Toxicity of chemotherapy regimens in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer therapy: A network meta-analysis

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with sequential S-1 for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer and poor performance status: An open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial

PURPOSE

The optimal treatment for a particularly neglected group of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and poor performance status, who are usually excluded from most clinical trials, is required. Therefore, we aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with sequential S-1 for those patients.

METHODS

Eligible patients had histologically and radiographically confirmed LAPC and ECOG performance status of 2 or more points determined by two independent physicians. Radiation doses ranged from 35-40 Gy/5f. S-1 was taken orally, twice daily, at a dose of 80 mg/m² for 28 days, followed by a 14-day interval, which repeated for 6 cycles and was initiated one month after SBRT. The primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were OS, progression free survival (PFS), treatment-related toxicity and quality of life. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02704143.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were enrolled. At the time of data cut-off, all patients died. No patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up was 15.8 months (95%CI 12.9-18.7 months). One-year OS was noted in 46 of 63 patients (73.0%, 95%CI 67.4%-78.6%). The median OS and PFS was 14.4 (95%CI 13.2-15.6 months) and 10.1 months (95%CI 9.7-10.5 months) respectively. Eighteen patients (28.6%) had grade 3 toxicity. According to Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, significant improvements of abdominal pain were found, and patients with poorer baseline global health status had greater improvement of health status and pain relief after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT with sequential S-1 shows promising efficacy and acceptable toxicity in poor performance status patients with LAPC.

Combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and S-1(GAS) as the first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: study protocol for an open-label, single-arm phase I study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still a highly fatal malignancy among the most common cancers. More powerful treatments are expecting to bring hope for patients. Biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel/S-1 (GAS) was proved safe and effective for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer in Japan. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of GAS (repeated every 3 weeks) in the treatment of locally advanced or advanced pancreatic cancer and determine the recommended dose of S-1 in this combination.

METHODS

This is an open-label, single-arm, and single-center phase I trial. Patients who have been diagnosed with locally advanced or advanced PDAC pathologically without previous systemic treatments will be enrolled and be treated with GAS chemotherapy every 3 weeks (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2, ivgtt, day1, 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, day1, 8; different doses of S-1 within a dose escalation scheme) until the presence of disease progression (PD), intolerable adverse events (AEs), or requirement of patients and researchers. The primary endpoints are maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The secondary endpoints include safety, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

DISCUSSION

This trial will adjust the administration of GAS to make it more effective for Chinese patients, while exploring the toxicity and feasibility of this adjustment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR, ( ChiCTR1900027833 ). Registered 30 November 2019.

Association Between Pancreatic Fistula and Long-term Survival in the Era of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Importance

In the past decade, the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has increased for patients with borderline and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Data on pancreatic fistula and related overall survival (OS) in this setting are limited.

Objective

To compare postoperative complications in patients undergoing either upfront resection or pancreatectomy following NAT, focusing on clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and potential associations with OS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on data from patients who underwent pancreatic resection for PDAC at the Massachusetts General Hospital from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2017.

Exposures

Pancreatic cancer surgery with or without NAT.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall morbidity and CR-POPF rates were compared between NAT and upfront resection. Factors associated with CR-POPF were assessed with univariate and multivariate analysis. Survival data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

Results

Of 753 patients, 364 were men (48.3%); median (interquartile range) age was 68 (61-75) years. A total of 346 patients (45.9%) received NAT and 407 patients (54.1%) underwent upfront resection. At pathologic examination, NAT was associated with smaller tumor size (mean [SD], 26.0 [15.3] mm vs 32.7 [14.4] mm; P < .001), reduced nodal involvement (102 [25.1%] vs 191 [55.2%]; P < .001), and higher R0 rates (257 [74.3%] vs 239 [58.7%]; P < .001). There were no significant differences in severe complication rate or 90-day mortality. The rate of CR-POPF was 3.6-fold lower in patients receiving NAT vs upfront resection (13 [3.8%] vs 56 [13.8%]; P < .001). In addition, factors associated with CR-POPF changed after NAT, and only soft pancreatic texture was associated with a higher risk of CR-POPF (38.5% vs 6.3%; P < .001). Survival analysis showed no differences between patients with or without CR-POPF after upfront resection (26 vs 25 months; P = .66), but after NAT, a worse overall survival rate was observed in patients with CR-POPF (17 vs 34 months; P = .002). This association was independent of other established predictors of overall survival by multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.44-5.45; P < .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

Neoadjuvant therapy may be associated with a significant reduction in the rate of CR-POPF. In addition, standard factors associated with CR-POPF appear to be no longer applicable following NAT. However, once CR-POPF occurs, it is associated with a significant reduction in long-term survival. Patients with CR-POPF may require closer follow-up and could benefit from additional therapy.

