Search

Background/aim The aim of the study was to evaluate gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX for recurrent pancreatic cancer (rPC) after resection. Patients and methods Forty-four patients with rPC and 211 with de novo metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) who received GnP or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. Results On crude analysis, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the rPC group than in the mPC group (14.0 vs. 10.6 months, respectively; p=0.02). However, the difference was not significant on adjusted analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted p=0.90). Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (n=10) and GnP (n=34) in the rPC group had comparable OS (medians, 12.2 vs. 14.4 months, respectively; p=0.82) even after adjusting for covariates using the Cox model (adjusted p=0.18). Conclusion The outcomes of patients in the rPC and mPC groups were comparable following chemotherapy. Both FOLFIRINOX and GnP may be reasonable options for treating rPC.

Introduction: Original FOLFIRINOX (oFFX) is more toxic than other regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC); therefore, a modified FFX (mFFX) regimen with a reduced dosage has been used in Japanese clinical practice. However, very few studies have compared these two regimens. Methods: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of 318 patients with mPC across 14 centers in Japan (NAPOLEON study). To control for potential bias and confounders, we conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Results: oFFX and mFFX were administered to 48 and 54 patients. More patients with younger age and poorer performance status were included in the oFFX group. The overall survival (OS; median, 11.6 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60–1.40; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (median, 6.3 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56–1.28; p = 0.44), and overall response rate (29 vs. 26%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different for the oFFX and mFFX groups. Thrombopenia and liver dysfunction were significantly more frequent with oFFX than with mFFX. The median received dose intensity of CPT-11 was higher with oFFX than with mFFX (299 vs. 270 mg/m2/week, p < 0.01). The propensity score-adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS and PFS between the two groups. Conclusion: In our data, there was no significant difference in efficacy between mFFX and oFFX, and mFFX has fewer adverse events.

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX, FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) are considered standard treatments for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Direct comparisons are not available that establish which is optimal. We conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify the therapeutic advantages of these standard therapies. We used clinical data as part of a multicenter retrospective study of patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). FFX and GnP were initially administered to 102 and 153 patients, respectively. The GnP group comprised more patients of advanced age, worse performance status, lower body mass index, recurrence, and lower albumin concentrations. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.5 months and 5.8 months in the FFX group and 11.1 months and 5.9 months in the GnP group, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted analysis indicated that the administration of FFX or GnP was not independently associated with OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.47; P = 0.73). Similarly, the difference in PFS was not significant between groups (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68–1.26; P = 0.62). Gastrointestinal disorders were more common in the FFX group, whereas the frequencies of hematological, nervous system, and skin disorders were higher in the GnP group. The efficacies of FFX and GnP were comparable, although safety profiles differed and should be considered in selecting treatment.

