Multicenter phase II trial of modified FOLFIRINOX in gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer

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.

Treatment resistance in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: molecular and clinical pharmacology perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Treatment resistance poses a significant obstacle in oncology, especially in biliary tract cancer (BTC) and pancreatic cancer (PC). Current therapeutic options include chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Resistance to these treatments may arise due to diverse molecular mechanisms, such as genetic and epigenetic modifications, altered drug metabolism and efflux, and changes in the tumor microenvironment. Identifying and overcoming these mechanisms is a major focus of research: strategies being explored include combination therapies, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and personalized approaches.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a current overview and discussion of the most relevant mechanisms of resistance to chemotherapy, target therapy, and immunotherapy in both BTC and PC. Furthermore, we compare the different strategies that are being implemented to overcome these obstacles.

EXPERT OPINION

So far there is no unified theory on drug resistance and progress is limited. To overcome this issue, individualized patient approaches, possibly through liquid biopsies or single-cell transcriptome studies, are suggested, along with the potential use of artificial intelligence, to guide effective treatment strategies. Furthermore, we provide insights into what we consider the most promising areas of research, and we speculate on the future of managing treatment resistance to improve patient outcomes.

Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan vs irinotecan as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients: a randomized-controlled open-label Phase II study

Background

Limited second-line therapeutic options are available for metastasis pancreatic cancer (mPC). We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin plus irinotecan (IROX) in mPC patients.

Methods

This is an open-label, Phase 2, randomized study of mPC patients (aged 18-75 years) who failed when using gemcitabine plus S-1 as first-line therapy. Block randomization with a block size of four was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) between October 2015 and December 2017 to receive either IROX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² and irinotecan 160 mg/m²) or irinotecan monotherapy (irinotecan 180 mg/m²) until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was overall survival, and the secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall response rate, and adverse event rate.

Results

A total of 74 patients were enrolled in this study, including 44 males and 30 females, with an average age of 61 years. The median overall survival was 10.2 and 6.7 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-1.2; P = 0.20) and the median progression-free survival was 5.1 and 2.3 months (adjusted HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.6; P < 0.01) in the IROX group and irinotecan group, respectively. The overall response rates were 18.4% (7/38) in the IROX group and 5.5% (2/36) in the irinotecan group (P = 0.06). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 34% (13/38) of patients in the IROX group and 19% (7/36) of patients in the irinotecan group (P = 0.15).

Conclusions

IROX had no significant survival benefit over irinotecan monotherapy in our study. However, IROX reduced the risk of disease progression by 60%, with acceptable toxicity.

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.

Treatment outcomes of nanoliposomal irinotecan as second-line chemotherapy after gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in metastatic and recurrent pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

To compare the treatment outcomes of nanoliposomal-irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-FU/LV) and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as second-line treatment after gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GnP) for metastatic and recurrent pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV or mFFX after first-line GnP treatment between March 2014 and October 2021 in our hospital. Patient characteristics, treatment outcomes and adverse events were extracted for comparison.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen patients were included (nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV/mFFX: 50/166). Patients in the nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group were older, had poorer ECOG PS, and a higher rate of peritoneal metastasis than those in the mFFX group. Median overall survival was 9.5 and 9.8 months (P = 0.97), respectively, and the median progression-free survival was 4.5 vs 4.8 months (P = 0.61), respectively. Anorexia, fatigue and peripheral neuropathy were more common in the mFFX group, but there was no difference in grade 3/4 adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in efficacy between nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV and mFFX after GnP. Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV appears to be a viable alternative to mFFX as second-line treatment after GnP.

Nal-IRI/5-FU/LV versus modified FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer: A single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The preferred regimen for unresectable pancreatic cancer following gemcitabine-based chemotherapy is not well-established. This study compared the efficacy of (ⅰ) liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) (nal-IRI/5-FU/LV) versus modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) and (ⅱ) nal-IRI/5-FU/LV versus FOLFIRI, respectively, and the safety of the three regimens each other, as second-line chemotherapies for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center analysis of all patients who were administered nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, mFFX, or FOLFIRI from December 2014 to July 2021 as second-line chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) of all patients, excluding those with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Regarding safety, we assessed the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events of interest in all patients.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients (nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, n = 55; mFFX, n = 39; FOLFIRI, n = 43) were included. The median OS in the nal-IRI/5-FU/LV group, the mFFX group, and the FOLFIRI group was 7.4, 11.8, and 8.4 months, respectively. Compared with the nal-IRI/5-FU/LV group, the mFFX and FOLFIRI groups displayed a hazard ratio of 0.66 [95% confidence interval 0.40-1.08] and 0.87 [95% confidence interval 0.55-1.39], respectively. In the FOLFIRI group, the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events tended to be low among all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the trend toward longer OS in the mFFX group and the lower incidence of adverse events in the FOLFIRI group, both mFFX and FOLFIRI, as well as nal-IRI/5-FU/LV, can be treatment options for second-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

