Randomized controlled study of gemcitabine plus S-1 combination chemotherapy versus gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic cancer

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review synthesises all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making. It updates the previous version of the review, published in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both on overall survival, severe or life-threatening adverse events, and quality of life in people undergoing first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CANCERLIT, and handsearched various sources for additional studies. The latest search dates were in March and July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both with another intervention or best supportive care. Participants were required to have locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer or metastatic pancreatic cancer not amenable to curative intent treatment. Histological confirmation was required. Trials were required to report overall survival.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies in the review and 51 in the meta-analysis (11,333 participants). We divided the studies into seven categories: any anti-cancer treatment versus best supportive care; various chemotherapy types versus gemcitabine; gemcitabine-based combinations versus gemcitabine alone; various chemotherapy combinations versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; fluoropyrimidine-based studies; miscellaneous studies; and radiotherapy studies. In general, the included studies were at low risk for random sequence generation, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias, at unclear risk for allocation concealment, and high risk for performance bias. Compared to best supportive care, chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.33; absolute risk of death at 12 months of 971 per 1000 versus 962 per 1000; 4 studies, 298 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse effects of chemotherapy and impacts on quality of life (QoL) were uncertain. Many of the chemotherapy regimens were outdated. Eight studies compared non-gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens to gemcitabine. These showed that 5-fluorouracil (5FU) likely reduces OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27; risk of death at 12 months of 914 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 1 study, 126 participants; moderate certainty), and grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). Fixed dose rate gemcitabine likely improves OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94; risk of death at 12 months of 683 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 644 participants; moderate certainty), and likely increase grade 3/4 adverse events (QoL not reported). FOLFIRINOX improves OS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60; risk of death at 12 months of 524 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; P < 0.001; 2 studies, 652 participants; high certainty), and delays deterioration in QoL, but increases grade 3/4 adverse events. Twenty-eight studies compared gemcitabine-based combinations to gemcitabine. Gemcitabine plus platinum may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08; risk of death at 12 months of 745 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 6 studies, 1140 participants; low certainty), may increase grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely worsens QoL. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improves OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; risk of death at 12 months of 722 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 10 studies, 2718 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely improves QoL. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitors result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.16; risk of death at 12 months of 770 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 3 studies, 839 participants; high certainty), likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events, and likely does not alter QoL. Gemcitabine plus taxane result in a large improvement in OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; risk of death at 12 months of 644 per 1000 versus 767 per 1000; 2 studies, 986 participants; high certainty), and likely increases grade 3/4 adverse events and improves QoL. Nine studies compared chemotherapy combinations to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. Fluoropyrimidine-based combination regimens improve OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; risk of death at 12 months of 542 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 6 studies, 1285 participants; high certainty). The treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles, and there was little to no difference in QoL. Alternative schedules of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.47; risk of death at 12 months of 663 per 1000 versus 628 per 1000; 2 studies, 367 participants; moderate certainty) or QoL, but may increase grade 3/4 adverse events. Four studies compared fluoropyrimidine-based combinations to fluoropyrimidines alone, with poor quality evidence. Fluoropyrimidine-based combinations are likely to result in little to no impact on OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; risk of death at 12 months of 765 per 1000 versus 704 per 1000; P = 0.27; 4 studies, 491 participants; moderate certainty) versus fluoropyrimidines alone. The evidence suggests that there was little to no difference in grade 3/4 adverse events or QoL between the two groups. We included only one radiotherapy (iodine-125 brachytherapy) study with 165 participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of radiotherapy on outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy remains standard of care for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Both FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus a taxane improve OS compared to gemcitabine alone. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy regimens improve OS compared to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. The effects of radiotherapy were uncertain as only one low-quality trial was included. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individuals still remains unpersonalised, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to assist in rationalising treatment selection for patients.

Comparative Outcomes of First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Among the Regimens Used in Japan: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Various first-line chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer have been approved in Japan, including gemcitabine (GEM); fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combination (FOLFIRINOX); GEM plus albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM+NPTX), and S-1 (tegafur + gimeracil + oteracil). However, direct comparisons of these chemotherapy regimens are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer compared with chemotherapy regimens recommended in Japanese guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, the bibliographic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, as well as medical journals published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018, were searched for clinical trials comparing chemotherapy regimens.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized 2-arm clinical trials evaluating first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions was followed for data abstractions. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The SIGN 50 Quality Assessment Instrument was used to assess the risk of bias and overall study quality of the selected trials.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and the secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) compared with GEM for first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. The Kaplan-Meier curve of GEM from the literature and the estimated hazard ratios (HRs) were used to model the long-term associations to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) (person-months) for OS and PFS of each chemotherapy. Sensitivity analyses with multiple functional models were conducted to confirm the long-term estimations.

