Use of gemcitabine as a second-line treatment following chemotherapy with folfirinox for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma

French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients

Context

In France, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) is heterogeneously used in metastatic pancreatic cancer due to disparities in its financial accessibility in the institutions.

Objectives

GEM-NAB conduct a French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of GEM-NAB versus gemcitabine alone (GEM) as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients.

Design

All the unresected metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) consecutive patients who received GEM-NAB (institution 1) or GEM alone (institutions 2 and 3) as second-line treatment after failure of a 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened.

Methods

This study was conducted from the French national healthcare insurance perspective. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) expressed in months, calculated from the date of the first second-line chemotherapy administration to death. Only direct (medical and non-medical) costs have been considered for this analysis. Data were collected retrospectively in one university hospital and two general hospitals.

Results

The OS was significantly improved in patients receiving GEM-NAB (hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.77, p = 0.001), with a median OS of 6.2 months (versus 4.1 months in patients receiving GEM alone). Taking into account the cost of GEM-NAB which was afforded by each institution, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,449,231 by year of life (€40,256 per patient). In both groups, most of the costs were attributable to readmissions and outpatient chemotherapy administration.

Conclusion

The issues of the article is based on the trade-off between the benefit in terms of OS of patients treated with GEM-NAB, which is minor (a gain of 2 months of survival, with an accumulated rate of grade ⩾ 3 non-hematological adverse effects) and the additional institutional cost (€25k per year of life for each patient treated). The debate is complex and refers to an ethical component, which is the cost of human life when no other therapeutic alternative is offered to the patient.

Prognostic analysis and outcomes of metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as second or later-line treatment

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer (PC) first-line therapy often consists of polychemotherapy regimens, but choosing a second-line therapy after disease progression, especially following first-line FOLFIRINOX, remains a clinical challenge. This study presents results from a large, multicenter, retrospective analysis of Italian patients with metastatic PC (mPC) treated with Nab-paclitaxel/Gemcitabine (AG) as second or later line of treatment. Main objective of the study is to identify prognostic factors that could inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

The study included 160 mPC patients treated with AG in 17 Italian institutions. AG was administered according to labelling dose, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient refusal. Variations in schedules, dose modifications, supportive measures, and response evaluation were determined by individual clinicians' practice.

RESULTS

AG was well-tolerated and exhibited promising clinical activity. The overall response rate (ORR) and the disease control rate (DCR) were 22.5% and 45.6%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9 and 6.8 months, respectively. Among the patients who received AG as a second-line therapy (n = 111, 66.9%), median PFS and OS were 4.2 and 7.4 months, respectively. Notably, in the 76 patients (68%) receiving AG after first-line FOLFIRINOX, an ORR of 19.7% and a DCR of 46.0% were observed, resulting in a median PFS of 3.5 and median OS of 5.7 months. The study identified specific clinical or laboratory parameters (LDH, NLR, fasting serum glucose, liver metastases, ECOG PS, and first-line PFS) as independent prognostic factors at multivariate level. These factors were used to create a prognostic nomogram that divided patients into three risk classes, helping to predict second-line OS and PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest real-world population of mPC patients treated with AG as a second or later line of therapy. It supports the feasibility of this regimen following first-line FOLFIRINOX, particularly in patients with specific clinical and laboratory characteristics who derived prolonged benefit from first-line therapy.

Systemic treatments in pancreatic cancer: Taiwan pancreas society recommendation

Pancreatic cancer is a highly aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Over the past decade, significant therapeutic advancements have improved the survival rates of patients with pancreatic cancer. One of the primary factors contributing to these positive outcomes is the evolution of chemotherapy, from monotherapy to doublet or triplet regimens, and the integration of multimodal approaches. Additionally, targeted agents tailored to patients with specific genetic alterations and the development of cell therapies show promise in benefiting certain subpopulations. This article focuses on examining pivotal studies that explore the role of chemotherapy in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, maintenance, and salvage settings; highlights interesting findings related to cell therapy; and provides an overview of ongoing trials concerning metastatic settings. This review primarily aimed to offer recommendations based on therapeutic evidence, recent advancements in new treatment combinations, and the most innovative approaches. A unique aspect of this review is the inclusion of published papers on clinical trials and real-world data in Taiwan, thus adding a valuable perspective to the overall analysis.