The Use of (Network) Meta-Analysis in Clinical Oncology

Meta-analysis is important in oncological research to provide a more reliable answer to a clinical research question that was assessed in multiple studies but with inconsistent results. Pair-wise meta-analysis can be applied when comparing two treatments at once, whereas it is possible to compare multiple treatments at once with network meta-analysis (NMA). After careful systematic review of the literature and quality assessment of the identified studies, there are several assumptions in the use of meta-analysis. First, the added value of meta-analysis should be evaluated by examining the comparability of study populations. Second, the appropriate comparator in meta-analysis should be chosen according to the types of comparisons made in individual studies: (1) Experimental and comparator arms are different treatments (A vs. B); (2) Substitution of a conventional treatment by an experimental treatment (A+B vs. A+C); or (3) Addition of an experimental treatment (A+B vs. B). Ideally there is one common comparator treatment, but when there are multiple common comparators, the most efficacious comparator is preferable. Third, treatments can only be adequately pooled in meta-analysis or merged into one treatment node in NMA when considering likewise mechanism of action and similar setting in which treatment is indicated. Fourth, for both pair-wise meta-analysis and NMA, adequate assessment of heterogeneity should be performed and sub-analysis and sensitivity analysis can be applied to objectify a possible confounding factor. Network inconsistency, as statistical manifestation of violating the transitivity assumption, can best be evaluated by node-split modeling. NMA has advantages over pair-wise meta-analysis, such as clarification of inconsistent outcomes from multiple studies including multiple common comparators and indirect effect calculation of missing direct comparisons between important treatments. Also, NMA can provide increased statistical power and cross-validation of the observed treatment effect of weak connections with reasonable network connectivity and sufficient sample-sizes. However, inappropriate use of NMA can cause misleading results, and may emerge when there is low network connectivity, and therefore low statistical power. Furthermore, indirect evidence is still observational and should be interpreted with caution. NMA should therefore preferably be conducted and interpreted by both expert clinicians in the field and an experienced statistician. Finally, the use of meta-analysis can be extended to other areas, for example the identification of prognostic and predictive factors. Also, the integration of evidence from both meta-analysis and expert opinion can improve the construction of prognostic models in real-world databases.

Retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma experiencing disease progression on FOLFIRINOX

Background

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) represents a highly lethal condition. Despite the improvements seen with FOLFIRINOX, there is no randomized data to guide treatment selection beyond this regimen. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPA progressing on FOLFIRINOX who were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy afterwards.

Methods

We included patients aged 18 years or older, treated for MPA with FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting and who experienced disease progression, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, and treated with at least one cycle of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in second or further lines of treatment. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study population and Cox proportional-hazards models to describe factors associated with survival. As an exploratory analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients treated with single-agent Gemcitabine with those of patients undergoing Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy.

Results

The study population consisted of 42 patients. Median age was 59 years and 78.6% of patients presented ECOG 0-1. Thirty-three patients (78.6%) were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in the second-line setting and 27 patients (64.3%) were treated with single-agent Gemcitabine. Objective response rate and disease control rate were 2.4% and 33.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 2.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Six-month PFS and OS rates were 19.2% and 46.2%, respectively. We observed no significant difference in OS according to the type of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, despite numerically improved disease control rate and PFS for those treated with Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 2 (vs. ECOG 0-1) was the only factor significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS.

Conclusions

a subgroup of patients with MPA derives benefit from treatment with Gemcitabine-based regimens after FOLFIRINOX. There is a suggestion that Gemcitabine-based combinations, in particular Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel, provide superior outcomes compared to single-agent Gemcitabine. Additionally, treatment in this setting should be offered carefully to patients with ECOG 2, as they present shorter survival and increased risk of toxicity.