705 Background: Nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (nal-IRI/FU/LV; NFF) is the standard regimen after gemcitabine-based therapy for unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer (urPC). However, the efficacy and safety of NFF in patients who previously received irinotecan-based chemotherapy remain unclear. Methods: This retrospective study collected data from patients with urPC who received at least one previous chemotherapy before receiving NFF therapy at 21 hospitals in Japan between June 2020 and May 2021 (NAPOLEON-2 study). We analyzed antitumor efficacy, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) after the initiation of NFF and compared adverse events (AEs) between previous irinotecan users and non-users. Results: NFF was administered to 161 patients. The median follow-up period was 7.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.6–8.9). All patients received prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and NFF was administered as the second-, third-, and fourth-or-later-line chemotherapy in 104, 41, and 16 patients, respectively. Eighteen patients (11%) previously received irinotecan. Patients’ characteristics did not significantly differ between irinotecan users (n = 18) and non-users (n = 143), excluding age (mean [range], 64 [38–78] vs. 68 [47–85] years; p = 0.01), the lung metastasis rate (44% vs. 14%; p < 0.01), the treatment line (2nd/3rd/4th-or-later, 0%/56%/44% vs. 73%/22%/6%; p < 0.01), and the pretreatment period (15.3 [6.8–45.0] vs. 9.1 [1.4–36.2] months; p < 0.01). The median relative dose intensities of nal-IRI were 87.1% and 81.1% in irinotecan users and non-users, respectively (p = 0.28), and those of FU were 93.5% and 89.2%, respectively (p = 0.54). The objective response rate (6% vs. 5%; p = 0.90), disease control rate (44% vs. 53%; p = 0.49), PFS (2.8 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.23; 95% CI = 0.74–2.05; p = 0.42), and OS (9.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.49–1.57; p = 0.66) did not differ between irinotecan users and non-users, nor did the rates of Grade 3/4 hematological (p = 0.68) and non-hematological (p = 0.13) AEs. Among irinotecan users, the duration of irinotecan-based therapy and the irinotecan-free interval before NFF did not affect the efficacy of NFF. Conclusions: NFF might be effective and safe even in patients with urPC who received irinotecan-based chemotherapy irrespective of its duration or the interval to NFF. Therefore, NFF is a possible treatment option after irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Further studies with a sufficient number of patients and a prospective design are warranted to examine the efficacy of NFF after irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Objectives FOLFIRINOX (FFX, a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been used as standard, first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, no study has compared the efficacy of the 2 regimens. This study retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of the 2 regimens in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods We reviewed the records of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who started FFX or GnP as first-line chemotherapy as part of a multicenter retrospective study in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). Results Sixteen of the 63 patients were treated with FFX, and the other 47 patients were treated with GnP between December 2013 and March 2017. There were no significant differences in median overall survival rate between the GnP (15.5 months) and FFX (14.3 months, P = 0.60) groups or median progression-free survival rate between the GnP (8.8 months) and FFX (8.1 months, P = 0.51) groups. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, although anorexia was more severe in the FFX group than in the GnP group. Conclusions The effects of FFX and GnP were similar but resulted in different toxicities, which could guide agent choice.

The aim of the study was to evaluate gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX for recurrent pancreatic cancer (rPC) after resection.Forty-four patients with rPC and 211 with de novo metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) who received GnP or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed.On crude analysis, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the rPC group than in the mPC group (14.0 vs. 10.6 months, respectively; p=0.02). However, the difference was not significant on adjusted analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted p=0.90). Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (n=10) and GnP (n=34) in the rPC group had comparable OS (medians, 12.2 vs. 14.4 months, respectively; p=0.82) even after adjusting for covariates using the Cox model (adjusted p=0.18).The outcomes of patients in the rPC and mPC groups were comparable following chemotherapy. Both FOLFIRINOX and GnP may be reasonable options for treating rPC.

Background No reliable nomogram has been developed until date for predicting the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX (FFX).Methods This analysis was conducted using clinical data of patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing GnP or FFX treatment obtained from a multicenter study (NAPOLEON study). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the independent prognostic factors. A nomogram to predict 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival probabilities was generated, validated by using the concordance index (C-index), and calibrated by the bootstrapping method. And then, we attempted risk stratification for survival by classifying the patients according to the sum of the scores on the nomogram (total nomogram points; TNP).Results A total of 318 patients were enrolled. A prognostic nomogram was generated using data on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, liver metastasis, serum LDH, serum CRP, and serum CA19-9. The C-indexes of the nomogram were 0.77, 0.72 and 0.70 for 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival, respectively. The calibration plot showed optimal agreement at all points. Risk stratification based on tertiles of the TNP yielded clear separations of the survival curves. The median survival times in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups were 15.8, 12.8 and 7.8 months (PConclusions: Our nomogram is a convenient and inexpensive tool to accurately predict survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with GnP or FFX, and will help clinicians in selecting appropriate therapeutic strategies for individualized management.

