Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs. FOLFIRINOX for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Dendrimers as drug delivery systems for oncotherapy: Current status of promising applications

Cancer affects millions of people worldwide, causing death and serious health problems. Despite significant investment in the development of new anticancer compounds, there are still several limitations that can still be found. Many compounds exhibit high levels of toxicity and low bioavailability. Therefore, it is urgent to design safer, more effective, and particularly more selective compounds for oncological treatment. Dendrimers are polymeric structures that have been shown to be potential drug nanocarriers to overcome physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and indirect pharmacodynamic issues. Due to their versatility, they can be used in the design of nanovaccines, lipophilic complexes, amphiphilic complexes, smart nanocomplexes, and others. This work targets the use of dendrimers in oncological treatment and their importance and effectiveness as drug delivery systems for the development of new therapies. For this review, only publications from the last two years are considered in this review.

Efficacy of nab‑paclitaxel vs. Gemcitabine in combination with S‑1 for advanced pancreatic cancer: A multicenter phase II randomized trial

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) need a cost-effective treatment regimen. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus S-1 (AS) and gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) regimens in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC. In this open-label, multicenter, randomized study named AvGmPC, eligible patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced PC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive AS (125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14) or GS (1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, days 1 and 8; 80-120 mg S-1, days 1-14). The treatment was administered every 3 weeks until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occurred. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Between December 2018 and March 2022, 101 of 106 randomized patients were treated and evaluated for analysis (AS, n=49; GS, n=52). As of the data cutoff, the median follow-up time was 11.37 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.31-13.24]. The median PFS was 7.16 months (95% CI, 5.19-12.32) for patients treated with AS and 6.41 months (95% CI, 3.72-8.84) for patients treated with GS (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.21; P=0.264). The AS regimen showed a slightly improved overall survival (OS; 13.27 vs. 10.64 months) and a significantly improved ORR (44.90 vs. 15.38%; P=0.001) compared with the GS regimen. In the subgroup analyses, PFS and OS benefits were observed in patients treated with the AS regimen who had KRAS gene mutations and high C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (≥5 mg/l). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia, anemia and alopecia in the two groups. Thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently in the GS group than in the AS group. While the study did not meet the primary endpoint, the response benefit observed for AS may be suggestive of meaningful clinical activity in this population. In particular, promising survival benefits were observed in the subsets of patients with KRAS gene mutations and high CRP levels, which is encouraging and warrants further investigation. This trial was retrospectively registered as ChiCTR1900024588 on July 18, 2019.

Cellular Components Contributing to the Development of Venous Thrombosis in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive type of cancer and has a poor prognosis. Patients with PDAC are at high risk of developing thromboembolic events, which is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality following cancer progression. Plasma-derived coagulation is the most studied process in cancer-associated thrombosis. Other blood components, such as platelets, red blood cells, and white blood cells, have been gaining less attention. This narrative review addresses the literature on the role of cellular components in the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with PDAC. Blood cells seem to play an important role in the development of VTE. Altered blood cell counts, i.e., leukocytosis, thrombocytosis, and anemia, have been found to associate with VTE risk. Tumor-related activation of leukocytes leads to the release of tissue factor-expressing microvesicles and the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps, initiating coagulation and forming a scaffold for thrombi. Tissue factor-expressing microvesicles are also thought to be released by PDAC cells. PDAC cells have been shown to stimulate platelet activation and aggregation, proposedly via the secretion of podoplanin and mucins. Hypofibrinolysis, partially explained by increased plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 activity, is observed in PDAC. In short, PDAC-associated hypercoagulability is a complex and multifactorial process. A better understanding of cellular contributions to hypercoagulability might lead to the improvement of diagnostic tests to identify PDAC patients at highest risk of VTE.

Altered whole blood thrombin generation and hyperresponsive platelets in patients with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolic disease is a major complication in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Patients with PDAC often have altered blood cell counts, which are associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) development. The high thrombotic risk in patients with PDAC may be partially caused by procoagulant blood cells.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare blood cell-dependent coagulation between patients with PDAC (n = 18) and healthy controls matched for age and sex (n = 18).

