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

Opioid therapy duration before naldemedine treatment is a significant independent risk of diarrhea: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The most common adverse event (AE) associated with opioid analgesics is opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Naldemedine (NAL) is widely used for the treatment of OIC. However, diarrhea has been reported as the most common treatment-emergent AE of NAL, and little is known about the risk factors associated with the development of diarrhea during NAL administration. This study examined the risk factors for NAL-induced diarrhea via a retrospective chart review of hospitalized patients.

Methods

The data of 101 hospitalized adult patients who received NAL for the first time for the treatment of OIC at Mie University Hospital between June 2017 and December 2018 were extracted from electronic medical records. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 70 of the 101 patients were enrolled in this study. Diarrhea was defined as “diarrhea” on the medical record within 2 weeks of NAL administration. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for the development of diarrhea in patients receiving NAL.

Results

Twenty-two of the 70 patients enrolled (31%) developed diarrhea within 2 weeks of NAL administration. The median duration (range) of NAL treatment before diarrhea onset was 3 (1–12) days. Patients with diarrhea had a significantly longer duration of opioid therapy before NAL administration than patients without diarrhea (P=0.002). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the independent risk factors for the development of NAL-induced diarrhea were NAL administration after more than 17 days of opioid therapy (odds ratio [OR]=7.539; P=0.016) and pancreatic cancer (OR=6.217; P=0.025). In fact, the incidence of diarrhea in patients who were administered NAL within a day of opioid therapy was significantly lower than that in patients who were administered NAL after more than 17 days of opioid therapy (13% vs. 54%, P=0.030).

Conclusions

These results suggested that a prolonged duration of opioid therapy prior to NAL initiation is associated with increased incidence of diarrhea.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40780-020-00187-3.

A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chemotherapy for Advanced and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer using both AMSTAR2 and ROBIS as Quality Assessment Tools

BACKGROUND

We performed a critical overview of published systematic reviews (SRs) of chemotherapy for advanced and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and evaluated their quality using AMSTAR2 and ROBIS tools.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Central Library were searched for SRs on 13th June 2020. SRs with meta-analysis which included only randomized controlled trials and that had assessed chemotherapy as one of the treatment arms were included. The outcome measures, which were looked into, were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or above. Two reviewers independently assessed all the SRs with both ROBIS and AMSTAR2.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,879 identified records, 26 SRs were included for the overview. Most SRs had concluded that gemcitabine-based combination regimes, prolonged OS and PFS, but increased the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities when compared to gemcitabine monotherapy, but survival benefits were not consistent when gemcitabine was combined with molecular targeted agents. As per ROBIS, 24/26 SRs had 'high' risk of bias, with only 1/26 SR having 'low' risk of bias. As per AMSTAR2, 25/26 SRs had 'critically low', and 1/26 SR had 'low' confidence in the results. The study which scored 'low risk of bias' in ROBIS scored 'low confidence in results' in AMSTAR2. The inter- rater reliability for scoring the overall confidence in the SRs with AMSTAR2 and the overall domain in ROBIS was substantial; ROBIS: kappa=0.785, SEM=0.207, p<0.001; AMSTAR2: kappa= 0.649, SEM=0.323, p<0.001.

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine-based combination regimens can prolong OS and PFS but also worsen AEs when compared to gemcitabine monotherapy. The included SRs have an overall low methodological quality and high risk of bias as per AMSTAR2 and ROBIS respectively.

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of S-1-based combination therapy compare with S-1 monotherapy following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

S-1 monotherapy is widely used following gemcitabine failure in pancreatic cancer, especially in East Asia. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether S-1-based combination therapy had better efficacy and safety compared with S-1 monotherapy. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane CENTRAL and subsequently included five trials with a total of 690 patients. The combined hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio; the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of progression-free survival, overall survival, and overall response rate; and grade 3–4 adverse events were examined. Five randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated S-1-based combination therapy significantly increased progression-free survival (HR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–0.90, p = 0.0009) and overall response rate (HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.20–2.52, p = 0.003). Evidence was insufficient to confirm that S-1-based combined regimens improved overall survival (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.75–1.00, p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two treatment arms. In conclusion, S-1-based combination therapy improved progression-free survival and overall response rate compared to S-1 monotherapy with acceptable toxicity.

Meta-analyses of treatment standards for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal common cancer with an estimated 5-year survival rate of 6-7% (across all stages). The only potential curative therapy is surgical resection in those with localized disease. Adjuvant (postoperative) therapy confers a survival advantage over postoperative observation alone. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy offers the potential to downstage initially unresectable tumors for resection, sterilize resection margins and decrease locoregional recurrence, and identify a subset of patients with aggressive disease for whom surgery will not be beneficial. Induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation chemoradiation is another recommended approach in those with locally advanced disease. For those who cannot be downstaged, cannot tolerate surgery, or were diagnosed with metastatic disease, treatment remains palliative with chemotherapy being a critical component of this approach. Recently, intensive combination chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival rates in comparison to gemcitabine alone in advanced disease. The past few decades have afforded an accumulation of high-level evidence regarding neoadjuvant, adjuvant and palliative therapies in pancreatic cancer. There are numerous reviews discussing recent retrospective studies, prospective studies and randomized controlled trials in each of these areas. However, reviews of optimal and recommended treatment strategies across all stages of pancreatic cancer that focus on the highest levels of hierarchical evidence, such as meta-analyses, are limited. The discussion of novel therapeutics is beyond the scope of this review. However, an extensive and the most current collection of meta-analyses of first-line systemic and locoregional treatment options for all stages of pancreatic cancer to date has been accumulated.

Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone in the treatment of pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Pancreatic cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the USA. And gemcitabine has been the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, a combined use of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GemCis) has shown promising efficacies in pancreatic cancer patients. Here, system review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of GemCis versus gemcitabine (Gem) alone in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

Methods

The databases of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for retrieving the relevant publications prior to 31 September 2014. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points included 6-month survival, 1 year survival, overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression/progression-free survival (TTP/PFS), and toxicities.

Results

A total of nine randomized controlled trials involving 1354 patients were included for systematic evaluations. Overall, as compared with Gem alone, GemCis significantly improved the 6-month survival rate (relative risk (RR) = 1.303, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.090–1.558, P = 0.004), ORR (RR = 1.482, 95 % CI 1.148–1.913, P = 0.003), PFS/TTP (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87; 95 % CI 0.78–0.93, P = 0.022), and the overall toxicities (RR = 2.164, 95 % CI 1.837–2.549, P = 0.000). However, no significance difference existed in overall survival (HR = 0.90, 95 % CI 0.80–1.42, P = 1.02), 1-year survival rate (RR = 0.956, 95 % CI 0.770–1.187, P = 0.684), and CBR (RR = 0.854, 95 % CI 0.681–1.072, P = 0.175). As for grade III/IV toxicity, seven kinds of toxicities were higher in the GemCis group. However, no significant inter-group statistical differences existed in the incidence of leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, or diarrhea.

Conclusions

Despite a higher incidence of three-fourths toxicity, GemCis offers better outcomes of ORR, PFS/TTP, and 6-month survival, which indicates GemCis may be a promising therapy for pancreatic cancer.