Background Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) flare is a well-known phenomenon in patients with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist and chemotherapy. However, its incidence and the significance for the clinical outcomes of patients treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) are uncertain. Patients and Methods A multicenter retrospective analysis of chemotherapy-naive patients treated with AA for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was conducted. The baseline characteristics, treatment history of mCRPC, and serum PSA kinetics during AA treatment were collected. The log-rank test was applied to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between patient groups with a PSA flare according to the different definitions and immediate PSA declines. Results The data from 83 patients were analyzed. An immediate PSA decline of any amount was observed in 59 patients (71.1%). According to the various definitions of PSA flare, its incidence ranged from 6.0% to 10.8%. Although the median interval to the peak PSA level was 0.95 month, regardless of the PSA flare definition, the interval to the PSA nadir showed a wide range of 2.8 to 7.6 months. In PSA flare subgroup, the median PFS in patients with any PSA decline to less than the baseline and > 30% decline from the baseline was 12.4 months. The PFS duration of PSA flare patients did not significantly differ from that of patients with an immediate PSA decline of any amount and immediate > 30% decline without PSA flare. Conclusion The PSA flare phenomenon is not rare event during AA treatment. A PSA decline during AA treatment, with or without a PSA flare, was associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Thus, AA should not be withdrawn early in patients with mCRPC in whom an initial, isolated PSA increase has been observed.

661 Background: Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have been established as standard first-line combination chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). However, the efficacy of second-line CTx and the significance of combination CTx in clinical practice are unclear. We therefore investigated the efficacy of second-line CTx in patients with MPC. Methods: Data were collected from CTx-naive MPC patients treated with first-line combination CTx at 14 hospitals in the Kyushu area of Japan from December 2013 to June 2018. The median overall survival (mOS) from second-line treatment was compared between patients who received second-line CTx (CT group) and those who received best supportive care (BSC group). Furthermore, in the CT group, the mOS was compared between the patients who received combination CTx and those who received mono-CTx. To control potential bias in the selection of second-line treatment, we also conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis. Results: A total of 255 patients received GnP or FFX as first-line CTx. Of these, there were 156 (61%) in the CT group and 77 (30%) in the BSC group. The number of patients who received FFX/GnP as first-line CTx was 79 (51%)/77 (49%) in the CT group and 15 (20%)/62 (80%) in the BSC group, respectively (P < 0.01). The mOS in the CT group was significantly longer than that in the BSC group (5.2 vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.57; p < 0.01 and 5.2 vs. 2.6 months; adjusted HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28-0.55; p < 0.01). In the CT group, 89 (57%) patients received combination CTx, and 67 (43%) received mono-CTx. There was no significant difference in the mOS between the combination CTx and mono-CTx patients (5.5 vs. 4.4 months; HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.26; p = 0.88 and 5.6 vs. 4.4 months; adjusted HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.56-1.30; p = 0.47). Conclusions: Among patients with MPC receiving second-line treatment, the CT group had a significantly longer mOS than the BSC group, but combination CTx conferred no improvement in the survival duration compared with mono-CTx.

Histiocytic sarcoma (HS) is a rare hematopoietic neoplasm. We report a patient with HS treated with induction chemotherapy followed by curative surgery. A 50-year-old man was referred to our hospital because of a retroperitoneal tumor. A computed tomography scan revealed a bulky retroperitoneal mass, infiltrating the surrounding organ. An excisional biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of HS. The tumor shrunk after multidrug chemotherapy. However, positron emission tomography showed uptake of fludeoxyglucose in the residual tumor. He underwent right nephrectomy to remove the tumor. Pathological examination showed complete response. Surgery combined with induction chemotherapy may be an effective way to manage HS.