METHODS

Thrombin generation (TG) was measured in whole blood (WB) and plasma. The capacity of platelets to release granules (PGRCs) was measured in WB. We explored the occurrence of thromboembolic events in patients with PDAC during a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients showed an increased endogenous thrombin potential in WB compared with controls. This difference was not observed in plasma, indicating a procoagulant effect of blood cells. Both in WB and plasma, the lag time was prolonged in patients compared with controls. Patients had hyperresponsive platelets, with a shorter time to peak granule release. Of the 18 patients with PDAC, 4 developed a venous thromboembolism (22%) and 1 developed an arterial thrombosis (6%). A shorter lag time in WB, but not in plasma, and an increased PGRC were associated with thromboembolic events.

CONCLUSION

Patients with PDAC have an increased and delayed WB TG coagulation profile compared with controls. A shorter lag time in WB TG and increased PGRC are associated with the incidence of thromboembolic events. Platelets appear to be key players in thrombosis development. Measuring hemostasis in WB could improve thrombosis risk estimation in patients with PDAC.

Venous Thromboembolism and Primary Thromboprophylaxis in Perioperative Pancreatic Cancer Care

Recent studies have shown that patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery have an improved outcome compared to patients treated with upfront surgery. Hence, patients with PDAC are more and more frequently treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting. PDAC patients are at a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is associated with decreased survival rates. As patients with PDAC were historically offered immediate surgical resection, data on VTE incidence and associated preoperative risk factors are scarce. Current guidelines recommend primary prophylactic anticoagulation in selected groups of patients with advanced PDAC. However, recommendations for patients with (borderline) resectable PDAC treated with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting are lacking. Nevertheless, the prevention of complications is crucial to maintain the best possible condition for surgery. This narrative review summarizes current literature on VTE incidence, associated risk factors, risk assessment tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis in PDAC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.

The efficacy and safety of Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus mFOLFIRINOX in the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) and modified FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are two systemic therapies that have been widely used as standard first-line chemotherapy regimens in metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, since there is no clinical trial to directly compare the efficacy and safety of the two regimens, it is not clear which regimen is more effective. In this study, we aim to examine and compare the efficacy and safety of AG and FFX as first-line chemotherapy regimens in Chinese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 44 patients who were diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer and were treated with either AG (n = 24) or FFX (n = 20) as first-line chemotherapy between March 2017 and February 2022 at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. Prognostic nutrition index (PNI) was calculated based on the serum albumin level and peripheral lymphocyte count. According to the optimal cutoff value of PNI, patients were divided into low PNI group (PNI < 43.70) and high PNI group (PNI ≥ 43.70).

RESULTS

Of 44 patients in this study, 24 were treated with AG, and 20 were treated with FFX as first-line chemotherapy. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the two groups. The objective response rate (ORR) was 16.7% in the AG group and 20.0% in the FFX group. The disease control rate (DCR) was 70.8% in the AG group and 60.0% in the FFX group. There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between the AG group and the FFX group. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.67 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.91-6.42) in the AG group and 3.33 months (95% CI, 1.87-4.79, p = 0.106) in the FFX group. The median overall survival (OS) was 9.00 months (95% CI, 7.86-12.19) in the AG group and 10.00 months (95% CI, 7.70-12.27, p = 0.608) in the FFX group. The second-line treatment rate was 62.5% in the AG group and 55.0% in the FFX group. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) based regimens are common second-line treatment options whether in AG or FFX group. Significantly more grade 3-4 peripheral neuropathy occurred in the AG than FFX groups (4 (20.8%) vs 0 (0.0%), p = 0.030*). The patients in the PNI (Prognostic nutrition index) ≥ 43.7 group had a significant longer median OS (PNI ≥ 43.7 vs PNI < 43.7: 10.33 vs 8.00 months, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

AG and FFX showed comparable efficacy outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy with good nutritional status are likely to have a better prognosis.