The influence of UGT1A1 polymorphisms on modified FOLFIRINOX dose in double-variant-type patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

UGT1A1 polymorphisms should be considered when using irinotecan-containing regimens, especially in patients with a double-variant-type (DV), including homozygous for UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6 and heterozygous for both UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6. We investigated the safety and efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) (irinotecan 80 mg/m2) in patients having DV.

METHODS

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received FOLFIRINOX between January 2015 and December 2019 were included in this study. Non-DV patients received the standard mFOLFIRINOX (irinotecan 150 mg/m2) as first-line (non-DV1) or second-line therapy (non-DV2); however, DV patients received mFOLFIRINOX (irinotecan 80 mg/m2) as the second-line therapy (DV2). We retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of the lowered irinotecan dose in the DV2 group relative to the non-DV1 (safety) or non-DV2 (safety and efficacy) groups.

RESULTS

A total of 235 patients were eligible for this study with 118 patients in the non-DV1, 106 in the non-DV2, and 11 in the DV2 groups. Major grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (33.9, 31.1, and 18.2%) and febrile neutropenia (6.8, 3.8, and 9.1%) in the non-DV1, non-DV2, and DV2 groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 3.4 months in the non-DV2 group, and 4.4 months in the DV2 group. The overall survival from the date of starting second-line chemotherapy was 8.8 months in the non-DV2 group and 11.5 months in the DV2 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, the safety and efficacy of mFOLFIRINOX (irinotecan 80 mg/m2) in DV patients were comparable with the standard mFOLFIRINOX (irinotecan 150 mg/m2) in non-DV patients.

Microfluidics Formulated Liposomes of Hypoxia Activated Prodrug for Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presents as an unmet clinical challenge for drug delivery due to its unique hypoxic biology. Vinblastine-N-Oxide (CPD100) is a hypoxia-activated prodrug (HAP) that selectively converts to its parent compound, vinblastine, a potent cytotoxic agent, under oxygen gradient. The study evaluates the efficacy of microfluidics formulated liposomal CPD100 (CPD100Li) in PDAC. CPD100Li were formulated with a size of 95 nm and a polydispersity index of 0.2. CPD100Li was stable for a period of 18 months when freeze-dried at a concentration of 3.55 mg/mL. CPD100 and CPD100Li confirmed selective activation at low oxygen levels in pancreatic cancer cell lines. Moreover, in 3D spheroids, CPD100Li displayed higher penetration and disruption compared to CPD100. In patient-derived 3D organoids, CPD100Li exhibited higher cell inhibition in the organoids that displayed higher expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF1A) compared to CPD100. In the orthotopic model, the combination of CPD100Li with gemcitabine (GEM) (standard of care for PDAC) showed higher efficacy than CPD100Li alone for a period of 90 days. In summary, the evaluation of CPD100Li in multiple cellular models provides a strong foundation for its clinical application in PDAC.

Modified FOLFIRINOX versus sequential chemotherapy (FOLFIRI/FOLFOX) as a second-line treatment regimen for unresectable pancreatic cancer: A real-world analysis

BACKGROUND

Although second-line treatment for pancreatic cancer has been proven to have survival benefit, it is not clear which is the most preferred regimen. This study compared the efficacy and safety of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) and sequential chemotherapy (FOLFIRI/FOLFOX) as a second-line treatment regimen for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHOD

This was a retrospective single-center analysis of all patients who initiated treatment with mFOLFIRINOX or sequential chemotherapy from December 2014 to May 2019 as a second-line treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. The sequential chemotherapy group included all patients who initiated sequential chemotherapy. For efficacy analysis, the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of all patients, excluding those with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. For safety analysis, we assessed the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events in all patients.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients (mFOLFIRINOX group, n = 44; sequential chemotherapy group, n = 30) were included. OS tended to be slightly prolonged in the mFOLFIRINOX group than in the sequential chemotherapy group (median 10.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 5.9-13.8] vs. 8.5 [95% CI 5.0-12.2] months; hazard ratio 1.40 [95% CI 0.71-2.71]). The objective response rate and disease control rate were 8.1% and 64.9%, respectively, in the mFOLFIRINOX group and 3.8% and 42.3%, respectively, in the sequential chemotherapy group. In safety analysis, the grade ≥3 rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and anorexia were 40.9%, 6.8%, and 18.2%, respectively, in the mFOLFIRINOX group and 3.3%, 0%, and 3.3%, respectively, in the sequential chemotherapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas efficacy tended to be slightly better in the mFOLFIRINOX group than in the sequential chemotherapy group, given the higher incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events with mFOLFIRINOX than with sequential chemotherapy, sequential chemotherapy is a regimen with better risk-benefit balance than mFOLFIRINOX, and can be considered a second-line treatment option for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

The Appropriate First-Line Chemotherapy Regimen for Incurable Pancreatic Cancer in Clinical Practice: A Consideration of Patients' Overall Survival and Quality of Life

Purpose: For incurable pancreatic cancer, the therapeutic goal is to prolong survival and maintain the quality of life (QOL). Unexpected outpatient consultation (OCT) and emergency hospitalization lead to QOL deterioration. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel (nabPTX+GEM) as the preferred first-line regimens. Japanese clinical practice guidelines further recommend GEM and tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil potassium (S-1). Currently, no treatment strategy considers QOL at any stage during a patient's clinical course.

Methods: In this study, hospital-free survival (HFS), defined as the period without hospitalization and OCT, was introduced as a new indicator of the qualitative aspect of overall survival (OS). We compared OS, length of hospitalization (LOH), OCT, and HFS for the four first-line chemotherapy groups.

Results: No significant difference was observed in the median OS and HFS, nor was there a strong correlation between OS and LOH, based on the four first-line chemotherapy groups. In contrast, there were strong correlations between OS and OCT and between OS and HFS in all first-line chemotherapy groups. The ratio of OCT to OS was similar for mFOLFIRINOX and nabPTX+GEM. S-1 had the lowest OCT-to-OS ratio. The ratio of HFS to OS declined from highest to lowest in the order S-1, nabPTX+GEM, mFOLFIRINOX, and GEM.

Conclusion: Our findings suggested existence of correlation differences between OS and HFS between first-line mFOLFIRINOX and first-line nabPTX+GEM. In addition, a good HFS was obtained with S-1 alone in some cases. In the future, clinical trials for chemotherapy should examine QOL during the entire clinical course.

Real-world evidence on first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

In spite of recent diagnostic and therapeutic advances, the prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains very poor. As most patients are not amenable to curative intent treatments, optimized palliative management is highly needed. One key question is to what extent promising results produced by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) correspond to clinically meaningful outcomes in patients treated outside the strict frames of a clinical trial. To answer such questions, real-world evidence is necessary. The present paper reviews and discusses the current literature on first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in PDAC. Notably, a growing number of studies report that the outcomes of the two predominant first-line multidrug regimens, i.e. gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and folfirinox (FFX), is similar in RCTs and real-life populations. Outcomes of second-line therapy following failure of first-line regimens are still dismal, and considerable uncertainty of the optimal management remains. Additional RCTs and real-world evidence studies focusing on the optimal treatment sequence, such as FFX followed by GnP or vice versa, are urgently needed. Finally, the review highlights the need for prognostic and predictive biomarkers to inform clinical decision making and enable personalized management in advanced PDAC.

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.

Multiple-line Chemotherapy for a Patient with Unresectable Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm of the Pancreas

A 74-year-old woman with a cyst in her pancreatic tail was referred to our hospital. Computed tomography confirmed a large cystic lesion with irregular wall thickening, abdominal lymph node swelling, and ascites. We diagnosed her with an unresectable mucinous cystic neoplasm, since ascites cytology revealed adenocarcinoma. The patient received chemotherapy up to the fifth line for 55.2 months. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and modified FOLFIRINOX achieved a partial response with a progression-free survival time of 12.1 and 20.4 months, respectively. The overall survival time from the beginning of first-line chemotherapy was 69.4 months.

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.