RESULTS

A total of 22 regimens (25 studies) for OS and a total of 18 regimens (21 studies) for PFS were identified from literature. The total number of participants was 10 186, with 5856 male (57.5%) and 4330 female (42.5%). The FOLFIRINOX and GEM+NPTX regimens were associated with reduction in the risk of death, with an HR of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.41-0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.95) compared with GEM, respectively. The curve estimation also showed that FOLFIRINOX had the largest AUC for survival at 15.49 person-months (range, 13.84-15.51 person-months), followed by GEM+NPTX with 12.36 person-months (range, 10.98-12.59 person-months), GEM+ERLO with 10.84 person-months (range, 9.66-11.23 person-months), S-1 with 8.44 person-months (range, 8.26-9.74 person-months), and GEM with 8.10 person-months (range, 7.93-9.38 person-months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this network meta-analysis support the relative short-term and long-term outcomes associated with first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer used clinically in Japan.

Survival impact on triple-modal strategy comprising hyperthermia, external radiation, and chemotherapy for unresectable locally advanced (UR-LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Present treatment strategy for unresectable locally advanced (UR-LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients is controversial. Hence, a triple-modal therapy, which is a multidisciplinary strategy, was designed for patients with UR-LA PDAC by adding hyperthermia to conventional chemoradiotherapy at our institution. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy.

METHODS

Data of 21 UR-LA PDAC patients who underwent the triple-modal treatment were retrospectively analyzed for evaluating the safety and oncological effect of the treatment. The treatment schedule included, five concurrent infusions of gemcitabine (800 mg/m²) followed by hyperthermia (1 h) and X-ray (2 Gy) or proton beam radiation (2.7 Gy) on days 1, 8, 15, 29, and 36. Additional radiotherapies applied a total dose of 50 Gy/25 fr for X-ray radiation or 67.5 Gy/25 fr for proton beam radiation.

RESULTS

Median overall survival (OS) was 23.6 months. Conversion surgery was performed in 5 patients (23.8%), and a R0 margin could be achieved in 4 of them; however, their median OS (16.3 months) tended to be shorter than that of the patients who did not undergo resection (23.6 months, p = 0.562). Further, the median OS of patients who underwent proton beam radiation (28.0 months) was significantly longer than that of patients who underwent X-ray radiation (13.9 months, p = 0.045). Most adverse events were manageable, except for one grade 3 gastric ulcer. The median tumor size and marker reduction rates were -17% and -91%, respectively. The tumor responses were partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease in 3, 15, and 3 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Triple-modal strategy, especially when combined with proton beam radiation, is feasible and results in favorable survival outcomes in patients with UR-LA PDAC.

Two decades of research toward the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: Remarkable effort and limited gain

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy that is diagnosed at the locally advanced or metastatic stage in approximately 80% of cases. Relative to other tumor types, progress in the treatment of this disease has been painfully slow. While agents targeting DNA repair have proven successful in a subset of patients, the majority of PDACs do not exhibit validated molecular targets. Hence, conventional chemotherapy remains at the forefront of therapy for this disease. In this review, we study two decades of efforts to improve upon the gemcitabine backbone - 67 phase II and III trials enrolling 16,446 patients - that culminated in the approvals of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Gem/NabP) and FOLFIRINOX. Today, these remain gold standards for the first-line treatment of locally advanced unresectable and metastatic PDAC, while ongoing efforts focus on improving upon the Gem/NabP backbone. Because real world data often do not reflect the data of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we also summarize the retrospective evidence comparing the efficacy of Gem/NabP and FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting - 29 studies reporting a median overall survival of 10.7 and 9.1 months for FOLFIRINOX and Gem/NabP, respectively. These values are surprisingly comparable to those reported by the pivotal RCTs at 11.1 and 8.5 months. Finally, there is a paucity of RCT data regarding the efficacy of second-line therapy. Hence, we conclude this review by summarizing the data that ultimately demonstrate a small but significant survival benefit of second-line therapy with Gem/NabP or FOLFIRINOX. Collectively, these studies describe the long journey, the steady effort, and the myriad lessons to be learned from 20 years of PDAC trials to inform strategies for success in clinical trials moving forward.

A Chinese Retrospective Multicenter Study of First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a common digestive system tumor. For patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), chemotherapy is still the predominant treatment. However, no large-scale clinical studies have been done of it as first-line therapy for APC. The goal of the present study was to assess real-world outcomes with chemotherapy in that setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data from 322 patients with APC who were treated with chemotherapy at 4 hospitals in different cities in China. The first-line regimens used were AS (nab-paclitaxel and S-1), AG (nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine), and FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin). RESULTS Of the patients, 232 received AS, 79 received AG, and 11 received FOLFIRINOX. The median number of chemotherapy cycles was 5. The median overall survival (mOS) was 9 months and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5 months. The AS, AG, and FOLFIRINOX regimens were associated with mOS rates of 9 months, 9 months, and 10 months, respectively. The mPFS rates for the AS, AG, and FOLFIRINOX regimens were 5, 4, and 5 months, respectively. The differences between the PFS rates for the regimens were statistically significant. The overall response rate (ORR) and overall disease control rate (DCR) for chemotherapy were 38% and 81.8%, respectively. The ORRs for the AS, AG, and FOLFIRINOX regimens were 46.9%, 18.7%, and 0%, respectively. The DCRs for the AS, AG and FOLFIRINOX regimens were 87.2%, 69.3%, and 63.6%, respectively. The differences between the ORRs and DCRs for the regimens were statistically significant. The incidences of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) associated with the AS, AG, and FOLFIRINOX regimens were 29.9%, 25%, and 36.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The AS regimen was associated with a higher ORR and DCR than the other 2 regimens, with a lower rate of AEs.

