Randomised phase II trial of irinotecan plus S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

Systematic Review of Single-Agent vs. Multi-Agent Chemotherapy for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Elderly vs. Younger Patients

PURPOSE

To systematically review all studies comparing multi-agent to single-agent chemotherapy in the first and second-line setting for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, so as to compare the outcomes of young and elderly patients.

METHODS

This review searched three databases for relevant studies. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, comparison of an elderly versus young population, comparison of single-agent versus multi-agent chemotherapy, data on survival outcomes, and randomised controlled trials. The exclusion criteria were phase I trials, incomplete studies, retrospective analyses, systematic reviews, and case reports. A meta-analysis was performed on second-line chemotherapy in elderly patients.

RESULTS

Six articles were included in this systematic review. Three of these studies explored first-line treatment and three explored second-line treatment. In the subgroup analysis, the meta-analysis showed statistically improved overall survival for elderly patients receiving single-agent second-line treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review confirmed that combination chemotherapy improved survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, regardless of age. The benefit of combination chemotherapy in second-line studies for elderly patients with advanced pancreas cancer was less clear.

Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy for gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Fluoropyrimidine-based regimens have been investigated as the second line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to gemcitabine. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in such patients.

METHODS

The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ASCO Abstracts and ESMO Abstracts were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and serious toxicities. Statistical analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5.3. Egger's test was performed to assess the statistical evidence of publication bias by using stata 12.0.

RESULTS

A total of 1183 patients from six randomized controlled trials were included for this analysis. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy increased ORR [RR 2.82 (1.83-4.33), p<0.00001] and PFS [HR 0.71 (0.62-0.82), p<0.00001], without significant heterogeneity. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy improved OS [HR 0.82 (0.71-0.94), p = 0.006], with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 76%, p = 0.0009). The significant heterogeneity might have been caused by the different administration regimens and baseline characteristics. Peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were more common in the regimens containing oxaliplatin and irinotecan, respectively. No publication bias was detected by Egger's tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, fluoropyrimidine combination therapy had a higher response rate and longer PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy could be recommended in the second line setting. However, due to concerns about toxicities, the dose intensities of chemotherapy drugs should be carefully considered in patients with weakness.

Second-line treatment options for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this review was to characterize the second- and later-line (≥2L) treatment landscape for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).

METHODS

This systematic literature review (PROSPERO: CRD42021279753) involved searches of MEDLINE® and Embase to identify results from prospective studies of ≥2L treatment options for metastatic pancreatic cancer published from 2016 to 2021. Publications were screened according to predetermined eligibility criteria; population-level data were extracted using standardized data fields. Publication quality was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The data were analyzed descriptively, grouped by drug class.

RESULTS

Sixty publications were identified, including 23 relating to comparative trials. GRADE assessment found that, of these 23 trials, 83% reported high or moderate-quality evidence. Of the publications relating to comparative trials, nine (three trials) reported favorable results: the pivotal phase 3 NAPOLI-1 trial for liposomal irinotecan; a phase 3 trial of non-liposomal irinotecan within the FOLFIRINOX regimen; and a phase 2 trial of eryaspase plus chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of unmet need for ≥2L treatment options for mPDAC remains high. Irinotecan-based regimens currently offer the greatest promise. Investigations into paradigm-changing agents and combination approaches continue.