Large-Scale Machine Learning Analysis Reveals DNA Methylation and Gene Expression Response Signatures for Gemcitabine-Treated Pancreatic Cancer

Background: Gemcitabine is a first-line chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAAD), but many PAAD patients do not respond to gemcitabine-containing treatments. Being able to predict such nonresponders would hence permit the undelayed administration of more promising treatments while sparing gemcitabine life-threatening side effects for those patients. Unfortunately, the few predictors of PAAD patient response to this drug are weak, none of them exploiting yet the power of machine learning (ML). Methods: Here, we applied ML to predict the response of PAAD patients to gemcitabine from the molecular profiles of their tumors. More concretely, we collected diverse molecular profiles of PAAD patient tumors along with the corresponding clinical data (gemcitabine responses and clinical features) from the Genomic Data Commons resource. From systematically combining 8 tumor profiles with 16 classification algorithms, each of the resulting 128 ML models was evaluated by multiple 10-fold cross-validations. Results: Only 7 of these 128 models were predictive, which underlines the importance of carrying out such a large-scale analysis to avoid missing the most predictive models. These were here random forest using 4 selected mRNAs [0.44 Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), 0.785 receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve (ROC-AUC)] and XGBoost combining 12 DNA methylation probes (0.32 MCC, 0.697 ROC-AUC). By contrast, the hENT1 marker obtained much worse random-level performance (practically 0 MCC, 0.5 ROC-AUC). Despite not being trained to predict prognosis (overall and progression-free survival), these ML models were also able to anticipate this patient outcome. Conclusions: We release these promising ML models so that they can be evaluated prospectively on other gemcitabine-treated PAAD patients.

Gemcitabine + Nab-paclitaxel or Gemcitabine alone after FOLFIRINOX failure in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a real-world AGEO study

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine (Gem) alone or with Nab-paclitaxel (Gem-Nab) is used as second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPA) after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) failure; however, no comparative data exist. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of adding Nab-paclitaxel to Gem for mPA after FFX failure.

METHODS

In this retrospective real-world multicenter study, from 2011 to 2019, patients with mPA receiving Gem-Nab (Gem 1000 mg/m² + Nab 125 mg/m², 3 out of 4 weeks) or Gem alone were included after progression on FFX.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients were included. Patients receiving Gem-Nab had more metastatic sites, peritoneal disease and less PS 2 (24% vs. 35%). After median follow-up of 22 months, Gem-Nab was associated with better disease control rate (DCR) (56% vs. 32%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS) (3.5 vs. 2.3 months; 95% CI: 0.43-0.65) and overall survival (OS) (7.1 vs. 4.7 months; 95% CI: 0.53-0.86). After multivariate analysis, Gem-Nab and PS 0/1 were associated with better OS and PFS. Grade 3/4 toxicity was more frequent with Gem-Nab (44% vs. 29%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, Gem-Nab was associated with better DCR, PFS and OS compared with Gem alone in patients with mPA after FFX failure, at the cost of higher toxicity.

Starvation mediates pancreatic cancer cell sensitivity to ferroptosis via ERK1/2, JNK and changes in the cell mesenchymal state