Network Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy and Target Therapy in the First-Line Setting of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Both gemcitabine and fluoropyrimidine are recommended backbones in the first-line treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To compare the efficacy and safety of these two therapeutic backbones, and to investigate the optimal therapies, we conducted a network meta-analysis. By retrospective analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), the most preferred therapeutic regimen may be predicted. The eligible RCTs of the gemcitabine-based therapies and fluoropyrimidine-based therapies were searched up to 31 August 2019. In a frequentist network meta-analysis, treatments were compared and ranked according to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Thirty-two trials with 10,729 patients were included. The network meta-analyses results for overall survival and progression-free survival showed that fluoropyrimidine-based therapy seems to be the most effective treatment choice. Compared to gemcitabine combined with taxanes or immunotherapy, fluoropyrimidine-based therapy had comparable treatment effects (PFS: 0.67, p-Value = 0.11; 0.76, p-Value = 0.32; OS: 0.80, p-Value = 0.16; 0.77, p-Value = 0.21). Moreover, the combination of immunotherapy and gemcitabine had tolerable toxicities. Based on current evidence, fluoropyrimidine-based therapies and the combination of gemcitabine and taxanes were the most effective therapies in the advanced pancreatic cancer, and the combination of immunotherapy and gemcitabine can be developed into a new form of therapy.

Current Clinical Strategies of Pancreatic Cancer Treatment and Open Molecular Questions

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal malignancies and is associated with a poor prognosis. Surgery is considered the only potential curative treatment for pancreatic cancer, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, but surgery is reserved for the minority of patients with non-metastatic resectable tumors. In the future, neoadjuvant treatment strategies based on molecular testing of tumor biopsies may increase the amount of patients becoming eligible for surgery. In the context of non-metastatic disease, patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma might benefit from neoadjuvant chemo- or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgeryPatients with locally advanced or (oligo-/poly-)metastatic tumors presenting significant response to (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy should undergo surgery if R0 resection seems to be achievable. New immunotherapeutic strategies to induce potent immune response to the tumors and investigation in molecular mechanisms driving tumorigenesis of pancreatic cancer may provide novel therapeutic opportunities in patients with pancreatic carcinoma and help patient selection for optimal treatment.

Gemcitabine plus S-1 for metastatic pancreatic cancer

To investigate the treatment effects of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) for metastatic pancreatic cancer in our institution.Data from 41 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with GS regimen in West China Hospital, Sichuan University were reviewed. The therapeutic efficacy and toxicity were evaluated. The influencing factors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also explored.At the last follow-up, all patients had died. The objective response rate was 22.0% (9/41) and the disease control rate was 65.9% (27/41). The median PFS and OS times were 5.1 (range, 1.5-21) and 10.6 months (range, 1.5-40), respectively. The 0.5-, 1-, and 2-year OS rates were 65.9%, 41.5%, and 9.8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, body mass index and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 change were the significant influencing factors of PFS, compared to tumor site and chemotherapy cycles for OS. The adverse effects were moderate and tolerable.The effects of GS for metastatic pancreatic cancer in our institution were good. The adverse effects were moderate and tolerable. However, further investigation in future prospective clinical studies is warranted.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for peritoneal metastases of pancreas and biliary tract cancer

Data on the effectivness of PIPAC in patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary origin is scarce. We here present further proof of treatment efficacy in this subset of patients. Repetitive PIPAC treatment with low-dose cisplatin 7.5 mg/m² and doxorubicin 1.5 mg/m² body surface area every 6 weeks and prospective data collection. Documentation included microscopic histological regression, median overall survival and treatment-related adverse events. Twelve patients with a median age of 57 years (range 43-78 years) were included. Six patients suffered from pertioneal metastases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and six patients from cholangiocarcinoma (CC). In total 23 cycles of PIPAC were adminstered with the median number of PIPAC cycles being two (range 1-4). Complete tumor regression was found in four patients and major regression in one patient. Median overall survival after the first PIPAC cycle was 12.7 months for PDAC patients and 15.1 months for CC patients. 11 of the 12 patients are still alive after a median follow-up of 438 days. There were no CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 complications. PIPAC is an innovative and attractive treatment option in the salvage situation for patients with peritoneal metastases of pancreaticobiliary tumors after failure of systemic chemotherapy. In 40% of the patients histological regression can be induced. Further studies are warranted to further elucidate treatment efficacy.