Towards an updated view on the clinical management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Current and future perspectives

Pancreatic cancer has a dire prognosis and will represent the second leading cause of cancer death in the next 10 years. The multifactorial approach represents one of the main issues in controlling the extension of this neoplasm. In recent years, the characteristics of the tumor microenvironment, metastasis mechanisms and the relationship between immune system and neoplastic cells have been described, which has made it possible to understand the pathophysiology of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Currently, there is a failure to provide an effective preventive method or early detection, so patients present with an advanced stage at the time of diagnosis. Despite numerous efforts, little progress has been made in clinical outcome and in improving survival in long term. Therefore, in the recent years, diverse diagnostic tests, treatments and possible approaches have been developed in the fields of radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery to find a combination of them that improves life expectancy in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. At the moment, numerous clinical trials are being conducted to evaluate preventive diagnostic procedures such as serological markers or perfecting available imaging tests. On the other hand, implementation of immunotherapy is being studied in a neoplasm that has lagged in the application of this procedure since present possible treatments do not substantially improve quality of life. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to summarize the main progresses that have been made in the diagnosis, treatment and screening of this disease, explaining the limitations that have been observed and analyzing future prospects in the management of this illness.

Pharmacoethnicity of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Treatment outcomes between FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and GNP (gemcitabine with albumin-bound paclitaxel) as first-line chemotherapy regimens for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) were assessed according to ethnic groups categorized as Western or Asian subgroups. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched. Thirteen studies were eligible in this meta-analysis. Overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83–1.20, P = 0.990). However, the Western subgroup showed a higher survival benefit for FOLFIRINOX over GNP (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, P = 0.006) whereas the Asian subgroup showed the survival benefit for GNP over FOLFIRINOX (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03–1.60, P = 0.030). Progression free survival was not significantly different between the two regimens in the Western subgroup (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84–1.20, P = 0.950) and the Asian subgroup (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97–1.33, P = 0.110). Occurrence of febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in FOLFIRINOX at both ethnic subgroups; however, that of peripheral neuropathy was significantly higher only in GNP of the Asian subgroup. Therefore, pharmacoethnicity might be a factor worth considering when deciding on a frontline chemotherapeutic regimen although the overall survival was not significantly different between FOLFIRINOX and GNP for metastatic PCs.

Meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison of modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Modified FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) have been recommended as first-line therapies for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Due to the lack of evidence to directly compare them, we conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the effectiveness and toxicity of modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.

METHODS

The eligible retrospective studies on treatments related to modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB up to 4 April 2020 were searched and assessed. We used the frequentist model to analyze the survival and toxicity data between different treatments. Pooled analysis for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and events of toxicity were analyzed in this study.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were involved in this network meta-analysis. The comparisons on OS and PFS showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB had similar treatment efficacy (OS: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.78-1.63; PFS: HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.85-1.67). GEM-NAB was more effective than modified FOLFIRINOX based on the result of ORR (RR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.04-1.96). Moreover, our analysis showed a similar toxicity profile between modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence showed that modified FOLFIRINOX and GEM-NAB were similar in survival and toxicity. Many factors should be considered for in the formulation of optimal treatment, and our meta-analysis could provide some guidance to treatment selection in the first-line setting for advanced PC.

SOURCE-PANC: A Prediction Model for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Based on Nationwide Population-Based Data

BACKGROUND

A prediction model for overall survival (OS) in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) including patient and treatment characteristics is currently not available, but it could be valuable for supporting clinicians in patient communication about expectations and prognosis. We aimed to develop a prediction model for OS in metastatic PDAC, called SOURCE-PANC, based on nationwide population-based data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with synchronous metastatic PDAC in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to predict OS for various treatment strategies. Available patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were used to compose the model. Treatment strategies were categorized as systemic treatment (subdivided into FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy), biliary drainage, and best supportive care only. Validation was performed according to a temporal internal-external cross-validation scheme. The predictive quality was assessed with the C-index and calibration.

RESULTS

Data for 4,739 patients were included in the model. Sixteen predictors were included: age, sex, performance status, laboratory values (albumin, bilirubin, CA19-9, lactate dehydrogenase), clinical tumor and nodal stage, tumor sublocation, presence of distant lymph node metastases, liver or peritoneal metastases, number of metastatic sites, and treatment strategy. The model demonstrated a C-index of 0.72 in the internal-external cross-validation and showed good calibration, with the intercept and slope 95% confidence intervals including the ideal values of 0 and 1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A population-based prediction model for OS was developed for patients with metastatic PDAC and showed good performance. The predictors that were included in the model comprised both baseline patient and tumor characteristics and type of treatment. SOURCE-PANC will be incorporated in an electronic decision support tool to support shared decision-making in clinical practice.