Metastatic pancreatic cancer with complete response to FOLFIRINOX treatment

A 59-year-old woman presented with abdominal pain associated with nausea and night sweats. A large mass was found in the pancreatic tail and innumerable liver lesions were identified. Ultrasound-guided biopsy of a liver nodule confirmed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma consistent with a pancreatobiliary primary. On FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy, subsequent CT scans showed shrinkage of the pancreatic mass and liver metastases. Her cancer antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) normalised after 11 months. Oxaliplatin was discontinued due to peripheral neuropathy but she completed 37 cycles of FOLFIRI during which her pancreatic mass disappeared, liver lesions decreased in size and were subsequently deemed to be scar tissue by the radiologist. After 4 years of treatment, the patient agreed to a break from chemotherapy. Eighteen months afterwards, an MRI abdomen continues to demonstrate no visible pancreatic mass and the two remaining liver lesions, believed to be scar tissue, remain stable. Her CA 19-9 level remains normal. This appears to be a complete response to FOLFIRINOX/FOLFIRI chemotherapy in a patient with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

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.

Patterns of Palliative Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Focusing on Age: A Nationwide Real-World Danish Registry Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify patterns of palliative chemotherapy (CTh) and the associated overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreatic cancer, with specific focus on age.

METHODS

Between May 1, 2011, and April 30, 2016, 4260 patients were registered in the Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database. The 1715 patients receiving palliative CTh were retrieved. Age was grouped into less than 70, 70 to less than 75, and 75 years or more.

RESULTS

Of the 1715 patients receiving first-line CTh, 586 (34%) underwent second-line CTh and 151 (9%) third-line CTh. First-line gemcitabine resulted in a significant worse survival compared with combination CTh, hazard ratio 1.51. For combination CTh, OS differed between the age groups, P < 0.01. The median OS in the less than 70 years (n = 547), 70 to less than 75 years (n = 163), and 75 years or more (n = 67) groups were 9.3, 9.6, and 7.2 months, respectively. No differences in survival were observed among patients receiving first-line gemcitabine (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are useful in treatment-related decision making in patients with pancreatic cancer. A significant survival benefit was observed for all patients after first-line combination CTh. The effect of combination CTh was most prominent among patients aged less than 75 years. By age, no differences in survival were observed in those receiving gemcitabine.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus FOLFIRINOX as the second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a multicenter retrospective study of the Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG)

Background

There is no clear consensus on the recommended second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have disease progression following gemcitabine-based therapy. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FL) and FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) in patients who had failed on the first-line gemcitabine-based therapy.

Patients and methods

From January 2015 to August 2019, 378 patients with MPC who had received nal-IRI/FL (n = 104) or FOLFIRINOX (n = 274) as second-line treatment across 11 institutions were included in this retrospective study.

Results

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, except age and first-line regimens. With a median follow-up of 6 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 4.6 months with FOLFIRINOX (P = 0.44). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 9.7 months with FOLFRINOX (P = 0.13). There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two regimens in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The subgroup analysis revealed that younger age (<70 years) was associated with better OS with FOLFIRINOX. In contrast, older age (≥70 years) was associated with better survival outcomes with nal-IRI/FL. Adverse events were manageable with both regimens; however, the incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX than with nal-IRI/FL.

Conclusions

Second-line nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX showed similar effectiveness outcomes after progression following first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. Age could be the determining factor for choosing the appropriate second-line therapy.

•

This multicenter retrospective study investigated nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX outcomes after gemcitabine-based therapy.

•

We found no significant differences in outcome between nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX treatment.

•

Both regimens were well tolerated; however, neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with FOLFIRINOX.

•

Age (cut-off, 70 years) showed differential efficacy between chemotherapy regimens.

FOLFIRINOX after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparison with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI schedules

Background

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death. In cases with metastasis, the combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy regimens are considered the standard of care. However, the optimal sequence of these regimens is unclear.

Methods

This retrospective study initially evaluated 186 patients with locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer at three Italian institutions between February 2013 and October 2019. All patients had progressed after receiving gemcitabine-based first-line chemotherapy and were subsequently offered second-line FOLFIRINOX, FOLFOX-6, or FOLFIRI treatment. This study evaluated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival from the start of second-line treatment (OS2), overall survival from the start of first-line treatment (OS1), and safety outcomes.

Results

A total of 77 patients received ⩾4 cycles of second-line chemotherapy and were considered eligible: 15 patients received FOLFIRINOX, 32 patients received FOLFOX-6, and 30 patients received FOLFIRI. The FOLFIRINOX group had median PFS of 26.29 weeks and median OS2 of 47.86 weeks, while the FOLFIRI group had median PFS of 10.57 weeks and median OS2 of 25.00 weeks (p = 0.038). No significant differences were observed between the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups in terms of PFS (26.29 weeks versus 23.07 weeks) or OS2 (47.86 weeks versus 42.00 weeks). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia, which occurred more frequently in the FOLFIRINOX and FOLFOX-6 groups.