Efficacy and safety comparison of nabpaclitaxel plus S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer

Objective

To compare efficacy and safety of nabpaclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) with gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort, single-institution analysis by reviewing medical records of 38 patients who received either AS (nabpaclitaxel 125 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8 and S-1 80 mg/m2 on Days 1 to 14) or GS (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8 and S-1 80 mg/m2 on Days 1 to 14) chemotherapy.

Results

AS was associated with a prolonged median time to progression (TTP; 7.1 months, 95% CI, 4.5-9.7 vs. 3.6 months, 95% CI, 1.8-5.4; P value = 0.022) and improved median overall survival (OS; 10.2 months, 95% CI, 9.1-11.3 vs. 6 months, 95% CI, 4.2-7.8; P value <0.001) compared with GS. In cox proportional hazards model, treatment regimen was the only variable to be significantly associated with improvements in both TTP and OS. Subgroup analyses based on HER2 expression showed that AS seemed to have better outcome of OS in HER2 positive patients (HR = 0.168; 95% CI, 0.022-1.27; P value = 0.084). Hematological adverse events were commonly seen in both group (12.5% and 22.7%, GS and AS group, Grade 3 or 4; P value = 0.675) while AS got increased risk of sensory neuropathy (6 of 22 patients in AS, 27.3% vs. 0 of 16 patients in GS, all grade; P value = 0.03).

Conclusions

AS could be an effective treatment regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer under surveillance of toxicity.

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

This network meta-analysis is adopted in order to compare the toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about different chemotherapy regimens for advanced/metastatic PC were included in this network meta-analysis using Cochrane Library and PubMed electronic databases. The network meta-analysis was performed to combine direct and indirect evidence in order to calculate the odd ratios (OR) and draw a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. A total of 19 RCTs were enrolled in this network meta-analysis including 12 chemotherapy regimens (Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1 [tegafur], Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, FOLFIRINOX [oxaliplatin + irinotecan + fluorouracil + leucovorin], Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed, Gemcitabine + 5-FU, S-1). The incidence of anemia of Gemcitabine + Capecitabine regimen was higher compared with Gemcitabine regimen, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed regimen exhibited the highest incidence rates of anemia and neutropenia; while Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin and FOLFIRINOX regimens exhibited the highest incidence rates of neutropenia. However, S-1 regimen exhibited lower incidence rates of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, the incidence rates of nausea/vomiting and rash of Gemcitabine + S-1 regimen were higher compared with Gemcitabine regimen, while Gemcitabine + Cisplatin regimen had the highest incidence rate of nausea/vomiting. This study demonstrated that the hematologic toxicity of S-1 regimen was the lowest, while Gemcitabine regimen exhibited the lowest incidence rate of non-hematologic toxicity, providing guidance for the treatment of advanced/metastatic PC.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Gemcitabine in Combination with a Second Cytotoxic Agent in the First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether the addition of a second cytotoxic agent can further improve the therapeutic effect of gemcitabine monotherapy in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (LA/MPC).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based doublet chemotherapy regimens compared to single-agent gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of unresectable LA/MPC.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of gemcitabine monotherapy versus gemcitabine in combination with a second cytotoxic agent in patients with LA/MPC. The last search date was December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs were identified and included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, involving a total of 7343 patients. The meta-analysis showed that gemcitabine-based combination therapy significantly improved overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.94; P < 0.0001), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; P < 0.0001), and overall response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.62-2.07; P < 0.0001) in comparison to single-agent gemcitabine. Subgroup analysis suggested that the antitumor activity differed between gemcitabine-based combination regimens: doublet regimens of gemcitabine plus a taxoid, and gemcitabine plus a fluoropyrimidine, in particular an oral fluoropyrimidine, resulted in a significant OS benefit for the patients. However, the combination of gemcitabine with other cytotoxic agents, such as platinum compounds or topoisomerase inhibitors failed to reduce the mortality risk. Combination therapy caused more grade 3/4 toxicities, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine-based doublet regimens demonstrated superiority over gemcitabine monotherapy in overall efficacy, but were associated with increased toxicity. Different gemcitabine-based combinations showed different antitumor activity, and doublet regimens of gemcitabine in combination with a taxoid or a fluoropyrimidine, in particular an oral fluoropyrimidine provided significant survival benefits in the first-line treatment of unresectable LA/MPC.