The role of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

The prognosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is extremely poor, and most patients with metastatic PC still receive palliative care. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil) in the treatment of metastatic PC.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases for articles that described efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic PC, from January 1996 to July 2020. The primary outcomes targeted included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

We found that FOLFIRINOX could directly improve OS rate of patients with metastatic PC (HR 0.76, 95% Cl 0.67–0.86, p<0.001) but had no benefit on PFS. Results from subgroup analyses showed that FOLFIRINOX had superior benefits than monochemotherapy (HR 0.59, 95% Cl 0.52–0.67, p<0.001), followed by FOLFIRINOX versus combination chemotherapy (HR 0.76, 95% Cl 0.61–0.95, p<0.001). The result of FOLFIRINOX versus nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine had no benefit (HR 0.91, 95% Cl 0.82–1.02, p>0.05). The main adverse events (AEs) targeted hematological toxicity and the gastrointestinal system, and included febrile neutropenia, a reduction in white blood cells and appetite, as well as diarrhea.

Conclusion

These findings indicated that FOLFIRINOX has potential benefits for the prognosis of patients with metastatic PC. Furthermore, there is no difference between the regimen of FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in this study. The application of FOLFIRINOX should be according to the actual situation of the patients and the experience of the doctors.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02291-6.

Gemcitabine/Nab-Paclitaxel versus FOLFIRINOX in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A European Multicenter Study

Simple Summary

Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are two standard first-line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) but have rarely been compared, especially in patients with locally advanced PC (LAPC). By carefully selecting patients, it is likely these two regimens lead to similar survival outcomes. Through a multicenter European study, biases regarding practice habits are reduced. Hence, we observed no difference between GN and FFX as first-line treatments in patients with LAPC in terms of either survival, tumor response or tumor resection rate. Further trials are needed to confirm these data.

Abstract

Background: Gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are two standard first-line therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC) but have rarely been compared, especially in patients with locally advanced PC (LAPC). Methods: This is a retrospective European multicenter study including patients with LAPC treated with either GN or FFX as the first-line therapy between 2010 and 2019. Coprimary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 147 patients (GN: n = 60; FFX: n = 87) were included. Tumor resection rates were similar between the two groups (16.7% vs. 16.1%; p = 1), with similar R0 resection rates (88.9%). Median PFS rates were not statistically different: 9 months (95% CI: 8–13.5) vs. 12.1 months (95% CI: 10.1–14.6; p = 0.8), respectively. Median OS rates were 15.7 months (95% CI: 12.6–20.2) and 16.7 months (95% CI: 14.8–20.4; p = 0.7), respectively. Abdominal pain at the baseline (HR = 2.03, p = 0.03), tumors located in the tail of the pancreas (HR = 4.35, p = 0.01), CA19-9 > 200 UI/L (HR = 2.03, p = 0.004) and tumor resection (HR = 0.37, p = 0.007) were independent prognostic factors for PFS, similarly to OS. CA19-9 ≤ 200 UI/L (OR = 2.6, p = 0.047) was predictive of the tumor response. Consolidation chemoradiotherapy, more often used in the FFX group (11.7% vs. 50.6%; p < 0.001), was not predictive. Conclusion: This retrospective study did not show any difference between GN and FFX as the first-line treatment in patients with LAPC.

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 multicenter propensity score analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel administered to patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the NAPOLEON study

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

The efficacies of FFX and GnP were comparable, although safety profiles differed and should be considered in selecting treatment.

A retrospective comparative study of S-IROX and modified FOLFIRINOX for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of S-IROX and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) in the real world setting.

METHODS

Consecutive patients receiving S-IROX or mFFX as a second-line chemotherapy for advanced PC refractory to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel were retrospectively studied. Patients were treated every 2 weeks: S-1 40 mg/m² was administered orally twice daily on days 1 to 7 in S-IROX and 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² was intravenously administered for 46 h without bolus infusion in mFFX, in addition to intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² and irinotecan 150 mg/m² on day 1 in both regimens.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients with advanced PC who received S-IROX (n = 19) or mFFX (n = 35) were retrospectively studied. The disease control rate and response rate were 73.7% and 10.5% in the S-IROX group and 62.2% and 2.7% in the mFFX group, respectively. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.8 and 5.7 months in the S-IROX and mFFX groups (p = 0.24). The median overall survival (OS) was 14.2 and 11.5 months in the S-IROX and mFFX groups (p = 0.34). There were no significant differences in the incidences of grade 3-4 adverse effects. The subgroup analyses suggested S-IROX demonstrated favorable OS in patients with PFS ≥6 months of first-line gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (p for interaction = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

S-IROX and mFFX were similarly tolerable and effective as a second-line chemotherapy in patients with PC refractory to gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

Comparison of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GA) and modified FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have been widely used as standard first-line treatment in pancreatic cancer. However, it is unclear which regimen is more efficacious.