Study protocol of the HGCSG1803: a phase II multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective trial of combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, irinotecan and S-1 (OX-IRIS) as first-line treatment for metastatic or relapsed pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) has become one of the standard treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer. However, the use of FOLFIRINOX requires prolonged infusion. Therefore, we planned to develop a new combination chemotherapy regimen with oxaliplatin, irinotecan and S-1 (OX-IRIS) for advanced pancreatic cancer. In the phase Ⅰ study that was conducted previously, the safety and recommended dose of OX-IRIS were assessed. In this study, we will evaluate the efficacy and safety of OX-IRIS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The HGCSG1803 study started as a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective, phase II study in December 2019. Eligible subjects were patients with untreated metastatic or relapsed pancreatic cancer. OX-IRIS is administered as follows: 30 min infusion of antiemetic; 2-hour infusion of oxaliplatin (65 mg/m2); 1.5-hour infusion of irinotecan (100 mg/m2) on day 1 and 15 of each 4-week cycle; and oral S-1 (40 mg/m2) twice daily from after dinner on day one to after breakfast on day 15, followed by a 14-day rest, to be repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient refusal. The primary endpoint is response rate. The secondary endpoints are overall and progression-free survival, safety and dose for each drug. Using a binomial test, a sample size of 40 patients was set with a threshold value of 10% and expected value of 30%. Registration of 40 cases is planned from 18 institutions in Japan.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All the procedures will be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 and its later versions. All the patients will receive written information about the trial and will provide informed consent before enrolment. This trial was approved by the Hokkaido University Certified Review Board (approval No: 018-037).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs011190008.

Second-line palliative chemotherapy, survival, and prognostic factors in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal disease with a close association between incidence and mortality. First-line (FL) palliative chemotherapy prolongs survival and alleviates cancer-related symptoms. However, the survival benefit of second-line (SL) treatment is uncertain, as studies fail to consistently show prolonged survival for any given SL treatment, and in the absence of prognostic factors patients will receive a futile treatment. The aim of this study was to examine prognostic factors and survival in patients with pancreatic cancer, with special reference to SL therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients with histopathologically verified pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received palliative chemotherapy at Skåne University Hospital and died between 1 Feb 2015 and 31 Dec 2017.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 170 patients with pancreatic cancer died after receiving palliative chemotherapy. Of these, 72 had received SL treatment after progression on FL treatment. Median overall survival (OS) from the start of SL treatment was 5.0 months (95% CI: 4.0-6.1). Median OS was 2.9 months for patients with performance status 2 at start of SL treatment compared to 5.3 months for patients with performance status 0-1 (p = .03), and 3.5 months (95% CI: 3.0-5.4) in patients with hypoalbuminemia (<36 g/L) at the start of SL therapy compared to 8.0 months (95% CI: 5.3-11.1) for patients with normal albumin levels (p = .009). Weight loss during FL therapy, a doubling of CA 19-9 after FL therapy, and length of progression-free survival during FL treatment were not associated with survival following SL therapy.

CONCLUSION

Poor performance status and hypoalbuminemia are negative prognostic factors for survival on SL palliative treatment in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Possible gain in survival should be carefully considered before initiating SL chemotherapy.

Modified FOLFIRINOX versus S-1 as second-line chemotherapy in gemcitabine-failed metastatic pancreatic cancer patients: A randomised controlled trial (MPACA-3)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) as a second-line chemotherapy treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC), remains unclear. This multi-center randomised phase III trial aimed to elucidate the efficacy of mFOLFIRINOX as a second-line chemotherapy treatment for mPAC patients with good performance status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty mPAC patients (age, 19-75 years) refractory to first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were randomly selected to receive mFOLFIRINOX or S-1. mFOLFIRINOX comprised oxaliplatin (65 mg/m²), irinotecan (135 mg/m²), and leucovorin (400 mg/m²) on day 1 and continuous 5-FU infusion (1000 mg/m²) over 24 h on days 1-2 every 2 weeks. S-1 comprised body surface area-dependent oral S-1, divided into two doses per day on days 1-28 every 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The objective response and disease control rates were higher in the mFOLFIRINOX than in the S-1 group (15% versus 2%; p = .04 and 67% versus 37%; p = .007). The median progression-free survival rates were 5.2 and 2.2 months in the mFOLFIRINOX and S-1 groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: .4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .2-.6; p < .001). The median overall survival rates were 9.2 and 4.9 months in the mFOLFIRINOX and S-1 groups, respectively (adjusted HR: .4; 95% CI: .2-.7; p = .002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 56% and 17% of the patients in the mFOLFIRINOX and S-1 groups, respectively (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Administration of mFOLFIRINOX as a second-line chemotherapy treatment for mPAC patients refractory to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy resulted in increased survival rates than S-1 treatment alone.