Combined gemcitabine and S-1 chemotherapy for treating unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a randomized open-label clinical trial

Although the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine (GEM) is considered the standard first-line chemotherapy against unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC), its efficacy is discouraging. The present randomized open-label clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the GEM plus S-1 (GEM-S-1) combination against unresectable HC. Twenty-five patients per group were randomly assigned to receive GEM, S-1 or GEM-S-1. Neutropenia (56%) and leukopenia (40%) were the most common chemotherapy-related toxicities in the GEM-S-1 group. Median overall survival (OS) in the GEM-S-1, GEM and S-1 groups was 11, 10 and 6 months, respectively. GEM plus S-1 significantly improved OS compared to S-1 monotherapy (OR=0.68; 95%CI, 0.50–0.90; P=0.008). Median progression-free survival (PFS) times in the GEM-S-1, GEM and S-1 groups were 4.90, 3.70 and 1.60 months, respectively. GEM plus S-1 significantly improved PFS compared to S-1 monotherapy (OR=0.50; 95%CI, 0.27–0.91; P=0.024). Response rates were 36%, 24% and 8% in the GEM-S-1, GEM and S-1 groups, respectively. A statistically significant difference was found in response rates between the gemcitabine-S-1 and S-1 groups (36% vs 8%, P=0.017). Patients with CA19-9<466 U/ml were more responsive to chemotherapeutic agents than those with CA19-9≥571 U/ml (88.9% vs 0%, P<0.001). We conclude that the combination of GEM plus S-1 provides a better OS, PFS and response rate than S-1 monotherapy, but it did not significantly differ from GEM monotherapy. (ChiCTR-TRC-14004733).

Efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens in treatment of advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: A network meta-analysis

We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the short- and long-term efficacy of Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1 (tegafur), Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin + irinotecan + fluorouracil + leucovorin), Gemcitabine + oxaliplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + pemetrexed, Gemcitabine + 5-FU, and S-1 in treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). The odds radios (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were evaluated by a combination of direct evidence and indirect evidence. In total twenty studies were included in this paper. For short-term efficacy, the overall response rate (ORR) was lower for patients treated with Gemcitabine compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan and S-1. The ORR for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine and Gemcitabine + Cisplatin. The disease control rate (DCR) for Gemcitabine was lower compared with Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, and FOLFIRINOX. For long-term efficacy, the 12-month overall survival (OS) rate for FOLFIRINOX was higher compared with Gemcitabine, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Exatecan, and Gemcitabine + pemetrexed. The SUCRA revealed that FOLFIRINOX was relatively better in both short- and long-term efficacy, while Gemcitabine was relatively poorer. In both short- and long-term efficacy, FOLFIRINOX had the best short- and long-term efficacy among the 12 chemotherapy regimens while efficacy of Gemcitabine was relatively poorer in the treatment of advanced or metastatic PC.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Different Chemotherapy Regimens in the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objective A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in treating advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from inception to June 2016 were searched. A combination of direct and indirect evidences was referred to for calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD) or the odds ratio (OR) and to establish surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves, so as to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of different chemotherapy regimens in treating advanced or metastatic PC. Twenty randomized controlled trials were enrolled. Twelve chemotherapy regimens included Gemcitabine, S-1 (Tegafur), Gemcitabine + Cisplatin, Gemcitabine + Capecitabine, Gemcitabine + S-1, Gemcitabine + 5-FU (5-fluorouracil), Gemcitabine + Exatecan, Gemcitabine + Irinotecan, Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX (Oxaliplatin + Irinotecan + Fluorouracil + Leucovorin), Gemcitabine + Oxaliplatin, and Gemcitabine + Pemetrexed. Higher overall response rate (ORR) was observed in patients treated with the gemcitabine + S-1 and FOLFIRINO regimens. Thrombocytopenia reduced in patients treated with the S-1 regimen. The Gemcitabine + S-1 and FOLFIRINO regimens had better short- and long-term efficacies than the other regimens; S-1 regimen had the lowest hematologic toxicity, while Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel, FOLFIRINOX, and Gemcitabine + Pemetrexed regimens had higher incidence of non-hematologic toxicity among twelve chemotherapy regimens. The efficacy of Gemcitabine + S-1 and FOLFIRINOX regimens may be better in treating patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, while FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine + Pemetrexed regimens may have relatively higher incidence of toxicity than other regimens. J. Cell. Biochem. 119: 511-523, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Phase II study of induction gemcitabine and S-1 followed by chemoradiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy using S-1 for locally advanced pancreatic cancer

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.

Gemcitabine-based combination therapy compared with gemcitabine alone for advanced pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive malignancies and chemotherapy is an effective strategy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine (GEM) is one of first-line agents. However, GEM-based combination therapy has shown promising efficacy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of GEM-based combination therapy versus GEM alone in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search of literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed based on the inclusion criteria from all eligible randomized controlled trials. The outcome indicators included overall survival (OS), 6-month survival, 1-year survival, progression-free survival/time-to-progression (PFS/TTP), and toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of nine randomized controlled trials involving 1661 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was significant improvement in the GEM-based combination therapy with regard to the OS (HR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P=0.003), PFS (HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90, P=0.002), 6-month survival (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.17, P=0.03), and the overall toxicity (RR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.52-1.86, P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the 1-year survival.

