Primary Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Prophylaxis in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated with FOLFIRINOX as the First-Line Treatment.Cancers (Basel). 2020;12. [PMID: 33120908 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12113137]

Clinical outcomes of liposomal irinotecan in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with conventional irinotecan: A meta-analysis of real-world evidence

BACKGROUND

Pivotal clinical trials supported survival benefits of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. There are concerns about the benefits of nal-IRI in patients who received FOLFIRINOX (combined fluorouracil, leucovorin, IRI, and oxaliplatin) because of potential cross-resistance to IRI. The objective of this meta-analysis was to characterize the impact of the previous receipt of IRI on the outcomes of nal-IRI regimens in patients with advanced PDAC.

METHODS

Real-world studies evaluating the outcomes of nal-IRI in patients who had prior IRI exposure published up to April 2023 were searched using electronic databases. The meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight studies (n = 1368 patients) were included. The pooled median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.02 months (95% CI, 1.43-2.57 months), and the median overall survival (OS) was 4.26 months (95% CI, 3.03-5.39 months). Patients with prior IRI exposure had PFS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.47; p = .17) and OS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95-1.42; p = .16) comparable to patients without prior IRI exposure. Likewise, patients who had progressive disease on conventional IRI had PFS (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.73-3.08; p = .24) and OS (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.68-4.27; p = .26) with nal-IRI comparable to patients who had no progressive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior IRI exposure does not affect the survival outcomes of nal-IRI regimens in patients who have advanced PDAC. The selection of later lines of chemotherapy regimens should be based on the differential safety profile, patient status, the cost of treatment, and health-related quality of life.

Real-world dose reduction of standard and modified FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review, evidence-mapping, and meta-analysis

Background

FOLFIRINOX, used in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), is highly efficacious but also toxic. Various dose modifications for FOLFIRINOX have been introduced to reduce toxicity. However, these studies lack a unified pattern for 'planned' dose modification, and the 'actually administered' dose varied more.

Objective

To map a 10-year trend for 'planned' and 'actual' doses of FOLFIRINOX and investigate the clinical outcomes according to dose modification.

Data sources and methods

A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted from January 2011 to September 2021. All studies for FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in MPC were considered. Selected studies were firstly classified according to prospective versus retrospective research, secondly standard versus modified FOLFIRINOX, and thirdly 'planned' versus 'actual' dose. For evidence-mapping for the trend of dose modification, we developed a web-based interactive bubble-plot program (www.RDI-map.com). Objective response rate (ORR) and hematologic toxicity were set as endpoints for the comparison of clinical outcomes according to dose modification.

Results

A total of 37 studies were identified for evidence-mapping (11 prospective and 26 retrospective studies). There were 12 different types of 'planned' dose modification in FOLFIRINOX ranging 75-100% oxaliplatin, 75-100% irinotecan, 0-100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75-133% 5-FU continuous injection. The 'actual' dose further decreased to 54-96%, 61-88%, 0-92%, and 63-98%, respectively. For the standard versus modified FOLFIRINOX, the ORR was 28.2% (95% CI: 22.5-33.9%) and 33.8% (95% CI: 30.3-37.3%), respectively (p = 0.100), and the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 11.6% (95% CI: 0-16.0%) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0-8.9%), respectively (p = 0.030).

Conclusions

RDI-map.com enables multifactorial evidence-mapping for practical FOLFIRINOX dose reduction. The pattern of dose modification was not consistent across studies, and there was a significant gap between the 'planned' and 'actual' doses. Modified FOLFIRINOX showed similar efficacy to the standard regimen with reduced incidence of febrile neutropenia.

The Effects of GCSF Primary Prophylaxis on Survival Outcomes and Toxicity in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy: A Sub-Analysis of the Spinnaker Study