nal-IRI+5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV in post-gemcitabine metastatic pancreatic cancer: Randomized phase 2 trial in Japanese patients

BACKGROUND

In the NAPOLI-1 phase 3 trial, liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) +5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) significantly increased mPFS versus 5-FU/LV (3.1 vs. 1.5 months [unstratified HR = 0.56, p = 0.0001]) in patients with mPAC that progressed on prior gemcitabine-based therapy. This randomized phase 2 trial evaluated nal-IRI+5-FU/LV tolerability (Part 1), safety, and efficacy (Part 2; outcomes reported here) in Japanese patients with mPAC that progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 and stratified by KPS (70 and 80 vs. ≥90) and baseline albumin (≥4.0 g/dl vs. <4.0 g/dl). Primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were ORR, DCR, OS, TTF, CA19-9 response, and QoL. The ITT population comprised all randomized patients.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics differed between nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n = 40) and 5-FU/LV (n = 39) arms, including baseline hepatic lesions (63% vs. 51%), stage IV disease at diagnosis (78% vs. 51%), and post-study anticancer therapy (55% vs. 72%). Investigator-assessed mPFS increase with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV was clinically meaningful and statistically significant versus 5-FU/LV (2.7 vs. 1.5 months, HR = 0.60). Independently assessed mPFS showed similar trends (1.7 vs. 1.6 months, HR = 0.79). mOS was 6.3 months with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV and not reached with 5-FU/LV. ORR increased significantly with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV (18% vs. 0, rate difference 17.5). Commonly reported grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were decreased neutrophil count (37% vs. 3%), decreased white blood cell count (20% vs. 0), and diarrhea (17% vs. 3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, clinically meaningful and statistically significant gains in investigator-assessed PFS and ORR were observed with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV in Japanese patients, with no new or unexpected safety signals. (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT02697058).

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.

FOLFIRINOX as second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: A subset analysis of data from a nationwide multicenter observational study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Data on FOLFIRINOX as a second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer are limited. In the JASPAC06 study-a nationwide, multicenter, observational study-FOLFIRINOX for patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer as any line of treatment showed favorable efficacy and safety in Japanese clinical practice.

METHODS

We performed exploratory analyses of patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer who received FOLFIRINOX as the second-line chemotherapy in Japanese clinical settings.

RESULTS

Of the 399 evaluable patients, 44 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The patients' characteristics were as follows: median age, 62 years; men, 26 (59%); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance status 0/1, 30 (68%)/14 (32%); disease status, recurrent/local/metastatic: 4 (9%)/8 (18%)/32 (73%). The initial dose was reduced in 28 (64%) patients. The median time to treatment failure and number of cycles were 4.5 (range, 0.2-19.1) months and 6 cycles (range, 1-13 or more), respectively. The major grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia in 29 (66%), leucopenia in 17 (39%), anorexia in 7 (16%), febrile neutropenia in 5 (11%), and anemia in 5 (11%) patients. The median overall survival, progression-free survival, and 1-year survival rates were 10.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-13.3), 4.1 (95% CI, 2.6-5.5) months, and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that FOLFIRINOX as a second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer was effective in patients with a good performance status. It displayed toxicity similar to that observed with its use as a first-line treatment.

Liposomal irinotecan in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in Asian patients: Subgroup analysis of the NAPOLI-1 study