CONCLUSIONS

GEM-based combination chemotherapy might improve the OS, 6-month survival, and PFS in advanced pancreatic cancer. However, combined therapy also added toxicity.

Peritoneal metastasis from pancreatic cancer treated with pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Patients with peritoneal metastasis (PM) from pancreatic cancer have a short life expectancy. Systemic combination chemotherapy leads to a median overall survival of 7-8 months. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a treatment alternative, where studies in patients with PM from ovarian, gastric and colorectal cancer show a high safety profile and interesting results. This case study report data on the PIPAC treatment in patients with PM from pancreatic cancer. In a standard laparoscopy, chemotherapeutics (cisplatin and doxorubicin) are nebulized within the peritoneal cavity. After 30 min, the chemotherapeutics are evacuated through a closed system. The PIPAC procedure is repeated every 4-6 weeks. Five patients with PM from pancreatic cancer were treated with a total of 16 PIPAC procedures. All patients received >1 PIPAC and were eligible for evaluation of histological regression. Four patients demonstrated histological regression, and one patient had stable disease. Three patients are still alive, and the median overall survival is 14 months (range 10-20) since the diagnosis of PM. The histological regression and survival figures in this pilot study suggest activity of PIPAC with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin in pretreated peritoneal metastasis of pancreatic origin. This should now be evaluated in prospective studies.

Systematic Review and Case Series Report of Acinar Cell Carcinoma of the Pancreas

BACKGROUND

Acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas is a rare malignancy representing less than 1% of all pancreatic malignancies.

METHODS

We report on a case series of 21 patients with acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas treated at a high-volume quaternary center. A systematic review of the medical literature was performed that described typical therapeutic management approaches for acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas and reported on disease control and survival rates. Data for the case series were obtained from a prospective database.

RESULTS

In our systematic review of 6 articles, study patients had a median age of 61 years, 66% were male, 52% had stage I/II disease, and 55% of lesions were located in the pancreatic head. The rates of median survival were approximately 47 months after resection with adjuvant therapy, 38 months for nonmetastatic, locally unresectable disease, and 17 months for metastatic disease treated with chemotherapy. Combination fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens had better rates of disease control than other therapies. Our case series included 21 study patients, 14 of whom required resection and 7 who had metastatic disease. The rates of median survival were 40.2 ± 31.9 months in those who underwent surgery and were treated with adjuvant therapy and 13.8 ± 11.3 months for patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary treatment for acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas should be considered due to the rarity of the disease and its lack of high-level therapeutic data. Progress in the molecular analysis of this tumor may improve outcomes through the use of personalized therapy based on underlying tumor mutations.

Positive relationship between subsequent chemotherapy and overall survival in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of postprogression survival for first-line chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To gain a better understanding of the impact of postprogression survival (PPS) and post-trial anticancer therapy on overall survival (OS) in first-line pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search identified 54 randomized trials, focusing on gemcitabine monotherapy to eliminate effects of heterogeneity of first-line regimens. We evaluated the relation between OS and either progression-free survival (PFS) or PPS. We also examined whether any association might be affected by the year of completion of trial enrollment.

RESULTS

For all 54 trials, PPS was strongly associated with OS (r = 0.844), whereas PFS was moderately associated with OS (r = 0.623). Average OS and PPS were significantly longer in recent trials than in older trials, (7.29 versus 6.15 months, p < 0.001) and (3.64 versus 2.86 months, p < 0.001), respectively. The correlation between OS and PPS in recent trials was much stronger than that in older trials (r = 0.846 versus 0.729). The relation between OS and PFS in recent and older trials did not differ (r = 0.595 versus 0.563). The percentage of patients with post-trial treatment was significantly higher in recent trials than in older trials (52.7 versus 39.7%, p < 0.001). The rate of post-trial anticancer therapy was significantly associated with OS (r = 0.910).

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase in median PPS in accordance with an increase in median OS in recent trials compared with older trials and that rate of post-trial anticancer therapy was strongly associated with median OS. It is important that researchers be aware of these findings in designing clinical trials of first-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer patients.

Analysis of Response-Related and Time-to-event Endpoints in Randomized Trials of Gemcitabine-Based Treatment Versus Gemcitabine Alone as First-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine-based combinations in advanced pancreatic cancer have been reported to have superior activity compared with gemcitabine alone. The results of the commonly used endpoints of clinical trials after chemotherapy or targeted therapy have been poorly reported.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a search of randomized trials of systemic treatment that included gemcitabine plus chemotherapy or targeted therapy versus gemcitabine alone. For selected trials, the differences between the treatment arms for every endpoint were calculated, and a correlation analysis between these differences and the differences in overall survival was performed for every intermediate endpoint. Whenever a correlation coefficient was significant, regression analysis was performed. Finally, an analysis was performed to evaluate the factors that could mediate and moderate the effect of progression-free survival on overall survival.