GCSF prophylaxis is recommended in patients on chemotherapy with a >20% risk of febrile neutropenia and is to be considered if there is an intermediate risk of 10−20%. GCSF has been suggested as a possible adjunct to immunotherapy due to increased peripheral neutrophil recruitment and PD-L1 expression on neutrophils with GCSF use and greater tumour volume decrease with higher tumour GCSF expression. However, its potential to increase neutrophil counts and, thus, NLR values, could subsequently confer poorer prognoses on patients with advanced NSCLC. This analysis follows on from the retrospective multicentre observational cohort Spinnaker study on advanced NSCLC patients. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The secondary endpoints were the frequency and severity of AEs and irAEs. Patient information, including GCSF use and NLR values, was collected. A secondary comparison with matched follow-up duration was also undertaken. Three hundred and eight patients were included. Median OS was 13.4 months in patients given GCSF and 12.6 months in those not (p = 0.948). Median PFS was 7.3 months in patients given GCSF and 8.4 months in those not (p = 0.369). A total of 56% of patients receiving GCSF had Grade 1−2 AEs compared to 35% who did not receive GCSF (p = 0.004). Following an assessment with matched follow-up, 41% of patients given GCSF experienced Grade 1−2 irAEs compared to 23% of those not given GCSF (p = 0.023). GCSF prophylaxis use did not significantly affect overall or progression-free survival. Patients given GCSF prophylaxis were more likely to experience Grade 1−2 adverse effects and Grade 1−2 immunotherapy-related adverse effects.

Impact of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) on the Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (MPA) During First-Line Treatment With FOLFIRINOX: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The role of primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) treated with FOLFIRINOX is unknown. We aimed to compare the frequencies of grades 3 or 4 neutropenia (G3/4N) and febrile neutropenia (FN) and survival outcomes according to the use of PP.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. We included patients with pathologically confirmed MPA treated with FOLFIRINOX in first-line. Patients who received primary prophylaxis (PP group) were compared to patients who received secondary or no G-CSF (no-PP group). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the standard Cox proportional hazard model. To account for potential biases, we performed sensitivity analyses excluding patients who received secondary prophilaxis and treating G-CSF as a time-dependent covariate in extended Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 123 patients. PP was used by 75 patients (61.0%). G3/4 N occurred more frequently among patients without PP (10.7 vs 41.7%; P < .001). There was no difference in the frequency of FN between groups (5.3 vs 8.3%; P = .710). In multivariate analysis, PP was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR = .66; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] .41 - 1.07; P = .094). In the multivariate model excluding patients with secondary prophylaxis (HR = .54; 95% CI 0.32 - .91; P = .022) and in the time-dependent model (HR = .47; 95% CI 0.28 - .80; P = .005), PP was associated with statistically superior OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the reduction in the frequency of G3/4N, the risk of FN among patients treated with FOLFIRINOX without G-CSF is too low to justify its use in a routine basis. However, given the potential of G-CSF to improve survival in this setting, further studies are warranted to assess its role during treatment with FOLFIRINOX for patients with MPA.

Pharmacological Ascorbate Enhances Chemotherapies in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacological ascorbate (P-AscH - , high-dose, intravenous vitamin C) has shown promise as an adjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of P-AscH - when combined with PDAC chemotherapies.

METHODS

Clonogenic survival, combination indices, and DNA damage were determined in human PDAC cell lines treated with P-AscH - in combination with 5-fluorouracil, paclitaxel, or FOLFIRINOX (combination of leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, oxaliplatin). Tumor volume changes, overall survival, blood analysis, and plasma ascorbate concentration were determined in vivo in mice treated with P-AscH - with or without FOLFIRINOX.

RESULTS

P-AscH - combined with 5-fluorouracil, paclitaxel, or FOLFIRINOX significantly reduced clonogenic survival in vitro. The DNA damage, measured by γH2AX protein expression, was increased after treatment with P-AscH - , FOLFIRINOX, and their combination. In vivo, tumor growth rate was significantly reduced by P-AscH - , FOLFIRINOX, and their combination. Overall survival was significantly increased by the combination of P-AscH - and FOLFIRINOX. Treatment with P-AscH - increased red blood cell and hemoglobin values but had no effect on white blood cell counts. Plasma ascorbate concentrations were significantly elevated in mice treated with P-AscH - with or without FOLFIRINOX.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of P-AscH - to standard of care chemotherapy has the potential to be an effective adjuvant for PDAC treatment.

Modified FOLFIRINOX as a Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Gemcitabine-Failed Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Phase II Study

Simple Summary

Biliary tract cancer is a malignant tumor of the biliary tract and gallbladder. Most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, and the basis of treatment is combination chemotherapy. However, the survival outcomes for biliary tract cancer, especially for patients who have failed frontline treatment, are poor. Accordingly, there have been various studies on effective subsequent treatments, and this study is one of those efforts. Through this study, we attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of enhanced chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory biliary tract cancer.