Pancreatic cancer is a highly metastatic and therapy‑resistant disease. In the present study, the prospects of a novel approach to kill pancreatic cancer cells were examined: Starvation combined with ferroptosis induction. Established pancreatic cancer cell lines (Miapaca2, Panc‑1, Su.86.86 and T3M4), as well as a unique cell line, Capan‑26, which was originally derived in the authors' laboratory, were used. Cells were deprived from growth factors, amino acids and pseudo‑starved using treatment with mTOR inhibitors; erastin was used to induce ferroptosis. Cell viability and lipid peroxidation measurements using flow cytometry revealed that the starved pancreatic cancer cells reacted differently to ferroptosis induction: The Panc‑1, Su.86.86 and T3M4 cells gained sensitivity, while the Miapaca2 cells acquired resistance. Fluorescence microscopy revealed that ERK1/2 translocated to the nucleus of the starved pancreatic cancer cells. Moreover, ERK1/2 pharmacological inhibition with SCH772984 prevented erastin‑induced ferroptosis in the starved Panc‑1, Su.86.86 and T3M4 cells. Confocal microscopy also indicated JNK activation. However, the inhibition of this kinase revealed its unexpected role in oxidative stress management: Treatment with the JNK inhibitor, SP600125, increased the viability of pseudo‑starved cells following erastin treatment. In addition, the FBS‑starved Miapaca2 and Capan‑26 cells transitioned between epithelial and mesenchymal cell states. The results were further confirmed using wound healing assays, western blot analysis and microscopic analysis of epithelial‑to‑mesenchymal transition (EMT) markers. Mesenchymal properties were associated with a higher sensitivity to erastin, whereas epithelial‑like cells were more resistant. Finally, it was demonstrated that compounds targeting EMT‑related signaling pathways increased cell sensitivity to erastin. On the whole, these results confirm that in starved pancreatic cancer cells, ERK1/2 and JNK signaling, as well as switching between epithelial and mesenchymal states mediates sensitivity to erastin and reveal novel therapeutic prospects of the combination of starvation with ferroptosis induction.

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.

The clinical outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis

Background

Despite recent advances in first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer, standard treatment after the failure of initial chemotherapy has not been established. Hence, we aimed to retrospectively analyze the clinical characteristics and outcomes of second-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Methods

We reviewed the clinical data of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who underwent palliative chemotherapy at Kosin University Gospel Hospital between January 2013 and October 2020.

Results

Among 366 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received palliative chemotherapy, 104 (28.4%) underwent at least one cycle of second-line chemotherapy. The median age of the patients at the time of initiating second-line treatment was 62 years (interquartile range, 57–62 years), and 58.7% (61 patients) of them were male. The common second-line chemotherapy regimens were 5-fluorouracil (FU) plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (33 patients, 31.7%); gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (29, 27.9%), gemcitabine±erlotinib (13, 12.5%); and oxaliplatin and 5-FU/leucovorin (12, 11.5%). The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5–8.6 months) and 4.5 months (95% CI, 2.7–6.3 months), respectively. In a multivariate analysis, poor performance status (PS) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.247; p=0.021), metastatic disease (HR, 2.745; p=0.011), and elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (HR, 1.939; p=0.030) at the beginning of second-line chemotherapy were associated with poor OS.

Conclusion

The survival outcome of second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor. However, PS, disease extent (locally advanced or metastatic), and CEA level may help determine patients who could benefit from second-line treatment.

The association between effectiveness of first-line treatment and second-line treatment in gastro-oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second-line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n = 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy.

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel as Second-Line Chemotherapy following FOLFIRINOX in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Institution, Retrospective Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis. FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been established as first-line treatment, but they have not been confirmed as second-line treatment after FFX. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GnP as second-line therapy after FFX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients were treated with GnP after FFX between September 2015 and September 2019. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

The response rate, disease control rate, median PFS, and median OS were 12%, 96%, 5.3 months, and 15.6 months, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%) and anemia (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

GnP after FOLFIRINOX is expected to be one of the second-line recommendations for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Systemic therapy in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: current practice and perspectives

Major breakthroughs have been achieved in the management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil + irinotecan + oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel approved as a first-line therapy, although the prognosis is still poor. At progression, patients who maintain a good performance status (PS) can benefit from second-line chemotherapy. To address the concern of achieving tumor control while maintaining a good quality of life, maintenance therapy is a concept that has now emerged. After a FOLFIRINOX induction treatment, maintenance with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) seems to offer a promising approach. Although not confirmed in large, prospective trials, gemcitabine alone as a maintenance therapy following induction treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel could be an option, while a small subset of patients with a germline mutation of breast cancer gene (BRCA) can benefit from the polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib. The rate of PDAC with molecular alterations that could lead to a specific therapy is up to 25%. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved larotrectinib for patients with any tumors harboring a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion, and pembrolizumab for patients with a mismatch repair deficiency in a second-line setting, including PDAC. Research focused on targeted therapy and immunotherapy is active and could improve patients' outcomes in the near future.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Beyond first line, where are we?