RESULTS

In addition to overall survival, progression-free survival, the overall response rate, and the disease control rate were the most frequently reported endpoints. Of the possible surrogate endpoints of overall survival, progression-free survival appears to be a reliable endpoint to assess chemotherapy (R(2) = 0.646) and chemotherapy plus targeted therapy (R(2) = 0.530) regimens and the disease control rate to assess chemotherapy (R(2) = 0.569). Of the factors that could limit the effect of progression-free survival on overall survival, the interval of radiologic evaluation could play a role.

CONCLUSION

In the selected trials, progression-free survival and the disease control rate were the most reliable surrogate endpoints of overall survival. Similar to the time-to-event endpoints, a standardization of response-related endpoints is strongly recommended.

Gemcitabine plus S-1: a hopeful frontline treatment for Asian patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is widely used for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer which contains locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. We performed meta-analysis to examine whether gemcitabine plus S-1 could improve treatment efficacy as first-line chemotherapy for those patients when compared with gemcitabine alone.

METHODS

STATA was used to estimate the summary hazard ratios or odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity among trials was examined by Cochran's χ(2) test. Publication bias was evaluated by Begg's and Egger's tests. Subgroup analysis based on the extent of disease was performed.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials including 878 Asian patients were analyzed. In total meta-analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1 significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.015), progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.74; P < 0.001), overall response rate (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 2.04-4.41; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.32 to 2.39; P < 0.001), and was associated with more but manageable hematologic (leukocytopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematologic (diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, rash) adverse events. In subgroup analysis, gemcitabine plus S-1, comparing with gemcitabine, significantly improved overall survival in locally advanced patients (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.99; P = 0.022) but not in metastatic patients (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.23; P = 0.256).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed the survival benefits of gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer at least in Asia, while good Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status was warranted. Importantly, we highlighted the significant overall survival benefit of gemcitabine plus S-1 in locally advanced patients but not in metastatic patients.

S-1-based regimens and the risk of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal injury: a meta-analysis with comparison to other fluoropyrimidines

BACKGROUND

We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal injury associated with S-1-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized phase II and III trials of patients with solid tumors on S-1; describing events of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea constituted the eligible studies.

RESULTS

After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 26 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 4.39 [95% CI: 1.05, 18.37; p = 0.04] and 5.64 [95% CI: 1.46, 21.77; p = 0.01], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis for S-1 vs. infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) control was -1.01 [95% CI: 0.22, 4.63; p = 0.99] and 0.32 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.49; p < 0.00001], respectively. The OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. non-fluoropyrimidine controls was 2.48 [95% CI: 2.12, 2.90; p < 0.00001] and 1.95 [95% CI: 1.29, 2.96; p = 0.002], respectively; while the OR of all-grade and high-grade diarrhea for S-1 vs. infusional 5-FU control was -1.03 [95% CI: 0.87, 1.22; p = 0.76] and 2.52 [95% CI: 1.80, 3.52; p < 0.00001], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-fluoropyrimidine control, patients treated with S-1-based regimens have an increased risk of all-grade and high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea; while on the other hand, patients treated with infusional 5-FU have a greater risk of high-grade stomatitis and diarrhea compared to patients treated with S-1-based regimens.

Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine and S-1 Combination Therapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Several reports suggest that gemcitabine (GEM) plus S-1 combination (GS) is associated to prolong the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC). We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of GS versus GEM.Summary data from randomized trials and retrospective studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses based on the chemotherapy cycles were performed to explore the efficacy and toxicity for therapy. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing specific studies to assess the effects of study quality.Between January 2004 and August 2012, 4 RCTs and 2 retrospective studies including a total of 1025 cases were identified. The overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77; P < 0.001) for the GS arm were significantly longer than the GEM arm. The differences in objective response rate (ORR) (RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33; P < 0.001) and disease control rate (DCR) were also better in the GS arm (RR: 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Grades 3 to 4 toxicities in both the groups were similar except neutropenia and diarrhea, which were more frequent in the GS arm (P < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the cycle for chemotherapy every 4 weeks has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity than regimens every 3 weeks in the GS arm.The current meta-analysis suggested that GEM significantly prolonged OS and PFS when added to S-1 combination in patients with unresectable PC. GS therapy also offers better ORR and DCR than GEM monotherapy and no unexpected toxicity was evident.

The addition of S-1 to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy improves survival with increased toxicity for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: combined meta-analysis of efficacy and safety profile

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficiency and safety profile of the addition of S-1 to gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC).

METHODS

Computerized search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials of S-1 plus GEM versus GEM monotherapy in APC patients. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicities.