Conclusion

Relative to the FOLFIRI regimen, the FOLFIRINOX regimen had a favorable toxicity profile and better survival outcomes. No significant differences were observed relative to the FOLFOX-6 regimen.

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.

Clinical outcomes of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nab paclitaxel for metastatic pancreatic cancer in the real world setting

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The incidence of pancreatic cancer is increasing in developed countries. The incorporation of new therapies, to the first-line treatment of patients with good performance status led to better survival in clinical trials. However, there is a wide variability in their use and some concerns about the treatment of elderly patients who were not included in the clinical trials.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter study. Data from consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) treated with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) were analysed to evaluate efficacy (overall survival-OS) and toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were included. 49.6% were treated with FFX and 50.4% with GNP in first-line. The median OS was 12 months with no statistically significant differences between both regimens (12.7 m for FFX vs 10.2 m for GnP). Elevated Ca 19.9 levels and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) increased the risk of death. Patients who received both regimens in first/second line had a median OS longer than 15 months whichever the sequence. 32 patients (27%) were older than 70-y. 54% patients received a second-line treatment, 56% in the FFX group and 44% in the GnP group. The median OS for patients older than 70 was 9.5 m versus 12.3 m for patients younger than 70. Progression of the disease was the cause of death in 67.6% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In our setting, the use of FFX and GnP for treating mPC is quite similar, but superiority could not be demonstrated for any of the schemes in the first line. OS was determined by basal levels of Ca 19.9 and NLR. Patients receiving both regimens in first/second line whichever the sequence, exhibited the best survival rates. In our series, elderly patients had poorer survival rates.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Unconventional Approaches for an Unconventional Disease

This review highlights current treatments, limitations, and pitfalls in the management of pancreatic cancer and discusses current research in novel targets and drug development to overcome these clinical challenges. We begin with a review of the clinical landscape of pancreatic cancer, including genetic and environmental risk factors, as well as limitations in disease diagnosis and prevention. We next discuss current treatment paradigms for pancreatic cancer and the shortcomings of targeted therapy in this disease. Targeting major driver mutations in pancreatic cancer, such as dysregulation in the KRAS and TGFβ signaling pathways, have failed to improve survival outcomes compared with nontargeted chemotherapy; thus, we describe new advances in therapy such as Ras-binding pocket inhibitors. We then review next-generation approaches in nanomedicine and drug delivery, focusing on preclinical advancements in novel optical probes, antibodies, small-molecule agents, and nucleic acids to improve surgical outcomes in resectable disease, augment current therapies, expand druggable targets, and minimize morbidity. We conclude by summarizing progress in current research, identifying areas for future exploration in drug development and nanotechnology, and discussing future prospects for management of this disease.

Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy following gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer

Background

There is no established second-line treatment after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as a second-line therapy for MPC and to investigate prognostic factors for survival.

Methods

From 2015 to 2019, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of consecutive patients receiving mFFX for MPC after failure of GnP therapy. Patients were treated every 2 weeks with mFFX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², intravenous irinotecan 150 mg/m², and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² for 46 h without bolus infusion).

Results

In total, 104 patients received mFFX. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2–9.8) and the progression-free survival (PFS) 3.9 months (95% CI 2.8–5.0). The objective response rate was 10.6% and the disease control rate 56.7%. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional 5-FU were 80.0% (range 21.5–100%), 77.2% (range 38.1–100%), and 85.9% (range 36.9–100%), respectively. Grade 3–4 toxicities were reported in 57 patients (54.8%), including neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Glasgow prognostic score and carcinoembryonic antigen level were independently associated with survival. Our prognostic model using these parameters could classify the patients into good (n = 38), intermediate (n = 47), and poor (n = 19) prognostic groups. The median OS and PFS time was 14.7 (95% CI 7.6–16.3) and 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1–10.5) for the good prognostic factors, 6.5 (95% CI 5.5–10.0) and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7–4.8) for the intermediate prognostic factors and 5.0 (95% CI 2.9–6.6) and 1.7 months (95% CI 0.9–4.3) for the poor prognostic factors, respectively.

Conclusions

The mFFX showed to be a tolerable second-line treatment for MPC after GnP failure. Our prognostic model might be useful for deciding whether mFFX is indicated in this setting.

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

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