Abstract

Background: After the publication of the ABC-02 trial, gemcitabine and cisplatin combination therapy (GP) became the standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Despite GP therapy, most patients suffer from disease progression. The ABC-06 trial recommended FOLFOX as a second-line treatment, but its efficacy was modest. In this phase II study, we looked at the efficacy and safety of a second-line modified dose of FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) for patients who had failed first-line gemcitabine-based treatment. Methods: From January 2020 to January 2021, 34 patients with advanced BTC who failed first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy were enrolled. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of mFOLFIRINOX. Results: With a median follow-up duration of 13.4 months, the median progression-free survival and overall survival was 2.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6–4.0 months) and 6.2 months (95% CI: 5.0–7.4 months), respectively. The objective response rate was 14.7% with no complete response. The disease control rate was 61.7%, with a disease control duration of 4.2 months. Due to the rapid progression of the disease, approximately half of all patients received less than three cycles of treatment. The most common type of adverse event (AEs) was hematopoietic AEs. The incidence of non-hematopoietic AEs was relatively low. Conclusions: The efficacy of mFOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment in advanced BTC patients after the failure of gemcitabine-based first-line treatment was replicated, albeit with slightly shorter survival results compared to previous studies. Long-term administration of mFOLFIRINOX with toxicity management might offer a survival benefit.

Impact of UGT1A1 Polymorphisms on Febrile Neutropenia in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Receiving FOLFIRINOX: A Single-Center Cohort Study

FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, irinotecan, and 5-fluorouracil) is a first-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC). Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is one of the most serious adverse events associated with advanced PC. Although UGT1A1 polymorphisms are associated with the metabolism of irinotecan, their role as surrogate markers for FOLFIRINOX-induced neutropenia has not been confirmed. We investigated risk factors for FN-in particular, UGT1A1 polymorphisms-in PC patients receiving FOLFIRINOX, using a single-center cohort registry. To investigate the association between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and FN, we divided patients into three groups based on the predicted UGT1A1 phenotype: extensive metabolizer (EM) vs. intermediate metabolizer (IM) vs. poor metabolizer (PM). A total of 154 patients (FN group (n = 31) vs. non-FN group (n = 123)) receiving first-line FOLFIRINOX were identified between December 2017 and July 2020. The Cox regression analysis showed that female sex (HR: 2.20; p = 0.031), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 1 (HR: 2.83; p = 0.008), UGT1A1 IM (HR: 4.30; p = 0.004), and UGT1A1 PM (HR: 4.03; p = 0.028) were statistically significant risk factors for FN. We propose that UGT1A1 is the strongest predictive factor for FN and that this gene should be screened prior to the administration of chemotherapy.

Therapeutic resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Current challenges and future opportunities

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Although chemotherapeutic regimens such as gemcitabine+ nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX (FOLinic acid, 5-Fluroruracil, IRINotecan, and Oxaliplatin) significantly improve patient survival, the prevalence of therapy resistance remains a major roadblock in the success of these agents. This review discusses the molecular mechanisms that play a crucial role in PDAC therapy resistance and how a better understanding of these mechanisms has shaped clinical trials for pancreatic cancer chemotherapy. Specifically, we have discussed the metabolic alterations and DNA repair mechanisms observed in PDAC and current approaches in targeting these mechanisms. Our discussion also includes the lessons learned following the failure of immunotherapy in PDAC and current approaches underway to improve tumor's immunological response.

Efficacy and safety of modified fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) compared with S-1 as second-line chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The optimal standard second-line chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of modified fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) compared with oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 as a second-line chemotherapy in patients with MPC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 76 consecutive patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent mFOLFIRINOX or S-1 treatment as a second-line chemotherapy after gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) failure at our department between December 2014 and February 2019.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent mFOLFIRINOX treatment exhibited significantly better objective response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) than S-1 (ORR, 20.0% vs 0%, P = 0.003; PFS, 3.7 vs 2.1 months, P = 0.010). Although baseline patient characteristics of age, performance status, and serum albumin levels differed significantly between the two groups, mFOLFIRINOX was identified as an independent factor of favorable PFS on multivariate analyses. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred more frequently in the mFOLFIRINOX group. The median overall survival from the initiation of second-line chemotherapy was not significantly longer in the mFOLFIRINOX group than in the S1 group (8.5 vs 5.8 months, respectively; P = 0.213); however, the 8-month survival rate was significantly higher in the mFOLFIRINOX group (56.0% vs 27.5%, respectively; P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

mFOLFIRINOX as a second-line regimen contributed to favorable treatment outcomes, but induced more frequent adverse events than S-1. On multivariate analyses, mFOLFIRINOX was identified as an independent factor with favorable PFS, suggesting that mFOLFIRINOX could be a promising treatment option for patients with GnP failure.