RESULTS

Five studies with 917 patients were included. Overall, there was a significant difference between the two regimens in terms of OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.72-0.96, P=0.01), PFS (HR=0.64, 95%CI=0.56-0.74, P<0.0001), and overall response rate (ORR; RR=2.36, 95%CI=1.73-3.22, P<0.00001). Occurrence of grade 3/4 hematological toxicities (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) and non-hematological toxicities (diarrhea, nausea/vomit, rush, stomatitis/mucositis) were significantly higher with GEM/S-1 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated a significant survival benefit with increased toxicity when S-1 was combined with GEM. GEM/S-1 might be an option of first-line chemotherapy for APC patients, at least in Asia.

Gemcitabine and S-1 combination chemotherapy versus gemcitabine alone for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in Asia

INTRODUCTION

After decades of research, pancreatic cancer is still a devastating disease. The aim of this article was to assess the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1 (GS) therapy compared with GEM alone therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified by searching databases. Five trials were selected in this article. The indicators we used were overall response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate and haematological toxicities.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of the pooled data demonstrated that the overall response rate (risk ratio, RR = 2.52, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.85-3.42, P < 0.00001) and disease control rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.12-1.37, P < 0.0001) were significantly different for the GS and GEM alone chemotherapies. Among the group of patients, 43.4% in the GS group and 31.4% in the GEM group survived more than a year. According to this, patients who use the GS regiment may have a better prognosis than the GEM regiment (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.12-2.33, P = 0.04). The combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 group had higher haematological toxicities including neutropaenia (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.17-2.14, P = 0.003) and thrombocytopaenia (RR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.28-2.67, P = 0.001). The incidence of anaemia was much the same in the two groups (RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87-1.70, P = 0.24).

DISCUSSION

Overall response rate and disease control rate as well as 1-year survival rate in patients who received GS were superior to those treated with GEM alone. Combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 may offer greater benefits in the treatment of pancreatic cancer than GEM alone, although the GS group had higher haematological toxicities. Combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 might be an option of first-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer patients, at least in Asia. Mini Abstract: This systematic review analysing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing S-1 combination chemotherapy versus GEM alone for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer demonstrated greater efficacy for S-1 combination in term of response, disease control and 1-year survival proportion.

S-1 in the treatment of pancreatic cancer

S-1 is an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug, which is designed to improve the antitumor activity of 5-FU by inhibiting dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the key enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. Recently, two important studies on the clinical use of S-1 for pancreatic cancer have been reported from Japan. In the first study (GEST study), S-1 demonstrated non-inferiority to gemcitabine (GEM) in overall survival (OS) for metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, but combination chemotherapy with GEM and S-1 did not show superiority to GEM in OS. In the second study (JASPAC-01 study), S-1 showed superiority to adjuvant chemotherapy with GEM in OS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. In addition to GEM, S-1 is now regarded as the key drug in the management of pancreatic cancer in Japan. To date, many studies have investigated the effectiveness of S-1 in various settings, such as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer, second-line chemotherapy after GEM failure, and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced disease. In this review, we focus on recent clinical trials of S-1-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase II clinical trial of S-1 plus oral leucovorin in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

S-1, a novel oral fluoropyrimidine, has potent antitumor activity against non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Meanwhile, leucovorin enhances the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil by inhibiting thymidylate synthase. Therefore, this phase II clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of S-1 plus leucovorin combination therapy for previously treated patients with NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were prospectively enrolled if they received 1 or 2 prior chemotherapy regimens. S-1 (40-60 mg) and leucovorin (25mg) were administered together orally twice per day for 7 consecutive days followed by 7 days of rest. This 2-week cycle was repeated for a maximum of 25 cycles until the onset of disease progression or unacceptable adverse events. Endpoints included objective tumor response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.

RESULTS

Among 33 patients, 6 (18.2%), 14 (42.4%), and 11 (33.3%) had partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 3.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. The common grade 3 toxicities included stomatitis (18.2%), anorexia (12.1%), and neutropenia (9.1%). One patient had pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis, and another experienced paralytic ileus. There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1 plus leucovorin combination therapy demonstrated promising efficacy and an acceptable toxicity profile in previously treated patients with NSCLC.

Knockdown of glucose-regulated protein 78 enhances poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase cleavage in human pancreatic cancer cells exposed to endoplasmic reticulum stress

The present study examined the expression of glucose‑regulated protein 78 (GRP78/Bip) in human pancreatic cancer cell lines and the effect of knockdown of GRP78 on the cleavage of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP). Human pancreatic cancer cell lines (KP-2, MIAPaCa-2, Panc-1 and SUIT-2), constitutively expressed GRP78. We also demonstrated that ER stress induced by thapsigargin upregulated protein levels of GRP78. In the presence of thapsigargin, knockdown of GRP78 enhanced the PARP cleavage in the human pancreatic cancer cells. These results provide evidence that GRP78 is a potential therapeutic target for 'difficult-to-treat' pancreatic cancer, in which ER stress signaling in part falls into disorder.