Background GEM plus nab-PTX (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have been shown to improve overall survival for advanced pancreatic cancer patients. However, clinical utility of C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR) as prognostic factor for the patients treated with GnP or FFX remains unclear. We conducted the exploratory analysis to elucidate prognostic impact of CAR using a multicenter retrospective study (the NAPOLEON study) cohort which examined the efficacy and safety of GnP and FFX in clinical practice. Methods Between December 2013 to March 2017, 255 patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent pancreatic cancer who received GnP or FFX as 1st-line chemotherapy at 14 centers participating in the NAPOLEON study were examined. Patient characteristics at the start of 1st and 2nd line chemotherapy including age, gender, ECOG performance status, primary tumor site, disease status, metastatic site, underwent biliary drainage or not, treatment regimen at 1st line chemotherapy, LDH and CAR were analyzed to investigate correlation with prognosis by Cox regression model. The cut-off value of CAR adopted 0.54 based on a previous study. Patients were divided into groups according to CAR level less than 0.54 (CAR-low) and 0.54 or greater (CAR-high). Results Cox regression analysis of OS identified underwent biliary drainage (HR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.19–2.61), CAR-high (HR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.05–2.21), and higher LDH level (HR: 2.10, 95%CI: 1.36–3.22) as significant factors at the start of 1st-line chemotherapy. Similarly, Cox regression analysis of OS identified a poor PS (HR: 1.62, 95%CI: 1.07–2.47), a high level of CA19-9 (HR: 2.14, 95%CI: 1.07–4.29) and CAR-high (HR: 2.15, 95%CI: 1.32–3.49) as significant factors at the start of 2nd-line chemotherapy. Eighty-six of 140 patients (82.7%) with CAR-high at the start of 1st-line chemotherapy still remained CAR-high at the start of 2nd-line chemotherapy. Conclusions CAR may be useful prognostic factor at the start of both 1st and 2nd-line treatment. Almost all the patients with CAR-high before 1st line treatment still remained CAR-high after 1st line treatment. Legal entity responsible for the study The authors. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are both considered as standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, there are no prospective clinical trials that directly compare these two therapies. We investigate and compare them to support the treatment selection for mPC. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the patients with mPC who had received GnP or FFX as first-line chemotherapy at 14 institutions in Kyushu. In this study, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes; overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs) were compared. Results: A total of 211 pts were included; GnP 119 pts (73 males and 46 females) and FFX 92 pts (55 males and 37 females). The median age of the FFX group was younger than that of GnP (GnP 68 vs. FFX 61 years). There was neither significant difference in the OS (median: 10.2 vs. 11.1 months, HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.72-1.34, p = 0.91) nor the PFS (median: 5.5 vs. 5.7 months, HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.79-1.40, p = 0.75) between the GnP and FFX group, respectively. Moreover, neither significant difference in the ORR (29% vs. 27%, p = 0.72) nor the DCR (81% vs. 79%, p = 0.25) was seen. There were no significant differences in grade 3/4 neutropenia (55% vs. 58%) and febrile neutropenia (10% vs. 13%). Grade 3/4 peripheral sensory neuropathy (12% vs. 3%) and fatigue (4% vs. 0%) were more frequent with GnP. All grades of rash and alopecia were more frequent with GnP. Otherwise, grade 3/4 anorexia (6% vs. 20%), diarrhea (0% vs. 11%) and nausea (3% vs. 11%) were more with FFX. 64% of the patients with FFX received GnP as second-line, but the rate of patients with FFX followed by GnP was only 10%. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the effectiveness between GnP and FFX statistically. We need to select the appropriate treatment for each patient, considering that the toxicity profiles differ.

Objective: Abiraterone acetate and docetaxel are promising treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. However, the optimal sequencing of these agents is unclear, and no previous reports discuss Japanese metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The purpose of this analysis is to reveal the outcomes of Japanese metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone acetate followed by docetaxel. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed Japanese Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone acetate until disease progression and subsequently treated with docetaxel. The primary outcome measure was the rates of prostate-specific antigen declines ≧30 and ≧50%, respectively, with docetaxel. Secondary outcome measures included progression-free survival with docetaxel, and overall survival after initiation of abiraterone acetate and docetaxel. We performed correlation analysis between previous prostate-specific antigenresponse toabiraterone acetate and subsequentprostate-specific antigenresponse todocetaxel. Results: We identified 15 patients had experienced disease progression with abiraterone acetate and subsequently were treated with docetaxel. Prostate-specific antigen declines ≧30 and ≧50% with docetaxel were observed in five patients (33%) and two patients (13%), respectively. The median progression-freesurvivalwith docetaxel was 3.7 months(95% confidence interval: 2.9–4.6). The median overall survivalfrominitiationofdocetaxelandabirateroneacetatewere14.4months(95%confidenceinterval: 6.3–22.4), and 25.7 months (95% confidence interval: 20.1–30.7), respectively. No significant correlation was observed between these prostate-specific antigen responses (Pearson r= 0.206, P=0.46). Conclusion: The efficacy of docetaxel in Japanese mCRPC patients that was resistant to abiraterone acetate was modest. The prostate-specific antigen response to previous abiraterone acetate could not predict the efficacy of subsequent docetaxel. Larger prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.