AIM

To evaluate a retrospective analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of FFX and GA as first-line chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed and compared outcomes in 101 patients who presented with pancreatic cancer and were treated with either GA (n = 54) or FFX (n = 47). Moreover, we performed subgroup analysis based on the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between two groups in baseline characteristics, except for the ECOG performance status. The median progression-free survival (PFS) (6.43 mo vs 4.90 mo, P = 0.058) was comparable between two groups; however, median overall survival (OS) (10.17 mo vs 6.93 mo, P = 0.008) was longer in patients who received GA regimen. In patients with ECOG 0 (PFS: 8.93 mo vs 5.43 mo, P = 0.002; OS: 16.10 mo vs 6.97 mo, P = 0.000) and those with NLR < 3 (PFS: 8.10 mo vs 6.57 mo, P = 0.008; OS: 12.87 mo vs 9.93 mo, P = 0.002), GA regimen showed higher efficacy.

CONCLUSION

GA regimen may be recommended to the patients with NLR < 3 or ECOG 0 status although GA and FFX showed comparable efficacy outcomes in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of FOLFIRINOX and Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel for Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Using Korean Pancreatic Cancer (K-PaC) Registry

OBJECTIVE

By using the Korean Pancreatic Cancer (K-PaC) registry, we compared the clinical outcomes of FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GNP) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC).

METHODS

We constructed a web-based database of 3748 anonymized patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. MPC patients who received first-line FFX or GNP were enrolled. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, grade III to IV toxicity, and cross-over treatment were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 413 patients (232 vs. 181, FFX vs. GNP; all data are presented in this sequence) were eligible. Median age was 63 years (60 vs. 69 y) with 43% (39% vs. 47%) comprising female individuals. The major metastatic sites were the liver (64%), peritoneum (25%), and distant lymph nodes (18%). The median OS was 11.5 versus 12.7 months (hazard ratio [HR]=0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-1.12, P=0.286), and median progression-free survival was 7.5 versus 8.1 months (HR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.70-1.20, P=0.517), respectively. The frequency of grade III to IV febrile neutropenia was higher in the FFX group (18% vs. 11%, P=0.040), and that of peripheral neuropathy was higher in the GNP group (8% vs. 14%, P=0.046). The chance to receive second-line chemotherapy was higher in the GNP group (45% vs. 56%, P=0.036). In the cross-over treatment, the median OS of the FFX-GNP group (n=43) and the GNP-FFX group (n=47) was 16.8 versus 17.7 months (HR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.44-1.41, P=0.425).

CONCLUSIONS

FFX and GNP showed similar efficacy and comparable toxicity in MPC patients. Although the GNP group had a higher chance to receive second-line chemotherapy, they did not have improved overall survival.

Efficacy of S-1 in second-line chemotherapy after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Second-line (2 L) chemotherapy is important for improved survival. However, the efficacy of S-1 after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (AG) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) remains unclear.

AIM

We retrospectively investigated the clinical impact of S-1 after AG.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2015 to July 2018, 37 patients with APC underwent AG as first-line chemotherapy at our institute. Of these patients, 14 (38%) underwent S-1 as 2 L chemotherapy after AG (S-1 group), five (14%) received another agent after AG, and 18 (49%) underwent no 2 L chemotherapy (best supportive care [BSC] group). The clinical features were retrospectively compared between the S-1 and BSC groups. Prognostic factors for residual survival (RS) were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. The induction rate of 2 L chemotherapy was 51%, and most patients received S-1 monotherapy (74%). The disease control rate and progression-free survival duration were 57.1% and 2.8 months, respectively. The median RS duration in the S-1 and BSC groups was 5.2 and 2.4 months, respectively; this difference was statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.33; P = .005). The median overall survival duration in the S-1 and BSC groups was 12.3 and 5.0 months, respectively; this difference was also statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .001). The efficacy of S-1 in 2L chemotherapy for RS was identified in the multivariate analysis, as was age (<65 vs ≥65 y) and the presence of liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

The antitumor activity of S-1 was retained after AG, and the induction of S-1 after AG might improve the prognosis of patients with APC.