The global, randomized NAPOLI‐1 phase 3 trial reported a survival benefit with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) plus 5‐fluorouracil/leucovorin (nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV) in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) after previous gemcitabine‐based therapy. Median overall survival (OS) with nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV was 6.1 vs 4.2 months with 5‐FU/LV alone (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67, P = .012). Herein, we report efficacy and safety results from a post‐hoc subgroup analysis of Asian patients treated at Asian centers. Primary study endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression‐free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Patients receiving nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV (n = 34) had significantly longer median OS versus 5‐FU/LV (n = 35) (8.9 vs 3.7 months; unstratified HR = 0.51, P = .025). Patients had significantly increased median PFS with nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV versus 5‐FU/LV (4.0 vs 1.4; unstratified HR = 0.48, P = .011), and increased ORR (8.8% vs 0; P = .114). nal‐IRI monotherapy (n = 50) numerically improved efficacy endpoints versus 5‐FU/LV (n = 48): median OS was 5.8 versus 4.3 months (HR = 0.83, P = .423) and median PFS was 2.8 versus 1.4 months (HR = 0.69, P = .155). Grade ≥3 neutropenia was reported more frequently with nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV versus 5‐FU/LV (54.5% vs 3.4%), and incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhea was comparable between the two arms (3.0% vs 6.9%). This subgroup analysis confirms nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV as an efficacious treatment option that improves survival in Asian patients with mPDAC that progressed after gemcitabine‐based therapy, with a safety profile agreeing with previous findings. The nal‐IRI+5‐FU/LV regimen should represent a new standard of care for these patients in Asia. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01494506)

An update on treatment options for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

Paradigm Shifting of Systemic Chemotherapy for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer in Japan

Systemic chemotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, to improve the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. Unresectable pancreatic cancer can be classified into three categories: metastatic, locally advanced, and hereditary pancreatic cancers. Furthermore, the second-line chemotherapy is required to prolong the survival. The combined regimens of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM plus nab-PTX) have been recognized as the standard of care for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the consensus of selection of the first-line chemotherapy still remains. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between FOLFIRINOX and GEM plus nab-PTX are ongoing for locally advanced and metastatic disease in Japan, respectively. Hereditary pancreatic cancer, especially associated with BRCA mutations, is responsive to platinum-containing regimens and/or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. It is becoming more important to examine the presence/absence of BRCA mutations to select the appropriate treatment strategy for individual patients. Although some S-1-based regimens have been investigated in the second-line treatment after GEM-based chemotherapy in Japan, no regime demonstrated survival benefit. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus FF has been established as the standard of care in the second-line treatment in a global phase III trial (NAPOLI-1). A randomized phase II trial comparing FF plus nal-IRI with FF alone was also conducted in Japan to examine the efficacy and safety of the FF plus nal-IRI in Japanese patients.

Evolution of the chemotherapeutic landscape and survival outcome in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a four-institute cohort study in Taiwan, 2010-2016

Background

Only 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), cisplatin, and gemcitabine have been reimbursed for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treatment in Taiwan since 2003. It is uncertain whether the reimbursement of S-1 in June 2014 might change the treatment pattern and improve the survival of mPC patients in Taiwan.

Patients and methods

A total of 645 patients with newly diagnosed mPC who received palliative chemotherapy between 2010 and 2016 in Taiwan were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were stratified according to year at diagnosis of mPC for analysis of chemotherapeutic treatment pattern and survival.

Results

Overall, the most common chemotherapeutic agents used for the treatment of mPC were gemcitabine (94.8%), followed by cisplatin (52.4%), S-1 (38.1%), and 5-FU (29.7%). The percentage of patients treated with S-1 between 2010 and 2016 increased from 2.6% to 74.0% (P<0.001), while the percentage of patients treated with 5-FU decreased from 31.6% to 21.2% (P<0.001). The percentage of patients treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, etc. remained consistent. An increase in the number of lines of treatment was observed throughout the study period, with 27.6% of patients receiving two or more lines of treatment in 2010, compared with 50.0% of patients in 2016 (P=0.013). The 12-month survival rate increased from 11.8% in 2010 to 41.4% in 2016, corresponding to an adjusted average annual percent change of 13.6% (0.3-28.7, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Based on this multi-institute cohort study in Taiwan, the reimbursement of S-1 changed the clinical practice and is associated with an improvement in survival outcome of mPC patients.

A phase II study of irinotecan combined with S-1 in patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer previously treated with platinum based chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a phase II study to investigate the efficacy and toxicities of irinotecan plus oral S-1 in patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cervical cancer.