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most aggressive cancers, with an increasing incidence in recent years. To date, chemotherapy is still the standard of care for advanced metastatic disease, unfortunately providing only a slight advantage in terms of survival. The molecular and cellular characteristics of pancreatic cancer cells, as well as the cells that characterize the pancreatic tumour microenvironment, are the basis of the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. After progression during first-line treatment, few patients are eligible for second-line treatment due to the loss of performance status. To date, a clear survival advantage has not yet been demonstrated for second-line chemotherapy. Precision medicine could be the key to increasing responses to cancer treatment and finally impacting survival in this difficult-to-treat disease. In this review, we analyze current recommendations in the second-line setting and potential future prospects.

Observational Study of Clinical Practice in Patients with Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Greece

Background

During the last decade, significant improvement was made in systemic therapy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). The impact of this progress in everyday clinical practice has not been fully described yet. The aim of the study was to investigate the pattern followed by Greek Medical Oncologists regarding the treatment of patients with PAC.

Methods

This observational, noninterventional multicenter study recorded clinical data from the files of 200 active patients (alive and under treatment or follow-up) for a two-year period (November 2015 until November 2017) from 20 oncology centers around Greece.

Results

In total, 51 (25.5%) patients underwent radical surgical resection of PAC, and 40 (78.4%) of them received adjuvant and 1 (2.0%) neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median time to recurrence was 7.9 months, and median overall survival (OS), 20.2 months. First-line chemotherapy was administered to 193 (96.5%) patients. The majority of patients were treated with the combination of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine (NPG), 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), or gemcitabine monotherapy. Of them, 39.5% responded to the treatment. Median OS and PFS were 14.1 months and 7.0 months, respectively. Second-line treatment was administered to 112 patients. The majority received NPG, FOLFIRINOX/capecitabine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan (CAPOXIRI), or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)/capecitabine, oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Median OS with second-line treatment was 8.6 months, and median PFS, 5.5 months. The most common chemotherapy sequences were NPG as first-line followed by FOLFIRINOX/CAPOXIRI as second-line, NPG followed by FOLFOX/CAPOX, NPG followed by other regimens, and FOLFIRINOX/CAPOXIRI followed by NPG.

Conclusion

This study described the significant improvement in prognosis of PAC patients receiving palliative chemotherapy and the relatively high rate of receipt of second-line chemotherapy, according to real-world data. However, due to the nonrandomized nature of the study, any comparison between different chemotherapy regimens should be regarded with caution.

Efficacy and safety of second-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine after progression on FOLFIRINOX for unresectable or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: multicenter retrospective analysis

Background:

FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan plus oxaliplatin) is an effective standard first-line treatment option for advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). There is no clear consensus on the second-line treatment following progression on FOLFIRINOX. In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of second-line nab-P/Gem (nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine) after progression on FOLFIRNOX in PDAC.

Methods:

Patients with unresectable or metastatic PDAC who received nab-P/Gem after progression on FOLFIRINOX between February 2016 and February 2019 were identified from five referral cancer centers in South Korea. Baseline characteristics, treatment history, survival outcomes, and toxicity profile were obtained retrospectively from medical records.

Results:

A total of 102 patients treated with second-line nab-P/Gem for advanced PDAC after progression on FOLFIRINOX were included. At the time of nab-P/Gem, the median age was 60 years, with males comprising 49.0%, and most (75.5%) had metastatic disease. Patients received a median of three cycles (range 1–12) of nab-P/Gem. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from the start of second-line nab-P/Gem therapy were 9.8 (95% CI, 8.9–10.6) and 4.6 months (3.7–5.5), respectively. A partial response was achieved in 8.5%, and the disease control rate was 73.6%. From the start of first-line FOLFIRIOX, the OS₁₊₂ and PFS₁₊₂ were 20.9 (15.7–26.1) and 13.9 (10.8–17.0) months, respectively, with a 2-year survival rate of 45.1%. There was no treatment-related mortality and grade ⩾3 toxicity was observed in 60.2%.

Conclusion:

Our results showed that nab-P/Gem was an effective and tolerable second-line treatment option in medically fit patients with advanced PDAC who progressed on first-line FOLFIRNOX.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

NCT04133155

Systematic review and meta-analysis of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer

Background

There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX to assess treatment efficacy and toxicity.