Interstitial lung disease in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel combination therapy: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP) combination therapy is a standard regimen for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) worldwide; however, concerns regarding the unexpectedly high incidence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) have emerged. We investigated the incidence and predictive factors of ILD in PDAC patients who were treated with GnP combination therapy.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients treated with GnP therapy as either 1st or 2nd line treatment were included, among whom seven developed ILD (18.9%). The clinical characteristics (age, etc.) were compared between patients with and without ILD. The diagnostic yield of the markers to predict the presence of ILD was calculated. The clinical course of the seven patients with ILD was summarized. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median age was higher in patients with ILD (73.0 vs. 65.0 years old, p = 0.03), while no differences were observed in the other clinical characteristics. Among the three investigated markers, SP-D showed the best diagnostic yield (AUC = 0.94) for diagnosing ILD. Though one patient required steroid therapy and the discontinuation of GnP therapy, all patients could undergo subsequent treatment. In the survival analysis, the median survival time of PDAC patients with ILD was comparable to that of patients without ILD (25.1 vs. 24.5 months, p = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

ILD was observed in 18.9% of PDAC patients treated with GnP therapy. With appropriate management, no prognostic influence was observed.

Real-world outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer: A population-based propensity score-weighted analysis

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been publicly funded for first-line unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) since April 2015. We examined the real-world effectiveness and safety of FFX vs GnP for advanced pancreatic cancer, and in uLAPC and mPC.

METHODS

Patients receiving first-line FFX or GnP from April 2015 to March 2017 were identified in the New Drug Funding Program database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were obtained through the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox proportional hazard models, weighted by the inverse propensity score adjusting for baseline characteristics. Weighted odds ratio (OR) for hospitalization and emergency department visits (EDV) were estimated from weighted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

For 1130 patients (632 FFX, 498 GnP), crude median OS was 9.6 and 6.1 months for FFX and GnP, respectively. Weighted OS was improved for FFX vs GnP (HR = 0.77, 0.70-0.85). Less frequent EDV and hospitalization were observed in FFX (EDV: 67.8%; Hospitalization: 49.2%) than GnP (EDV: 77.7%; Hospitalization: 59.3%). More frequent febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was observed in FFX (5.8%) than GnP (3.3%). Risk of EDV and hospitalization were significantly lower for FFX vs GnP (EDV: OR = 0.68, P = .0001; Hospitalization: OR = 0.76, P = .002), whereas the risk of febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization was significantly higher (OR = 2.12, P = .001). Outcomes for uLAPC and mPC were similar.

CONCLUSION

In the real world, FFX had longer OS, less frequent all-cause EDV and all-cause hospitalization, but more febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization compared to GnP.

Folfirinox versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a comparative propensity score study

BACKGROUND

Folfirinox (FFX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) are both standard first-line treatments in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, data comparing these two chemotherapeutic regimens and their sequential use remain scarce.

METHODS

Data from two independent cohorts enrolling patients treated with FFX (n = 107) or GN (n = 109) were retrospectively pooled. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. A propensity score based on age, gender, performance status (PS), and presence of liver metastases was used to make groups comparable.

RESULTS

In the whole study population, OS was significantly higher in FFX (14 months; 95% CI: 10-21) than in GN groups (9 months; 95% CI: 8-12) before (p = 0.008) and after (p = 0.021) adjusting for age, number of metastatic sites, liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis and CA19.9 level at baseline. PFS tends to be higher in FFX (6 months) than GN groups (5 months; p = 0.053). After matching (n = 49/group), patients were comparable for all baseline characteristics including PS. In the matched population, there was a trend toward greater OS in patients treated with FFX (HR = 0.67; p = 0.097). However, survival in each group was not solely a result of the first-line regimen. The proportion of patients who were fit for GN after FFX failure (FFX-GN sequence) was higher (46.9%) than the reverse sequence (20.4%; p = 0.01), which suggests a higher feasibility for the FFX-GN sequence. Corresponding median OS were 19 months versus 9.5 months, respectively (p = 0.094).