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer previously treated with platinum based chemotherapy were enrolled. Irinotecan (150 mg/m²) was administered intravenously over the course of 90 min on day 1, and S-1 (80 mg/m²) was given orally in two divided doses from days 1 to 14 of a 21 day cycle. The primary endpoint of this phase II study was response rate. Secondary endpoints included safety, progression free survival, and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were enrolled and treated. The response rate was 29.4%. Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities were observed in three patients (15.7%). The only grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity observed was grade 3 diarrhea. The median progression free survival and overall survival were 3 months and 9 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

S-1 plus irinotecan in a 3 weekly setting is safe and active in women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer previously treated with platinum based chemotherapy. Future corroborative clinical studies are warranted.

Current status and dilemma of second-line treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: is there a silver lining?

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most lethal malignant diseases worldwide. The majority of patients present with advanced disease and, therefore, need palliative chemotherapy. Some chemotherapeutic regimens have been well established as first-line therapies and have been shown to increase survival; however, almost all patients with advanced pancreatic cancer will experience disease progression after first-line therapy. Nevertheless, many patients who retain good performance status after initial treatment remain good candidates for additional therapy. Historically, few studies have assessed second-line therapy, with most reports representing small phase II trials with variable findings; however, clinical research for second-line treatment has increased in the past decade, and several randomized controlled trials using different regimens have been published. The current literature shows varying results on treatment efficacy and tolerability. Thus, we reviewed the published data on the use of chemotherapy in the second-line setting for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Chemotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background and Aim: Pancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal cancers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the mainstream treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. This systematic review evaluated and compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes obtained from recent phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of pancreatic cancer chemotherapy. Materials and methods: Thirty-two studies were included and compared based on chemotherapy agents or combinations used. Additionally, outcomes of first-line versus second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer were compared. Results: In studies that investigated the treatments in adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for S-1 in patients, who received prior surgical resection (46.5 months). In neoadjuvant settings, the combination of gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine prior to the surgical resection had promising outcomes (OS of 32.5 months). In non-adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for the combination of temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months). Amongst studies that investigated second-line treatment, the highest OS reported was for the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (35.5 months), then temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months). Conclusions: There is a need to develop further strategies besides chemotherapy to improve the outcomes in pancreatic cancer treatment. Future studies should consider surgical interventions, combination chemotherapy, and individualized second-line treatment based on the prior chemotherapy.

Second-line chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

Guidelines for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer recommend a second line based on Fluoropyrimidine (FP) alone or in combination with Oxaliplatin (OXA) or Irinotecan (IRI) after a first line treatment based on Gemcitabine (GEM). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare currently available therapies to treat metastatic pancreatic cancer in the second line, considering as efficacy measures overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Published randomized trials were identified using electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ and American Society of clinical oncology). 8 studies met the inclusion criteria for a total of 1,587 patients and 7 different therapeutic schemes. The results suggested that the use of IRI-FP-Folinic Acid scheme in the second-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer may offer a benefit in terms of OS and PFS for patients not previously treated with these drugs.

Post-progression survival following second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine: a meta-analysis

Background Post-progression survival (PPS) could be a confounding element in interpreting data from clinical trials of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) previously treated with gemcitabine (GEM) because a recent meta-analysis of oxaliplatin combination therapy showed statistical heterogeneity for overall survival (OS) but not for progression-free survival (PFS). This study aimed to improve the understanding of the impact of PPS on OS in this setting. Methods Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the salvage setting. We evaluated relationships between OS and PFS, PPS, and other variables. Results Totally, 17 RCTs with 3253 patients were identified. Median OS was strongly and moderately associated with median PPS and PFS, respectively (r = 0.913; p < 0.001 and 0.780; p < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of patients with good performance status was significantly associated with both PPS and PFS (r = 0.574, p < 0.001 and 0.492, p < 0.001, respectively). The induction rate of subsequent chemotherapy was related to the duration of PPS and OS (r = 0.640, p < 0.001 and 0.647, p < 0.001, respectively). Median PPS and OS were significantly longer in recent trials than those in older trials (3.55 versus 2.78 months, p < 0.001 and 6.29 versus 5.02 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions Median PPS was strongly correlated with median OS. Given the recently increased opportunity for subsequent chemotherapy and supportive care, PPS may serve as an important element to clarify problems in this setting.