The conversion processes of electron-hole (e-h) pairs into carriers and excitons in organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) have been explored by simultaneous photoluminescence- and photocurrent-detected magnetic resonance (PLDMR and PCDMR) techniques as a function of bias. Both PLDMR and PCDMR signals are shown to disappear or extremely reduce with increasing the field strength, whereas photoluminescence intensity is unchanged and photocurrent rather increases. This is clear evidence that e-h pairs are dissociated by the field. A simple model for pair dissociation is proposed and explains the field dependence of PLDMR intensity.

We demonstrate that air-treated conjugated polymer diodes under photoexcitation give rise to a transient current exceeding a steady-state photocurrent by electron-spin resonance (ESR). The current induced by ESR is shown to exhibit a spiked time response for modulation of the resonance condition. The nature of the spike current is demonstrated to be a displacement current, which suggests that the spin transitions can change the film permittivity. This system has applications as devices enabling direct control of diode current by spin manipulation.

Background: The standard therapy for primary gastric diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is chemotherapy of R-CHOP with/without involved-field radiation therapy. Although some reports indicated that gastrointestinal complications after chemotherapy for DLBCL occur at a rate of 0-26%, little is known about riskfactors for the complications. In addition, to detect DLBCL in gastric lesion, both of positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) are useful tools. However, there have been few reports comparing them. The aim of this study is to show the outcomes including treatment-related complications in patients with gastric DLBCL and risk factors for the gastric complications. Moreover, we evaluated whether PET-CT is sufficient to detect DLBCL in gastric lesion by comparing with EGD. Patients and methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between October 2003 and July 2014 who underwent EGD and were treated with R-CHOP in our hospital. We classified the patients into three groups. Group A-1: patients who had documented DLBCL in gastric lesion by EGD and underwent PET-CT; group A-2: patients who had documented DLBCL in gastric lesion by EGD and did not underwent PET-CT; group B: patients who had no documented DLBCL in gastric lesion by EGD and underwent PET-CT. Suspected lymphomatous lesions by EGD were biopsied and immunopathologically examined. Gastric DLBCL was defined only when pathologically confirmed. In PET-CT, gastric lesions with SUV max ≥ 5 were considered positive. Outcomes and risk factors for complications among group A were analyzed using the logistic regression model. We evaluated significance of PET-CT and EGD in group A-1 and B by the positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Among 448 patients diagnosed with DLBCL, 178 patients were enrolled for our study: 55 in group A-1, 28 in group A-2 and 95 in group B. Among 83 patients with gastric DLBCL (group A), the median age was 69 years (range, 29-85). The numbers of patients with clinical stage (Ann Arbor classification) I, II, III, and IV were 27, 18, 5, and 33, respectively. The rate of complete remission was 87%, and the median 3- and 5-year over survival (OS) were 81% and 75%, respectively. The median 3-year OS of patients with very good, good, and poor grade of Revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) was 100%, 77%, and 63%, respectively (Figure, p=0.025). Ten patients had gastric complications: 6 with bleeding that needed blood transfusion and 3 with gastrointestinal stenosis defined as ordinary endoscopy could not pass, no patients had gastrointestinal perforation. Most of bleeding (66.7%) occurred during the first cycle of R-CHOP (median, 15 days; range, 1-206). A multivariate analysis showed that low serum albumin (ALB) at diagnosis was an independent risk factor for gastric complications (odds ratio 10.75, p Conclusions: The present study showed that R-IPI was also predictive of survival in gastric DLBCL and low ALB at diagnosis as a significant risk factor for gastric complications following R-CHOP. In addition, our data suggested that PET-CT may be sufficient in the role of detecting gastric lesion of DLBCL because of high PPV and NPV. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.