4, and 4.6 months, respectively. The hazard ratios for the comparisons of intermediate and poor to good prognostic groups were 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]), 1.22‐1.88, P < .001) and 2.84 (95% CI, 2.34‐3.45, P < .001). The best tumor responses with either partial response or stable disease were 57.5%, 40.4%, and 17.2% of patients in the good, intermediate, and poor prognostic groups (P < .001), respectively. For patients in the good prognostic group, first‐line chemotherapy with monotherapy and combination therapy had similar median survival times (13.8 vs 12.9 months, P = .26), while combination therapy showed a better median survival time than monotherapy in patients in the intermediate and poor prognostic groups (8.5 vs 8.0 months, P = .038 and 5.7 vs 3.7 months, P = .001, respectively). Conclusion: The results of our study supported the application of the GS model as a general prognostic tool for patients with pancreatic cancer receiving first‐line palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine‐based regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Only 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, and gemcitabine have been reimbursed for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treatment in Taiwan since 2003. It is uncertain whether the reimbursement of S-1 in June 2014 might change the treatment pattern and improve the survival of mPC patients in Taiwan. Patients and methods: A total of 645 patients with newly diagnosed mPC who received palliative chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 in Taiwan were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were stratified according to year at diagnosis of mPC for analysis of chemotherapeutic treatment pattern and survival. Results: Overall, the most common chemotherapeutic agents used for the treatment of mPC were gemcitabine (94.8%), followed by cisplatin (52.4%), S-1 (38.1%), and 5-FU (29.7%). The percentage of patients treated with S-1 between 2010 and 2016 increased from 2.6% to 74.0% (P<0.001), while the percentage of patients treated with 5-FU decreased from 31.6% to 21.2% (P<0.001). The percentage of patients treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, etc. remained consistent. An increase in the number of lines of treatment was observed throughout the study period, with 27.6% of patients receiving two or more lines of treatment in 2010, compared with 50.0% of patients in 2016 (P=0.013). The 12-month survival rate increased from 11.8% in 2010 to 41.4% in 2016, corresponding to an adjusted average annual percent change of 13.6% (0.3–28.7, P<0.05). Conclusion : Based on this multi-institute cohort study in Taiwan, the reimbursement of S-1 changed the clinical practice and is associated with an improvement in survival outcome of mPC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. Although palliative chemotherapy during end-of-life care is used for relief of symptoms in patients with metastatic cancer, chemotherapy may lead to more aggressive end-of-life care and less use of hospice service. This is a population-based study of the association between palliative chemotherapy and aggressiveness of end-of-life care. Patients and Methods. Using the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, we identified 49,920 patients with metastatic cancer who underwent palliative chemotherapy from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011. Patients who received chemotherapy 2-6 months before death were included. Aggressiveness of end-of-life care was examined by previously reported indicators. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and endotracheal tube intubation were included as indicators of aggressive end-of-life care. The association between palliative chemotherapy and hospice care was studied. Results. Palliative chemotherapy was associated with more aggressive treatment. After adjustment for patient age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, cancer group, primary physician's specialty, post diagnosis survival, hospital characteristics, hospital caseload, urbanization, and geographic regions, more than one emergency room visit (p< .001), more than one intensive care unit admission (p<.001), and endotracheal intubation (p =.02) during end-of-life care were significantly more common in patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Patients who did not receive palliative chemotherapy received more hospice care in the last 6 months of life(p<.001). Conclusion. Although the decision to initiate palliative chemotherapy was made several months before death, this study showed that palliative chemotherapy was associated with more aggressive end-of-life care, including more emergency room visits and intensive care unit admissions, and endotracheal intubation. The patients who received palliative chemotherapy received less hospice service toward the end of life [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Studies have rarely explored the efficacy of S-1 in treating advanced pancreatic cancer outside Japan. This study compared the survival outcomes of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with S-1 with the survival outcomes of those without S-1 treatment before and after S-1 reimbursement was introduced in Taiwan in June of 2014., Method: We retrospectively analyzed 838 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer who underwent palliative chemotherapy from 2010 to 2016 at 4 institutes in Taiwan. For survival analysis, patients were categorized into two groups according to whether they received S-1 treatment as palliative chemotherapy after diagnosis: (a) S-1-treated (n = 335) and (b) non-S-1-treated (n = 503) groups., Results: The median overall survival was longer in the S-1-treated group than in the non-S-1-treated group (10.7 vs 6.0 mo, P < 0.001). Subgroup survival analyses showed that the S-1-treated group had more favorable outcomes than the non-S-1-treated group in terms of stage III (19.6 vs 10.1 mo, P < 0.001) and stage IV (8.5 vs 5.3 mo, P < 0.001) disease. The disease control rates were 43.6% and 32.8% (P < 0.001) in patients treated with and without S-1 in the first-line setting, respectively. In multivariate analysis, exposure to S-1 treatment was an independent prognosticator for survival., Conclusion: Our results support the clinical use of S-1 as the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, particularly in resource-limited situations., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)