CONCLUSION

This study shows greater OS with FFX than with GN in patients with mPC. GN after FFX failure appears more feasible than the reverse sequence.

Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation make up a small subgroup of those with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has had antitumor activity in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients who had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer and disease that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, to receive maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review.

RESULTS

Of the 3315 patients who underwent screening, 154 underwent randomization and were assigned to a trial intervention (92 to receive olaparib and 62 to receive placebo). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.82; P = 0.004). An interim analysis of overall survival, at a data maturity of 46%, showed no difference between the olaparib and placebo groups (median, 18.9 months vs. 18.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.46; P = 0.68). There was no significant between-group difference in health-related quality of life, as indicated by the overall change from baseline in the global quality-of-life score (on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (between-group difference, -2.47 points; 95% CI, -7.27 to 2.33). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 40% in the olaparib group and 23% in the placebo group (between-group difference, 16 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.02 to 31); 5% and 2% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial intervention because of an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer, progression-free survival was longer with maintenance olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; POLO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02184195.).

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NG) as a first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact on the objective response rate (ORR), survival rate and grade 3/4 adverse events. Of the 2,056 patients included from 26 studies, the median overall survival ranged from 6.9 months to 24.7 months, with a 1-year survival rate of 45.2% (95%CI: 35.8% -54.5%). The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 41.0% (95%CI: 30.5% - 51.4%), and the ORR was 31.6% (95%CI: 26.7% - 36.6%). Fifty locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients underwent surgery and had an R0 resection rate of 52.0%. No death was caused by toxicity, and 1,329 grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 1,353 patients. NG has been proven to reduce tumours with an acceptable toxicity profile in metastatic pancreatic cancer. This analysis further demonstrates the efficacy and safety of NG for treating LAPC.

Tumor-specific delivery of gemcitabine with activatable liposomes

Gemcitabine delivery to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is limited by poor pharmacokinetics, dense fibrosis and hypo-vascularization. Activatable liposomes, with drug release resulting from local heating, enhance serum stability and circulation, and the released drug retains the ability to diffuse within the tumor. A limitation of liposomal gemcitabine has been the low loading efficiency. To address this limitation, we used the superior solubilizing potential of copper (II) gluconate to form a complex with gemcitabine at copper:gemcitabine (1:4). Thermosensitive liposomes composed of DPPC:DSPC:DSPE-PEG2k (80:15:5, mole%) then reached 12 wt% loading, 4-fold greater than previously reported values. Cryo transmission electron microscopy confirmed the presence of a liquid crystalline gemcitabine‑copper mixture. The optimized gemcitabine liposomes released 60% and 80% of the gemcitabine within 1 and 5 min, respectively, at 42 °C. Liposomal encapsulation resulted in a circulation half-life of ~2 h in vivo (compared to reported circulation of 16 min for free gemcitabine in mice), and free drug was not detected within the plasma. The resulting gemcitabine liposomes were efficacious against both murine breast cancer and pancreatic cancer in vitro. Three repeated treatments of activatable gemcitabine liposomes plus ultrasound hyperthermia regressed or eliminated tumors in the neu deletion model of murine breast cancer with limited toxicity, enhancing survival when compared to treatment with gemcitabine alone. With 5% of the free gemcitabine dose (5 rather than 100 mg/kg), tumor growth was suppressed to the same degree as gemcitabine. Additionally, in a more aggressive tumor model of murine pancreatic cancer, liposomal gemcitabine combined with local hyperthermia induced cell death and regions of apoptosis and necrosis.

Targeting the tumor microenvironment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Introduction: The dismally slow improvement in patient survival over the years for pancreatic cancer patients is mainly due to two factors: the late diagnosis, at which point the disease is spread to distant organs; and the fact that tumor cells are surrounded by a dense, highly immunosuppressive microenvironment. The tumor microenvironment not only shields pancreatic cancer cells from chemotherapy but also leaves it unsusceptible to various immunotherapeutic strategies that have been proven successful in other types of cancer. Areas covered: This review highlights the main components of the pancreatic tumor microenvironment, how they cross-talk with each other to generate stroma and promote tumor growth. Additionally, we discuss the most promising treatment targets in the microenvironment whose modulation can be robustly tested in combination with standard of care chemotherapy. Currently, active clinical trials for pancreatic cancer involving components of the microenvironment are also listed. Expert opinion: Although immunotherapeutic approaches involving checkpoint inhibition are being pursued enthusiastically, there is still more work to be done with several other emerging immune targets that could provide therapeutic benefit.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

No clinical trial has directly compared nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P/G) with FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer (mPC or aPC). We conducted a systematic review of real-world studies comparing these regimens in the first-line setting.