Methods

We included studies published between 2011 and 2018 that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any grade 3/4 toxicity rate, and progression-free survival (PFS). We used the random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions.

Results

Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, ORR was 10.8%, DCR was 41.1%, and any grade 3/4 toxicity rate was 28.6%. In subgroup analyses, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with superior ORR (14.4 versus 8.4%; p = 0.038) and DCR (53.5 versus 30.5%; p < 0.001) compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Median PFS ranged from 1.9 to 6.4 months and numerically favored gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

Conclusions

Our study suggests gemcitabine-based chemotherapy likely outperforms best supportive care after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel seems to be more active than single-agent gemcitabine (CRD42018100421).

Analysis of Clinical Predictive Factors Affecting the Outcome of Second-Line Chemotherapy for Gemcitabine-Refractory Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Background/Aims: The benefit of second-line chemotherapy (SL) after failed first-line chemotherapy (FL) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has not yet been established. We evaluated the clinical characteristics affecting the benefits of SL compared to best supportive care (BSC), identified the prognostic factors, and ultimately devised a model of clinical parameters to assist in making decision between SL and BSC after the failure of gemcitabine-based FL. Methods: The records of patients who received gemcitabinebased FL for advanced pancreatic cancer at Yonsei University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Significant clinical parameters were assessed for their potential as predictive factors. Results: SL patients received a longer duration of FL compared with BSC patients with median duration being 16.0 weeks (range, 8.0 to 26.0 weeks) and 8.0 weeks (range, 4.0 to 16.0 weeks), respectively (p<0.001). When the SL group was stratified by their modified overall survival (mOS) (longer and shorter than 6 months), we found significant differences for several clinical factors, namely, metastasis to the peritoneum (p<0.001), number of metastases (p<0.001), thrombotic events (p=0.003), and level of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19- 9; p=0.011). In multivariate analysis, more than one site of metastasis, occurrence of thrombotic event during FL, and a CA19-9 level above 90 U/mL were significant independent prognostic factors for mOS in the SL group (p<0.05). When an attempt was made to devise a prognostic nomogram, Harrell's C-index of the final prognosis prediction model was 0.62. Conclusions: SL may be beneficial for patients without peritoneal metastasis or thrombotic events who have a single metastasis and a level of CA19-9 less than 90 U/mL. This prognostic nomogram can be used to predict mOS before the administration of SL after the failure of gemcitabinebased FL.

First-line and second-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in routine clinical practice across Europe: a retrospective, observational chart review study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC) relies on chemotherapeutic regimens. We investigated patterns of first-line and second-line treatment choices, their geographical variation between European countries, and alignment with current European recommendations.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational chart review study was conducted between July 2014 and January 2016. Physicians were recruited from nine European countries. Patient data were collected in electronic patient record forms (PRFs) by physicians managing patients with mPAC. Patients with a current mPAC diagnosis aged ≥18 years old who had completed first-line therapy during the study period were included.

RESULTS

Participating physicians (n=225) completed 2565 PRFs. The vast majority of PRFs were from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Most patients (86.6%) had stage IV disease at diagnosis. The most common first-line treatments were FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin/folinic acid, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) (35.6%), gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (25.7%) and gemcitabine monotherapy (20.5%). Physicians in France and the UK prescribed FOLFIRINOX more frequently than gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine-based therapies were more widely used at second-line, although 5-fluorouracil-based therapies were preferred in Italy and Spain, where gemcitabine-based treatments were more frequently selected for first-line. For patients receiving first-line modified FOLFIRINOX, second-line gemcitabine monotherapy was preferred in the overall population (45.9%).

CONCLUSION

Although treatment choices for patients with mPAC varied between countries, they align with current European guidelines. Factors including drug availability, reimbursement, patient characteristics, physician preference and prior first-line therapy affect treatment choices. Approved, recommended therapies for patients who progress following first-line treatment are lacking. These findings may influence the development of effective treatment plans, potentially improving future patient outcomes.

Erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) combined with chemotherapy in second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: An open-label, randomized Phase IIb trial

PURPOSE

This Phase IIb (NCT02195180) open-label study evaluated erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) in combination with chemotherapy in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to either eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 (eryaspase arm), or to gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 alone (control arm). Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with low asparagine synthetase (ASNS) expression. Secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in the entire population.

RESULTS

141 patients were randomized (eryaspase arm, n = 95; control arm, n = 46). Median OS and PFS in patients with low ASNS expression were 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.8) in the eryaspase arm versus 4.9 months (3.1-7.1) in the control arm (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = 0.056) and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.4) in the eryaspase arm versus 1.8 months (1.4-3.8) in the control arm (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.12; P = 0.127), respectively. In the entire population, median OS and PFS for the eryaspase arm versus control were 6.0 months versus 4.4 months (HR, 0.60; P = 0.008) and 2.0 months versus 1.6 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.84; P = 0.005), respectively. The combination of eryaspase and chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most frequent Grade 3/4 adverse events in the eryaspase arm (n = 93) were gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (16 [17.2%]), neutropenia (12 [12.9%]), and physical health deterioration (12 [12.9%]).

CONCLUSION

Eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy is associated with improvements in OS and PFS, irrespective of ASNS expression in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A Phase III trial is underway.

Palliative chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer-treatment sequences

Pancreatic cancer belongs to the most deadly malignancies and is expected to become the second deadliest cancer by 2040. Still, in most of the cases the tumor is detected in a nonresectable or metastatic state and, untreated, the disease will progress rapidly. Even with chemotherapeutic treatment the prognosis is poor and the 5-year overall survival rate is less than 10%. Therefore, there is a need for proper therapeutic options for the palliative treatment of the disease. Despite great efforts to find new drugs for the treatment of pancreatic cancer, for a long time the therapy was limited to the use of gemcitabine with very limited benefit. Recently new chemotherapeutic regimens have been identified that helped to improve the overall survival significantly. In addition, even second-line therapies have been established. This review will provide an overview on the current standard of care, discusses possible treatment sequences and offer a perspective on future developments.

Second-Line Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Patients with Unresectable Advanced Pancreatic Cancer after First-Line FOLFIRINOX Failure

FOLFIRINOX (FX) and gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been reported as effective regimens for unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). FX may be more effective but is also associated with more adverse events (AEs). Therefore, first-line treatment with FX followed by second-line GnP may be appropriate. Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of second-line GnP for patients with APC after first-line FX failure. Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective phase II study evaluating second-line GnP in patients with APC after failed first-line FX. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and the frequency and degree of adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty patients (14 male; median age, 64 years) were enrolled. The RR was 13.3%, with a median follow-up time of 9.3 months. The median OS and PFS were 7.6 and 3.8 months, respectively. From the beginning of first-line treatment, the median OS and PFS were 14.2 and 9.3 months, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 AEs were seen in 70% of patients. Conclusion: Second-line GnP after FX failure for patients with APC could be more effective than GEM alone. Further comparison studies are warranted.

Chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer

Chemotherapy is an important part of multimodality pancreatic cancer treatment. After curative resection, adjuvant chemotherapy can significantly improve disease free survival and overall survival. The current standard of care is six months adjuvant chemotherapy with modified folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) in patients fit enough for this protocol, otherwise six months of gemcitabine and capecitabine based on the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-4 study. In patients with metastatic disease, combination chemotherapy according to the FOLFIRINOX protocol or with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an important improvement to gemcitabine monotherapy that was the standard for many years. Patients not fit for combination chemotherapy however may still benefit from gemcitabine. Patients with good performance status may benefit from second-line chemotherapy. Chemoradiation has long been used in locally advanced pancreatic cancer but is now tempered following the LAP07 study. This trial showed no difference in overall survival in those patients with stable disease after four months of gemcitabine (with or without erlotinib) randomized to either continuation of gemcitabine therapy or chemoradiation (54Gy with capecitabine). As an alternative to radiation, other forms local therapies including radiofrequency ablation, irreversible electroporation, high-intensity focused ultrasound, microwave ablation and local anti-KRAS therapy (using siG12D-LODER) are currently under investigation. Given the systemic nature of pancreas cancer from an early stage, the success of any local approach other than complete surgical resection (with adjuvant systemic therapy) is likely to be very limited. In patients with locally advanced, irresectable cancer, chemotherapy may offer the chance for secondary resection with a survival similar to patients with primary resectable disease. Downstaging regimens need to be evaluated in prospective randomized trials in order to make firm recommendations. Selection of patient groups for specific therapy including cytotoxics is becoming a reality using assays based on drug cellular transport and metabolism, and molecular signatures. Going forward, high throughput screening of different chemotherapy agents using molecular signatures based on patients' derived organoids holds considerable promise.

Retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma experiencing disease progression on FOLFIRINOX

Background

Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) represents a highly lethal condition. Despite the improvements seen with FOLFIRINOX, there is no randomized data to guide treatment selection beyond this regimen. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPA progressing on FOLFIRINOX who were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy afterwards.

Methods

We included patients aged 18 years or older, treated for MPA with FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting and who experienced disease progression, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, and treated with at least one cycle of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in second or further lines of treatment. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study population and Cox proportional-hazards models to describe factors associated with survival. As an exploratory analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients treated with single-agent Gemcitabine with those of patients undergoing Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy.

Results

The study population consisted of 42 patients. Median age was 59 years and 78.6% of patients presented ECOG 0-1. Thirty-three patients (78.6%) were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in the second-line setting and 27 patients (64.3%) were treated with single-agent Gemcitabine. Objective response rate and disease control rate were 2.4% and 33.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 2.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Six-month PFS and OS rates were 19.2% and 46.2%, respectively. We observed no significant difference in OS according to the type of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, despite numerically improved disease control rate and PFS for those treated with Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 2 (vs. ECOG 0-1) was the only factor significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS.

Conclusions

a subgroup of patients with MPA derives benefit from treatment with Gemcitabine-based regimens after FOLFIRINOX. There is a suggestion that Gemcitabine-based combinations, in particular Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel, provide superior outcomes compared to single-agent Gemcitabine. Additionally, treatment in this setting should be offered carefully to patients with ECOG 2, as they present shorter survival and increased risk of toxicity.

Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Is There a Role for Gemcitabine?

PURPOSE

Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is an aggressive disease that has poor prognosis and frequently interferes with patient's quality of life. There has been progress in first-line regimens; however, there is no standard second-line regimen. The aim of this study is to analyze second-line gemcitabine after first-line fluorouracil (FU) + leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) regimen.

METHODS

This study included consecutive patients with advanced PA treated at Hospital Sirio-Libanês from 2011 to 2016. The patients received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment and upon progression, received gemcitabine alone. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were evaluated. Most patients were male (61.1%) and most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 prior to the beginning of second-line treatment (66.6%). The mean number of gemcitabine cycles was 3.4. Most patients had disease progression as the best response to treatment (75.9%), 11.1% had stable disease, and 9.3% experienced a partial response. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months, and the median overall survival was 6.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemcitabine alone did not show meaningful clinical benefit as second-line treatment after FOLFIRINOX.

Superior efficacy of the antifungal agent ciclopirox olamine over gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer models

Ciclopirox olamine (CPX) is an antifungal agent that has recently demonstrated promising anti-neoplastic activity against hematologic and solid tumors. Here, we evaluated CPX compared with gemcitabine alone as well as their combination in human pancreatic cancer cell lines; BxPC-3, Panc-1, and MIA PaCa-2 and in humanized xenograft mouse models. We also examined the preclinical pharmacodynamic activity of CPX. CPX caused a pronounced decrease in cell proliferation and clonogenic growth potential. These inhibitory effects were accompanied by induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which were strongly associated with reduced Bcl-xL and survivin levels and activation of a panel of caspases, especially caspase-3, and finally resulted in apoptotic death. CPX-induced apoptosis was associated with reduced pEGFR (Y1068) and pAkt (Ser473) protein levels. Additionally, decreased proliferation was observed in CPX-treated xenografts tumors, demonstrating unique tumor regression and a profound survival benefit. Finally, we showed that CPX significantly abrogated gemcitabine-induced ROS levels in pancreatic tissues. These pre-clinical results have verified the superior antitumor efficacy of CPX over gemcitabine alone, while their combination is even more effective, providing the rationale for further clinical testing of CPX plus gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer patients.