METHODS

Embase and MEDLINE databases through 22 January 2019, and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2019 abstracts were searched for real-world, retrospective studies comparing first-line nab-P/G versus FOLFIRINOX in mPC or aPC that met specific parameters. Studies with radiotherapy were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Of 818 records initially identified, 35 were duplicates and 749 did not meet the eligibility criteria, mostly because they were either not comparative (n = 356) or not first line (n = 245). The remaining 34 studies (21 mPC; 13 aPC) assessed >6915 patients who received nab-P/G or FOLFIRINOX. In the studies identified, the median overall survival (OS) reached 14.4 and 15.9 months with nab-P/G and FOLFIRINOX, respectively, and median progression-free survival reached 8.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. Safety data were reported in 14 studies (2205 patients), including 8 single-institutional studies. In most single-institutional studies that reported safety data, rates were higher with FOLFIRINOX versus nab-P/G for grade 3/4 neutropenia (five of six studies) and febrile neutropenia (all three studies), while rates of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy were higher with nab-P/G in four of seven studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although FOLFIRINOX was associated with slightly longer median OS in more studies, the differences, when available, were not statistically significant. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial is warranted. Toxicity profile differences represent key considerations for treatment decisions.

Comparative Effectiveness of Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX in the First-Line Setting of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) and the combination of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) are valid first-line options for advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, no randomized trials comparing the two schemes have been performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX in terms of safety and effectiveness, taking into account data from real-life studies on mPC. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library up to November 2018 to identify retrospective or cohort studies on mPC comparing GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX. We included 16 retrospective studies, including 3813 patients (2123 treated with GEM-NAB and 1690 treated with FOLFIRINOX). Despite a median weighted overall survival (OS) difference in favor of FOLFIRINOX (mean difference: 1.15, 95% confidence interval CI 0.08⁻2.22, p = 0.03), in whole population OS was similar (hazard ratio (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.84⁻1.16; p = 0.9). PFS was also not different between the two arms (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71⁻1.1; p = 0.26). The overall response rate was similar (25 vs. 24% with GEM-NAB and FOLFIRINOX). Among grade 3⁻4 toxicities, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and nausea were lower with GEM-NAB, while neurotoxicity and anemia were lower with FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, despite a numerically longer median OS with FOLFIRINOX as compared to GEM-NAB, the overall risk of death and progression were similar. Their toxicity was different with less nausea, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia with GEM-NAB, as compared to less neurotoxicity and anemia with FOLFIRINOX. Therefore, analysis of non-randomized "real world" studies to date has not provided evidence of a major benefit of one regimen over the other.

The combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel as a novel effective treatment strategy for undifferentiated soft-tissue sarcoma in a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) nude-mouse model

Undifferentiated/unclassified soft-tissue sarcomas (USTS) is recalcitrant neoplasms that is usually treated with doxorubicin (DOX)-containing regimens as first-line therapy. Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) is a nanotechnology-based drug and is widely used in pancreatic cancer in combination with gemcitabine (GEM). The major goal of the present study was to determine the efficacy of nab-PTX in combination with GEM, compared to conventional drugs such as docetaxel (DOC), GEM combined with DOC, or first-line drug DOX on a USTS not-otherwise specified (USTS/NOS) from a striated muscle implanted in the right biceps femoris muscle of nude mice to establish a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) model. USTS PDOX models were randomized into six groups: untreated control; DOX; DOC; nab-PTX; GEM combined with DOC; and GEM combined with nab-PTX. Tumor size and body weight were measured. Tumor growth was inhibited to the greatest extent by GEM combined with nab-PTX. Tumors treated with GEM combined with nab-PTX had the most necrosis. Body weight of the treated mice was not significantly different from the untreated controls. The present study demonstrates the power of the PDOX model to identify a novel effective treatment strategy of the combination of GEM and nab-PTX for recalcitrant soft-tissue sarcomas. These results suggest that combination of GEM and nab-PTX could be a promising therapeutic strategy for USTS.